Previously you stated the burden of proof is on the posting editor. If the australian is a dead link and cant be found by three powerful search engines why not remove the citation and the information until the citation is verifiable. My understanding of BLP rules state that all sources have to be verifiable.MrTownCar (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to find the 2007 article from The Australian on LexisNexis, and it does say most of the things for which it is cited as a source. I will update the citation of this source to include relevant quotations therefrom. I will note that the article from The Australian does not say that JMS's group "is seen as a serious problem in Korea and Japan"; and although the article does call Jung "the founder of one of Asia's most notorious cults", this statement is pretty obviously an expression of opinion and not an objectively factual statement. Hence, I believe the last sentence currently in the article ought to be removed.

When you add or modify material in an article, you need to be careful to avoid starting a line of wikitext with a space. The change you made in the "Jung's teaching" section is mostly unreadable because when you took out a phrase you didn't like, you left a space at the start of the line.

You cannot remove a paragraph (the one stating that Jung was involved with the Unification Church from 1975 to 1978) simply because you disagree with it, especially if that paragraph is substantiated by a source that can be presumed to be reliable. It might be reasonable to qualify the Unification Church claim by mentioning the author of the cited paper in the article's text — possibly something like this: "According to Yoshihide Sakurai, a professor of sociology at Hokkaido University, ...." And it may also be appropriate to seek a quotation from Sakurai's paper substantiating the statement that Jung was raised a Christian (since this point is not covered in the existing quotation). But simply removing the paragraph plus its source, with no justification other than an edit summary saying "Jung was never part of Unification Church", is (in my opinion) not acceptable, even per the BLP policy. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added more material about the article from The Australian. I also fixed the extra space you inadvertently left on one line. I would strongly encourage you, by the way, to use the "Show preview" button while editing; this will let you see what the article is going to look like before you actually go ahead and save your changes.

I will also mention that changing the lead section to say that Jung left South Korea "for a prolonged missions trip" is, IMO, not supported by the sources, which strongly indicate that Jung fled South Korea to escape prosecution. I will be changing this back. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

THere is a MAJOR inconsitency which is being glossed over. In the current version it says Jung fled in 1999 implying he was a fugitive at that time. elsewhere it says formal charges were brought in 2001. How can he "flee" two years before charges are brought?MrTownCar (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the details of South Korea's judicial procedures, but I see no inherent contradiction here because I assume someone could easily be under suspicion, could be the object of investigations, etc., before the official laying of formal charges. I do not see this as a sufficient reason to discount all the sources which are saying that Jung went underground, moving from one country to another, etc. for the purpose of avoiding prosecution. If you want the article to say there is a contradiction here, or to dismiss sources that otherwise would appear reliable because you think this point is a fatal flaw, then you need to find (and discuss) a reliable source which proposes the contradiction — you can't draw that conclusion yourself and force the article to assert a contradiction on your say-so, that's a violation of the No Synthesis part of the No Original Research policy. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request, again, that discussions about Jung Myung Seok or Providence should take place on the article's talk page. If you post more comments about this subject here (on my talk page), I will consider that you have given me permission to copy those comments to the article's talk page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

MR WALES I published the information on the min jung publisher/address on the talk page for Jung Myung Seok article. Can you tell me who was involved in the concensus process and where that is recorded so I may review it? I dont see it on the talk page. MrTownCar (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

MR WALES

PLEASE FIND LINK ABOVE YOUR LAST POST ON TALK PAGE.

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING AN OPEN MIND AND GETTING OUTSIDE HELP FROM AN APPARENT NEUTRAL KOREAN SPEAKING INDIVIDUAL.MrTownCar (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As Sam Sailor suggested I will provide the translation for the Civil Goverment article as soon as I can get to it with help from a native speaker.MrTownCar (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richwales. Your user page seems to indicate a faith-oriented background which may provide good editing experience for related articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one book review if this might be possible for you. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love". Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I might be. At least, I'm willing to look at the book review. Do I understand (from your similar postings on other people's talk pages) that this book review is online somewhere? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richwales. With appreciation for your quick response. If you have JSTOR available at your library then there are two book reviews available on-line: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40021034.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true This is for Prof. Puccetti's essay titled "The Loving God" in the journal titled "Religious Studies", Vol 2, No. 2, Apr, 1967, p255. A second book review is also on JSTOR and is by Stanley Kane titled "The Failure of Soul-Making" in the Int'l Journal of Philos, Spr. 1975, p1. Also, I noticed that Amazon books currently has a free twenty page preview available of the book itself and that might be easily accessible as well. Possibly you could let me know what you think? AutoJellinek (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've been tied up with other things, but I'll see to this soon. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richwales. Only a short update from last week. If you have had a chance to look at the review above, then maybe the FA review for the wikipage "Ireneaen theodicy" can start. Of the two choices now, if you think its ready to nominate it for FA status, then i will put {{subst:FAC}} on the top of the article's talk page, fill out the "initiate this review" form, then i'll put {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (with the appropriate name and number filled in) at the top of the list on WP:FAC. You can then put your reviewer/edit comments there. Otherwise, if you'd prefer to see a "formal" peer review first, WP:PR is the place i will go first. Any preference for option one or option two? AutoJellinek (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I did have a chance just now to skim through the Stanley Kane review, and I think this topic is going to require more intensive study than I have time for. I'm sorry that I'm not going to be able to give you much in the way of detailed feedback after all. As for whether the Irenaean theodicy article is ready for Featured Article nomination at this time, my superficial reaction is that the article seems to devote much more space to later developments inspired by, and other philosophers' reactions to, Irenaeus' work, whereas I would want a comprehensive article on this subject to concentrate primarily on Irenaeus' work itself and the processes in his life which led him to take his stance on the subject. But, in any case, I'm not an expert in this area of philosophy, so I think you would be better off at this point getting feedback (via a peer review) from people who are better read in this subject area. Sorry this probably isn't what you were hoping for, but I think it's the best I can honestly offer. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richwales. Your comment-feedback above was actually quite useful to the review process. After reading it, i realized that i did not mention that this wikipage is actually a companion page to another wikipage which is already at FA status called "Augustinian theodicy". To me it looked like this was a type of parity issue of putting in a good effort to get the GA "Ireneaus theodicy" page into an assessment comparable to the FA "Augustine theodicy" version. Everyone seems to think that a Talk Page version of the peer review evaluation with invited comments might be preferable at this time. If of interest, it would be interesting to hear if you can guess why the "Augustine theodicy" held up to FA criticism, even though "Irenaeus theodicy" only got to GA status, especially since your comments above are convincing in their statement to me. A short comment is fine if your other projects will not allow you the extra time to glance at the "Augustine theodicy" page. Thanks for the feedback already given above! AutoJellinek (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rich. How are you?

Just wanted to say hi. I've changed my username to Jaqeli and wanted to let you know also about this. GJ. Jaqeli (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr Wales

In the JMS article citations 26 and 36 quote an anonymous victim and lawyer respectively to make a specific claim or analysis. These statements are not properly vetted. As I understand BLP rules statements have to be verifiable. If the statement made is only traceable to an unnamed person in a citation albeit a bonfide media outlet than it is not reliable and not verifiable and should not be included in the wikipedia article. I would value your input.MrTownCar (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide. Thank you. equazcion → 23:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you.[1] Please act accordingly.—John Cline (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you have refused to divulge this info so far, I figured I would just ask you flat-out: when are you going to reveal to ArbCom voters that you are the secret love-child of Jimbo Wales and his reportedly sultry but still-as-yet-anonymous Canadian mistress? The inquiring-minded anons that peruse the pages of wikipedia demand to know.  ;-)

Hope this helps brighten your day; thanks for running, it is a tough job, but I wish you luck. I am not going to be voting, for obvious reasons, but I did have a serious question -- not related to your scandalous parentage which is covered sufficiently above -- and figured I better check before posting it over there. Questions from anons are allowed, correct? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your question — which, however, I will continue to decline to answer. As for asking questions on my candidacy questions page, I can't find anything in the rules which would prohibit genuine, serious questions from an IP-anon, so it's fine with me. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Philippine Military Academy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr Wales

Thank you again for all of your effort on the JMS article. You are the only admin who has sought an honest attempt at compiling that article (IMO). Can you give me insight on citation 3. In Korean--- seems like original research to me and should not be included in an article for BLP. I wanted your thoughts please.

FYI- In response to your last post on the talk page, I also removed (after 1 week of waiting) the sentences that quoted anonymous sources from the respective citations.

thanks MrTownCar (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember, I don't speak Korean at all, so I'm really not in a very good position to evaluate the suitability of a Korean-language source. I do see, though, that source #3 — 이대복 (2000). 이단종합연구 [Comprehensive Heresy Studies] (in Korean). 기독교이단문제연구소. p. 647 — appears to be used right now only as a source confirming Jung's birthdate. I don't know if this piece of information is a matter of dispute, but it seems to me that there ought to be a less inflammatory source available to substantiate a birthdate, and I would encourage people to try and find a more neutral source for this info. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough .. I just felt that given the title it seemed like original research to me and shouldnt be included... as an aside his birthdate is Feb 3, 1945. Citations 7,8,14,29,30 are all one Japanese professors publications which make them original research..... are they not? thereby they should not be included. Any thoughts on these? Citations 9 and 10 also seem very subjective and also fall into the original research i.e. who made the information network on christian heresy authoratative?MrTownCar (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there other sources, generally likely to be recognized as reliable, which give Jung's correct birthdate? If such sources cannot be found, and if the existing source is unreliable, it might be necessary in the end to simply say Jung was born in 1945 without specifying an exact date. I would not, however, think the existing source should be removed per the BLP policy unless there is a good reason why the question of Jung's exact date of birth is a contentious matter.

Regarding your concerns about so many articles by Yoshihide Sakurai (a sociology professor at Hokkaido University), the key question to answer with regard to reliability of these articles is whether they have been published by recognized academic journals. If Sakurai were to publish things himself, on his own "blog" web site, or via a "vanity" press that will gladly publish anything from anybody as long as they pay the publisher, then his articles would probably fall under a self-published category which we normally do not use as a source on Wikipedia. But things that are published by generally respected journals are normally considered reliable; it might be better to find a multitude of articles, written by several different authors and appearing in several different publications, but this may not be absolutely necessary. I would be inclined to think that when claims in the article are backed solely by one individual person's writings, it is appropriate for us to say that the piece of info is "according to" the author of the source — as is already being done, for instance, with the Sakurai source in the "Early biography" section of the article.

My time is going to be very limited for the next week or two, so if you feel a need to pursue this line of inquiry further, I would urge you (as I have done many times in the past) to take the discussion to the article's talk page. Please feel free to copy this section from my talk page to the article's talk page, as long as you preserve my comments intact and don't change them. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks for response we will see you back in 2 weeks, I will make short post about citation 9 and 10 on talk pageMrTownCar (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
167		History of the Orthodox Church (talk)						Add sources
9		Columbia Bible College (Abbotsford, British Columbia) (talk)						Add sources
42		Exaltation (Mormonism) (talk)						Add sources
18		Community of Christ (differentiation from LDS Church) (talk)						Add sources
2,435		South Sudan (talk)						Add sources
130		Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (talk)						Add sources
65		Bangladeshi name (talk)						Cleanup
141		Utah Valley University (talk)						Cleanup
86		Prohibited airspace (talk)						Cleanup
207		Religion in the Netherlands (talk)						Expand
137		Mormon cosmology (talk)						Expand
70		San Francisco Unified School District (talk)						Expand
50		Oregon Supreme Court (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
2,798		Superhero (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
26		Armenia–Georgia relations (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
10		Romanization of Georgian (talk)						Merge
45		History of monarchy in Canada (talk)						Merge
4		Confederate Nations of Israel (talk)						Merge
4		Structured Liberal Education (Stanford University) (talk)						Wikify
448		Shofar (talk)						Wikify
94		Rita Dove (talk)						Wikify
5		Sara Vulovic (talk)						Orphan
4		English School Fahaheel Kuwait (talk)						Orphan
5		Foman v. Davis (talk)						Orphan
7		Upper Tantallon, Nova Scotia (talk)						Stub
4		U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (talk)						Stub
8		Shelley Day (talk)						Stub
11		Zan people (talk)						Stub
3		Boutiliers Point, Nova Scotia (talk)						Stub
3		Somali name (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis 00:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate the response on the Kleargear scam - not that I am now willing to ATTEMPT to post any further truth about it on Wiki. Pfffft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.242 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)