Talk:Ahn Sahng-hong/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Disruptive editing

Hi. 41.78.77.178. You have blanked some information about Ahn Sahng-hong's early life without any reason. Blanking without discussion is considered as disruptive editing. I guess you edited without logging in not to be warned. Please follow the terms and policies Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyinthehouse (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi 71.174.33.246. You have added some information that does not have reliables sources cited. Do not make up stories since it is considered as disruptive editing. I guess you have hatred toward this person/religion. What you are doing is breaking the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines editing articles in Wikipedia. I guess you are not logging in not to be warned. Please discuss in the talk page before you edit something. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carly3737. You have edited without discussing in the talk page. Please discuss in the talk page before you edit something. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

The above is no reason to mark this article as one of questionable neutrality. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has anything intelligible to say regarding this article's neutrality, and if not I'll unmark the article. Wyote 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is in need of a lot of work. For now I've sort of changed the topic from the founder (Anhsahnghong) to the church itself; if no one beats me to it I'll create a new page for the church and refocus the article (but I don't have time to do it now, and it's not that bad... for now anyway). I haven't been able to verify the information that 212.32.99.121 put in the article, even though I'm trying to, so I'll leave it for now. I have plenty of opportunities to research this, but not so much time.... If anyone knows of any secondary sources (references) in English or Korean, I'd appreciate that information. I intend to do graduate work on Korean new religions... someday.... Wyote 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

added information

Mother's name = Zhang Gil Jah (Chang Gil Cha). Currently researching DOB, real name, marital status etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.254.82.79 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

I moved that information to the WMSCOG's page. If you find more about her, you can add it there. Wyote 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, from where did you get this info. about her name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyinthehouse (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

delete?

Someone has suggested that this page be deleted. I wonder why? Is it not a sufficiently notable new religious movement? It seems to be fairly well known in Korea, and reportedly is active in many countries. New Religious Movements are controversial and wikipedia might be a good place to try to put reliable NPOV information on them. Wyote 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'm done for the night! I've created a page for the world mission society church of god and moved some of the material to that, and cleaned this one a little. I hope and assume others will do the same! I wouldn't delete this page. The WMSCOG seems to be active and increasingly well-known. It is certainly one of the new religious movements most active in proselytizing among expatriates in South Korea. I came to wikipedia searching for information about it, and this article (as it was 2 days ago) was all I found. Others, I think, will come for the same reason. Wyote 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But I am not much wiser. The article here is surprisingly skinny. I searched Google Books, but had little luck in finding something to add. What did this man do the first 30 years of his life? What did he do between his 1948 baptism and the foundation of a church in 1964? The Main Doctrines and Insistence section is not at all clear to an average reader like me. It could really do with a rewrite from an editor that speaks better English, knows his New Testament and can work with the limited amount of RS available. An example is ‘Seven feasts in three times’. I can understand that "Seven feasts" is referring to Leviticus 23, but the concept of "in three times" is obscure to me. Could it be solved by a simple wiki-link or two? I can see the idea in the following Comparison section, but to me a schematic comparison doesn't work very well. Even if it was wikified with links to Sabbath in Christianity, Passover (Christian holiday) and whatever appropriate for "Veil" a short prose section with references and explanations might prove more informative. Sam Sailor (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

News

Regarding the news reports, these have to do with the WMSCOG and not ASH. Should they really be included here? Superfly94 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. These news reports are related with the article. These sources support that the members believe in this person; Ahnsahnghong, as their messiah. If these are unreliable sources and has nothing to do with this person, the part of this article; that they believe him as messiah must be also deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to judge a person or a religion. It is an encyclopedia that describes information in neutral point of view. It is my ironclad rule that Wikipedia musn't reflect an animosity of a person and a personal feeling of distrust. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Nancy, understand where you're coming from but, after reading through these articles, they focus more on the beliefs of the church and people within them then ASH himself. That's why they probably belong more in the WMSCOG article. Now, if you can find an article or interview that speaks directly about ASH and what he has done as the main topic of the article instead of a passing talking point then it probably belongs here. Otherwise I recommend that they be moved to WMSCOG if they aren't already there. Superfly94 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Superfly94. The news reports contain the commemoration of their founder. Without these news reports, how can we know if the person's followers or what they are up to? I will try my best to find this person's interview, or other reliable sources that can support this article. Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The current version of the section contains a simple list of four entries with "references". As such it is merely a list of external links. And WP is not a linkfarm.
Link no. 1 is a single photo depicting a group of people identified as members of WMSCOG. The short caption does not mention ASH. U.S., Jan 2012.
Link no. 2 is a PRNewswire-USNewswire circulated press realease from WMSCOG. U.S., Jan 2012.
Link no. 3 concerns a WMSCOG cleanup campaign in Manchester, England. Mentions ASH as "The second coming of Christ, Ahnsahnghong". UK, Feb 2012.
Link no. 4is an article from January 2012 regarding a WMSCOG blood donation campaign in Manilla, Philippines. ASH is mentioned.
I doubt if any of these four links serve much purpose in the WMSCOG article, but I concur with Superfly94. They do not add anything to this article that is not already said: ASH founded WMSCOG. Should the links be used in the WMSCOG article I suggest it is done in prose, not as a list; that article already has an endless history list only supported by self-published sources.
As for the commemoration argument/what are they up to-argument set forth by Nancyinthehouse, please read WP:NOT. Sam Sailor (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
These articles describe about the religious movement founded by Ahn Sahnghong. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Before blanking the whole section please discuss in the talkpage.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears you acknowledge what Superfly94 and I have already said when you write: "These articles describe about the religious movement" – which is why they should possibly be incorporated in the Wiki article about said organization, the World Mission Society Church of God, in prose, but propably not as just another list.

A reminder to all is that (at least) two organizations

both say they spring from the church founded by Ahn back in the 1960s. This is not currently reflected in the article. I get the impression that Ahn only founded WMSCOG as NCPCOG is not mentioned. What can we do to give due weigh to both parties? Nancyinthehouse, do you want to add information about NCPCOG? Sam Sailor (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have numerously mentioned about that site [3] - is a personal blog, an unreliable source. The current 3O result can be found in the talkpage of World Mission Society Church of God User:Sticks830. NCPCOG also has no copyrights of the founder's writings. World Mission Society Church of God is the only church founded by Ahn, and these news reports goes on detail of what this religious movement is up to.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Re the 3O decision about the NCPCOG site at the WMSCOG Talk page, it was not that it was a personal blog site, but that it was a self-published site and, as such, could not be used as a reference for third party information. According to WP:ABOUTSELF however, this site could certainly be used as a reference if one were to insert bullet about how this church also claims that ASH was their founder and who they believe him to be (aka: prophet Elijah), especially if one is going to mention that the WMSCOG believes him to be JC reborn.
As an aside, this site has a hockey sock full of photos of ASH at work and during retreats which might be nice to add as a link somewhere. Captions are, unfortunately, in Korean. Superfly94 (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

There seems to be dispute on the books written by Ahn Nancy deleted several books from the list despite citations there is also dispute on the name of the church he established or even which church as there are two mentioned on this page alone (I am aware of more but since I have no sources I will not bring them into this) seems to me Nancy deleted them prematurely without discussion as they are cited--192.41.96.212 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi 192.41.96.212. I have not deleted anything prematurely. And it's not a dispute at all. As I have researched, the article itself contained unreliable sources which were evidently personal blogs, and sites which were made to oppose the church, and the article was written without a neutral point of view. The books did not have any valid ISBN nor published company so I changed to books that have ISBN and a valid publishing company. Unreliale sources rejects its Wikipedia:Verifiability and using these unreliable sources is considered as a disruptive editing Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who are disruptive editing without logging in. I am NOT a member of this church/messiah/religious movement. Some people previously edited this article with nonreliable sources that does not agree with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. So that's why I am editing in a neutral point of view without supporting, advertising, nor "creating" any information going against this article. Please do not commit any Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a liar you have NO evidence behind your claim regarding the sources the onus is on YOU --69.146.219.170 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"ISBNs only identify a particular edition of a book, and a reader with only an ISBN will not see the full range of versions of the book. Please do not use ISBNs alone to identify books: add a proper citation as well as the ISBN. Also note that ISBNs are not required of citations; popular citation styles like Chicago, MLA, and APA do not use ISBNs. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Cite your sources." -- WP:ISBN --69.146.219.170 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi 69.146.219.170 - > Please stop Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Considering someone a liar is a negative and offensive talk that violates the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. The whole article is written in a neutral point of view, but your edit is nonneutral and contains negative personal opinions from personal blogs and sites(unreliable sources). Please be neutral. I guess you edited without signing in, not be warned for disruptive editing. As I have researched, all copyrights was owned by Melchizidek Publishing Co. LTD, and they had all valid ISBN numbers. Without ISBN numbers on it does not count as reliable sources. The sources that you have used were unvalid books that weren't published by a respected published company. For your concern, read Wikipedia:Verifiability "Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. You may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." Editing without a good reason goes against the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please read the policies and guidelines before you edit an article. Without having that in mind, you might edit an article with your own opinion and create a dispute. Hope that helps.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreoever, can you prove that your sources are considered as "popular citations"? I have researched and couldn't find any. If they are, please let me know. Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact is you ARE you ignored the policy I linked to to validate REMOVING legitimate sources that is NOT good faith and the only reason to break good faith in that direction is if you have a reason to make the WMSCOG look good.

Hi 69.146.219.170. Please read the reason why you are violating the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Blanking the page is considered as disruptive editing which you never mentioned good reasons that meets the requirements of editing an article in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I made the article as neutral as possible. Your edit contains unreliables sources which are personal blog sites. As I have researched, all copyrights was owned by Melchizidek Publishing Co. LTD, and they had all valid ISBN numbers (if you are concerned please check this site http://www.melchizedek.co.kr/book/truth.asp and http://book.naver.com/search/search.nhn?query=%ED%95%98%EB%82%98%EB%8B%98%EC%9D%98%EB%B9%84%EB%B0%80%EA%B3%BC+%EC%83%9D%EB%AA%85%EC%88%98%EC%9D%98+%EC%83%98. Without ISBN numbers on it does not count as reliable sources. The sources that you have used were unvalid books that weren't published by a respected published company. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability "Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. You may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." I guess you are not logging in since you do not want to be warned or blocked for disruptive editing and vandalism. I guess you also have hatred towards this messiah claiming person. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited the Biblio section, and just out of curiosity I ran the ISBNs through Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog. Not one single hit. Unusual. Sam Sailor (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
http://book.naver.com/search/search.nhn?filterType=7&query=MelchizedekPublishing These books are owned by Melchizedek Publishing Company LTD. All of Ahn Sahnghong's writings are owned by this company. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a link, do you have a link to these books on any site outside Korea? On what do you base the claim that Melchizedek Publishing Company LTD owns the copyright to Ahn’s opus? Sam Sailor (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll find the links outside Korea. As Ahn established WMSCOG, and all his writings are owned by this church (Melchizedek Publishing Company LTD) you can check yourself on the official website. Thanks!--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
WRT your assertion that the NCPCOG site is breaking copyright laws, I've asked you to go here before and read up on Korean copyright law. Coles notes are essentially thus - copyrights of works of a deceased author are protected and cannot be claimed by any other entity for at least fifty years after the author’s death. Therefore any editions for which a copyright has been claimed by someone other than the author would therefore be a different version of the author’s edition at death so no laws are being broken provided the works being distributed by NCPCOG are being done under ASH's copyright. The company which holds the CW for the works to which you reference came about in 1990, well after ASH's death, meaning they are publishing a version somewhat different from the original version. Superfly94 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


I found the link for the books http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Melchizedek+Publishing+Company+LTD. NCPCOG does not have any valid publishing company. If so, they would have never let the World Mission Society Church of God to publish his writings. I wonder where you got that information about NCPCOG?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The NCPCOG does not need a publishing company in order to distribute the works of ASH. If they are not making a profit and the versions they are distributing are those of ASH at his death they are not breaking any copyright laws, which belong to the author until 50 years after death as per Korean CR law. The reason the WMSCOG's publishing company has not gone after the NCPCOG and vise versa is because the edition that the WMSCOG has published must be different than the authors original version, which is still under CR under his name. Heck, I could write a book and self-publish it if I wanted. I don't need a publishing company to do it. And in most of the world, that CR would belong to me for 35 or 50 years after death (which is the standard term). No one would be able to make money off of my work. Superfly94 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


ASH(who wrote those books listed in the bibliography) established the WMSCOG. Even if there are other books that were personally written by him, it all belongs to the organization. For example, if Steve Jobs alone developed a technique, it all belongs to the company and not by the individual. Everything written by ASH is owned by WMSCOG. His writings are all published/managed by the affiliated publishing company, Melchizedek Publishing Company LTD. Since you are just the third person, you can't insist about the ownership, and if you arbitrarily publish any of ASH's writings(not that you would do), you would be sued based on the copyright law.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Name

"Ahn Sahng-hong" is used almost exclusively in the WMSCOG article, and as the title of this article. I hope nobody minds if I boldly unify this way of spelling/translitteration in the article body. Sam Sailor (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

His name is spelled as Ahn Sahnghong according to his church. Please discuss before editing.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
If you could indent your replies, that would be great, makes it easier to read and understand discussions. I have done it for you here.
To my knowledge two organizations, here and here claim Ahn Sahng-hong as their founder. Both churches have had different names since a schism following the death of Ahn in 1985, but in order to get some clarity into the picture I will adopt the two acronyms I have seen used most, NCPCOG and WCSCOG.
  • The first mentioned church, NCPCOG, 'romanizise' his name Ahn Sanghong [4]
  • The second church, WCSCOG, writes Ahnsahnghong [5]
Nancyinthehouse, you write "His name is spelled as Ahn Sahnghong according to his church". Is that a third church? Could you please provide a link to your source?
In researching Ahn Sahng-hong I have variously come across several other romanizations of his name, and the picture seems to be that h is used either 1, 2 or 3 times, that a space is used either 0, 1 or 2 times, and that a dash or hyphen can be used between the last two syllables. Or any combination of these three patterns. Korean names follow the family name given name pattern, but his name is sometimes romanizised using the Western pattern given name family name, only adding to the possibilities. A Google search could provide some clue to what is mostly used. Which of them is the most correct Korean romanization is another question - if at all possible to agree upon; in the infobox his name is romanizised An Sanghong according to both Revised Romanization of Korean and McCune–Reischauer. Personally I would rather spend my time on adding content to the article than arguing this. Is it important? If it is of importance I suggest an explanatory note be added to the article. Would you like to do that, Nancy? Let me know if you need help. Other than that we should follow WP:MOSBIO and that is to keep the spelling used in the article title, as I attempted in this edit maybe with the slight modification that the article subject is referred to by his family name upon subsequent use as per WP:SURNAME. The important thing is consistency and as the article stands with the this edit the article title and infobox use Ahn Sahng-hong and the article body uses Ahn Sahnghong, which is inconsistent.
Nancy, you have several times before on this talkpage written "Please discuss before editing". In this particular case I posted my intentions on the talkpage 12:29, 9 July 2013, then went and edited the article 12:34, 9 July 2013. In contrast you edited first 01:33, 11 July 2013 and then you came here to the talkpage and wrote 01:39, 11 July 2013. Please read WP:OWNER from which I quote "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article." Should we try to build an article together here? Sam Sailor (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Sam Sailor - I think you are over reacting to my edit. I agree with you that the name should be used as Ahnsahnghong according to the http://english.watv.org. There are no hypen added to his name according to the official church, however since I'm not the one who created this page so I cannot edit the WMSCOG title. Since "Ahn" is the surname and "Sahnghong" is the first name, it also agrees with "Ahnsahnghong." But adding a hyphen to it does not agree with the official name at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyinthehouse (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we follow Wikipedia's guidlines. Not some church's idea of how to translitterate a name. Which by the way is not in accordance with either Revised Romanization of Korean nor with the suggestions by Romanization of Korean from the National Institute of Korean Language. Best, Sam 🎤 19:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

BIASED SOURCES

  • The sources used for this articles are way too biased(not even accurate at all). I've deleted parts with references regarding all religions or organizations other than the churches that the place concedes, as cults. http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/

Plus, the ncpcog wasn't founded by Ahn, nor did he found "Witnesses of Ahn Sahng-hong Church of God." He registered the name as "World Mission Society Church of God." in Korea. And that name is still being used until now.

  • I have rights of inspecting the documents of Korean government office. The http://english.watv.org cites that they are using the official name; "WORLD MISSION SOCIETY CHURCH OF GOD." We can surely recognize with these factual documents. Why are you creating/supporting this article with inaccurate basis?--Galemw2 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi Galemw2. There is enough proof to show that the New Covenant Passover Church of God and the World Mission Society Church of God started after the division of the COGJW. Ahnsahnghong didn't register the name World Mission Society Church of God. If you read the court cases Joo Cheol Kim himself says that the name was registered by them. Please don't detele information without first discussing. By your statements it seems that you are biased towards the WMSCOG. Please try to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter1007 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gonzales

Here is what Gonzales says in "The Story of Christianity":

Sunday:

"The earliest Christians did not reject Judaism, but were convinced that their faith was the fullfilment of the age-long expectation of a Messiah. This was why Christians in Jerusalem continued keeping the Sabbath and attending worship at the Temple. To this they added the observance of the first day of the week, in which they gathered in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus." p. 20

"We are told in the book of Acts that from the very beginning the early church had the custom of gathering on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread." p. 93

"At the beginning, the Christian calendar was rather simple and was basically a weekly calendar. Every Sunday was a sort of Easter, and a day of joy; and every Friday was a day of penance, fasting, and sorrow." p. 95

"In A.D. 324 an imperial edict ordered all soldiers to worship the Supreme God on the first day of the week. This was the day on which Christians celebrated the resurrection of their Lord. But it was also the day of the Unconquered Sun, and therefore pagans saw no reason to oppose such an edict." p. 123 (emphasis added)

We can see from the text that it's clear that he states Christians were worshipping on Sundays many, many years prior to any edict by Constantine, further, it also says that the edict here applied only to soldiers. Saying "Installed the worship day of sun god as Sunday service in 321 AD" is not accurate, nor contained within the text, he makes clear that Sunday was a day of worship from the very beginning.

Christmas:

"The earliest feast day in connection with the birth of Jesus was January 6, Epiphany, the day of his manifestation. This was originally the celebration of the birth itself. Later, particularly in some areas of the Latin West, December 25 began to take its place. This latter date was actually a pagan festival which, after the time of Constantine was preempted by the celebration of Christmas." p. 96

In both volumes of his book this is the sole mention of Christmas--hardly can one cite him as saying, "Changed Jesus’ natal day to Dec. 25th, the natal day of sun god in 354 AD"

These citations are blatantly wrong and ought to be removed. Otherwise they should continue to have a failed verification tag until they are either re-worded or other authority is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.159.78 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi 63.225.159.78. These are all your interpretations and not facts. I guess you are not signing in not to be warned for disruptive editing.
The founder did NOT founded the NCPCOG. We have been through this with the Admins, 3Os, and etc. Everyone agreed not to put the NCPCOG part for this article. I guess you have hatred towards this messiah claiming person and the religious movement. Please stop adding unreliable sources - blogs, biased websites full of rumors.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You can't take a 3O decision from another subject and arbitrarily use it here. The 3O decision was that you cannot use a claim from the NCPCOG since they are not considered an independent source not associated with the WMSCOG. However, in this case, you can use it since this page is about ASH, NOT the WMSCOG or the NCPCOG. If the church of the Spaghetti Monster claimed that ASH founded them then there is absolutely no reason that their claim should not be included on this page, provided the claim is proclaimed (and linked) to their site. Here's what I wrote some time ago, but I'll reiterate so you don't waste time searching.
Re the 3O decision about the NCPCOG site at the WMSCOG Talk page, it was not that it was a personal blog site, but that it was a self-published site and, as such, could not be used as a reference for third party information. According to WP:ABOUTSELF however, this site could certainly be used as a reference if one were to insert bullet about how this church also claims that ASH was their founder and who they believe him to be (aka: prophet Elijah), especially if one is going to mention that the WMSCOG believes him to be JC reborn. Superfly94 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I do find it slightly humorous that you claim "the are all your interpretations and not facts." I literally quoted the book, every single citation is from the very sources cited at the bottom of the page. We can reserve discussion of the NCPCOG site later, but, regarding the Gonzales and Baker's cites, please either correct them or take them down. Improperly referencing an author as saying something that they quite clearly did not does not contribute to the quality of a page. 204.73.55.74 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
One more quick thing I would like to note prior to you changing the verification tags Nancy and me promptly changing them back, Justo Gonzales is a quite well-read, thorough researcher of Christian history, I like his books because they not only tell both the good and bad sides of what the church has done over the years, but, unlike many comprehensive historical undertakings, they're quite accessible. As a scholar, I'm sure he would have been well read and have known about Justin Martyr's First Apology written in the mid second century by an early church father that details early Christian practices, including worshipping on Sundays. Feel free to quote sources that actually say that worship was switched to Sundays by the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, I'm sure there are some of Ahn's books that say such or, going back further, Seventh Day Adventist writings off which he based his own writings. However, please do not quote a reputable scholar as saying something he clearly didn't. Thank you. 204.73.55.74 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your feeling towards this church... But when we interpret specific parts of the Book, we need to consider the context. What the author tries to say is different from what you understood. In fact, the history of the churches proves that Sunday and Christmas were not celebrated from the Early Church. For example, the book titled "A Critical History of Sunday Legislation" (A.H. Lewis, D. Appleton and Company, 1888, pp.295-296) says, "SUNDAY LEGISLATION... Sunday is mentioned only by its pagan name, "venerable day of the sun." Nothing is said of any relation to Christianity. No trace of the resurrection-festival idea appears. No reference is made to the Fourth Commandment or the Sabbath, or anything connected with it. The law was made for all the empire." Even the books published by the Roman Catholic Church admit that Sunday was not based on the Bible. "Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, an you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday. ("The Faith of of Our Fathers", James Cardinal Gibbons, Tan Books and Publishers, 1980. pp.72-72)" In addition, "The Faith of Millions" (John A. O'Brien, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 1974. pp.400-401) says "But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday?" You know, it's well known that Sunday was not celebrated by the Early Church but was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. We cannot deny historical facts. Trekkerguy7 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

References that are all UNRELIABLE SOURCES

NAME

Joo Cheol Kim inherited Ahn's church, and currently represents the World Mission Society Church of God. Legally or traditionally, the problem is the usage of the "NAME." Do you have any LEGAL document that supports your edit that this church is the "Witnesses of Jesus Church of God"? If you don't, stop editing without any supporting evidence.

http://www.ncpcog.co.kr/ebook/index.php?codepage=18 Just because of the title: "Witnesses of Jesus Church of God," we cannot say that the name: "World Mission Society Church of God" is wrong. Because the book presently has no public's trust. If "World Mission Society Church of God" owns this book this may be a fact, but the World Mission Society Church of God is NOT publishing any books with this title.

DIVISION

http://www.ncpcog.net/eng/?page_id=13

1. This book is NOT on the "World Mission Society Church of God" website (http://english.watv.org), but on another religious site. Don't you think that this church (http://www.ncpcog.net/) is the "Witnesses of Jesus Church of God?" In reality, they are presently using another name: "New Covenant Passover Church of God." It is wrong to insist as if another religion's designational problem is about the "World Mission Society Church of God."

You cannot put information that has nothing to do with the article in Wikipedia.

2. In http://www.ncpcog.net/eng/?page_id=13 , the name is written as "World Gospel Mission Association Church of God" and NOT "World Mission Society Church of God" (compare http://english.watv.org). It is indicating another religious organization, so it cannot be the basis that the World Mission Society Church of God is a sectarianized church.

GOOGLE BOOKS

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Q20LAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

The author of this book is Lee Daebok 이대복(Korean), who is the founder of the Institute of "church-heresy(http://church-heresy.com/)" 기독교이단문제연구소(Korean), is not a neutral institute. Lee Daebok has biased ideas about religion, and is not even credited in his own religious body, "Presbyterian Church of Korea" 대한예수교장로회(Korean), and lost objectivity with his own insistence. You can see it yourself about this on this site http://www.pckd1961.or.kr/run/publishing/pu_pds/view.php?num=789&category=&headline=&page=1&st=0&sn=0&sc=0&keyword= It is not right to use such books with no neutral points.

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=FoE4AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Xsu5AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

"Tak Myeonghwan" 탁명환(Korean) is also another person with no neutral perspective towards religion. He aroused controversies by writing false information, criticizing about other religions. As you can see on this site http://cafe.naver.com/jinpm/364 , he fabricated a document criticizing about the Unification Church, and wrote an apology for it in the book,"Korean Chosun" 조선일보(Korean). The words underlined in red is about his apology. With no neutral points, Tak Myeonghwan and "church-heresy," criticizing other religions, already cannot become the basis of "neutrality." We cannot put information that JUST criticizes about other religions.

"Tak Myeonghwan" is the MANAGER of http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/html/mod01.html 국제종교문제연구소(소장 탁명환) , and has nothing to do with "University of California (which is written for the description of google books)." http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=530344&cid=1619&categoryId=1619 You cannot use sources with WRONG information in Wikipedia.--Galemw2 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IKCCAH.ORG

http://ikccah.org/298 http://ikccah.org/2023

"International Korean Christian Coalition Against Heresy" 세계한인기독교이단대책연합회(Korean) is an organization that does not plainly studies about history of Christianity. They have lost their objectivity or neutrality, since they only insist that their own religion is right and other religions are wrong. According to the basis of the Policy of Wikipedia, we cannot use such information. Moreover, the information is written in Korean (Most of all of the listed references) which can be interpreted in various ways, which is highly controversial.

AMENNEWS.COM

http://www.amennews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=12676 http://www.amennews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=6545 "AMENNEWS.COM" 교회와 신앙(Korean), is a website that calls other religions "CULT." This website does not purely notify about church news and events.

On the intro page of "AMENNEWS.COM", http://www.amennews.com/com/com-1.html 교회와 신앙 소개(Korean), it says: "quick and accurate coverages and theological analytic reports about problems in cults and pseudos" 이단 사이비 문제에 대한 신속 정확한 취재 및 신학적 분석 보도(Korean).

And among the categories, the first category that appears on the menu is "Cults and Issues." This means that the website is an organization that has no neutrality. In Wikipedia, we cannot use news reports that are deflective towards religions. If you use nonenglish sources, the translation varies. Which means they are inappropriate sources to be used in Wikipedia.

CULT

http://www.kncc.or.kr/sub04/sub03.php?ptype=view&code=board_04_2&idx=10852

The subject says "List of Christian Cults and Religious Pseudos and Reporting Religious Discrimination" 기독교 이단 사이비 종교 명단과 종교차별 신고(Korean).

The characteristic of this post(to eliminate other religions and has a hostile attitude towards other religions) has no objectivity nor does it have any neutrality, which is inappropriate to be used in Wikipedia.

FALSE FLIER used as a Reference

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-VK7RLDRwS4NWF6Q0lGVUJUTFU/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-VK7RLDRwS4X21OQmQ4bGRVeHc/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1

See this link: http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-distributed-fliers-on-time-limited-eschatology/

This flier was CREATED by the opposers of the World Mission Society Church of God. It is rather ridiculous using this false flier as a source.

I find anything that comes from wmscog.org suspect. All one has to do is look at their intro page here. With respect to the fliers, sometimes the simplest answers are the right ones. When you hear hoof beats in the woods do you automatically think it's a zebra? Of course not! It's a horse! The information in these flyers come from one of ASH's books that were published prior to his death, so that information is likely different from the editions published in 1989+, which would explain why current members of the WMSCOG are not familiar with them as they follow the later editions. Who published these flyers is moot anyway. It' what's contained within them that is important. Superfly94 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@superfly you removed an edit I made last year anonymously with this same interpretation. I just wanted to point out that no, in reality, the simple answers aren't always correct, and that you have just admitted that you don't care whether or not the document is a forgery, and that you have an agenda to trick people with its story contrary to any other evidence. This is not a one time thing but now a consistent pattern from you and others which I hope has been noticed by the community. It is especially ironic then for you to call foul on other people concerning sources. Also here's my signed I think I was supposed to sign the others but oh well. JohnnyGospel (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyGospel (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I find anything that comes from BIASED pages suspect. If you're so into this religious movement you would know basic facts about them Superfly94. Their services aren't taken place in those times. You can even go check yourself out in a WMSCOG in your area. So if I make a flier about WMSCOG or about you does that make it to be true? There's no address no nothing on the flier. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"which would explain why current members of the WMSCOG are not familiar with them as they follow the later editions" That's your opinion.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that these flyers were made in 1988, right? So, you can tell me, without a doubt, that services were held at the same times they are today? And how do you know when these services are held? Is there a reference that is available online that tells us or do you have personal knowledge? Because without an actual physical (or internet as the case may be) reference, we can't just take someone's word for it. For example, I could tell you that I have 6 toes on one foot, but without a picture, there's no proof of it, just my word which, on the internet, isn't worth much. Superfly94 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you know if the fliers were made in 1988? I can make a flier that looks so ancient that you can't even tell.Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

CWMONITOR.COM

http://www.cwmonitor.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=7917 Strange interpretation can be made without knowing Korean. This news is NOT about "Church of God is a church that proclaimed about doomsday." It says: 1. "Timely clarified that this is a false information" 이 점은 허위 사실의 적시에 해당된다고 밝혔다(Korean) 2. "Applies to be a baseless false information" 근거 없는 허위 사실에 해당된다(Korean) 3. "Admited as a baseless false information or overstated truth" 근거 없는 허위의 사실이거나 부풀려진 사실이라고 인정된다(Korean)

The whole point of this judgment is that "Church of God proclaimed about doomsday" is a baseless FALSE information.

Likewise, using nonenglish sources to support the article, misinterpretation can occur. That's why we must delete all nonenglish sources.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. There's no basis that the books of New Covenant Passover Church of God (NCPCOG) are original. Lack of evidence to support this.

2. If the books can be viewed online, can that be the original? Ex) If I took a picture of a famous painting of an artist, can I become the owner of that painting? Logically, it doesn't make sense.

3. Edited Books: The owner of the copyright has rights to edit, and carried out the rights. No issues can be made to it. --Galemw2 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

HDJONGKYO.CO.KR

http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/ 현대종교(Korean)

The "HDJONGKYO" has no objectivity. If you see the welcoming message on the website http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/html/int02.html, the publisher Tak Jiwon 탁지원(Korean), it says: "And so it is with the problems with Cults and Pseudos. We need to know about them in order to fight against them" 이단과 사이비의 문제도 그러합니다. 알아야 싸울수 있습니다"(Korean), "We will do our best taking measures for cults..." 앞으로도 저희들은 이단의 대책에 최선을 다할 것이며 (Korean). Tak Jiwon points out all other religions as cults(except for his religion). Since we CANNOT use information without any neutral basis that disregards others' religions, the HDJONGKYO parts must be deleted. --Galemw2 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Idea: Recommend that the above 8k+ objections be numbered to facilitate answers. Maybe a slightly less opinionated and more fact based presentation would benefit discussion with other editors before further deletion attempts are made? (I will post a Welcome message with links to guidelines on the editor’s user page.) An edit history like this [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19] where the last 11 edits are made within half an hour begs the question: is there a wish to declare a WP:COI? – Best, Sam 🎤 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


I do not understand why you think these facts are opinions. Then all of the sources and edits made by Peter1007 must also be opinions. --Galemw2 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for interpreting Korean. I think Peter1007 must reply for this?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter1007 Superfly94 please read why your edit does not meet the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. These sources have no neutrality and are utterly ureliable sources. You asked to write the reasons on the talkpage, and you don't read the discussion. Then you claim that your edit is right? How odd is that?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)



Honestly, Superfly94/Sam Sailor/Peter1007's entire purpose is just to find false, slanderous, negative, untrue information regarding this church and has spent months upon months, hours upon hours, rewriting the articles. It is clear you are not here for a constructive purpose and trying to improve the article for neutrality and factually. Seriously, get a life man. Go somewhere else and edit! Watts9595 (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Now I bet you're going to go running to the "this is a personal attack and red herring" claim, boo hoo! aren't ya! instead of acknowledging your purpose on here to just cause trouble and disruption! Watts9595 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


Peter1007 please reply. It's been more than two weeks now. If you don't have any explanation, all of these information must be deleted. You don't owe these articles.--Galemw2 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a source is unreliable just because for you it is unreliable is not enough according to Wikipedia policies. Please quote which policy of Wikipedia these sources are breaking so we can discuss further. I believe all of the sources are well according to WP:IRS, please explain, based on Wikipedia, why they are not. Thanks, Peter1007 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Peter1007 - Did you even read my explanations? I've clearly pointed out why the sources you've used were unreliable to support this article. (or even the article for WMSCOG) Please reply according to each sections.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (NPOV).

- According to WP:IRS, it says: "articles should be based on reliable, published sources, with neutrality." However, HDJONGKYO is not trusted in Korea, to be considered as "RELIABLE." It rather caused many victims and had been sued many times.

http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/ This site is an association of the victims of HDJONGKYO. The HDJONGKYO has no trust among Christians, and is an organization with biased information.

academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources

- According to Wikipedia, "most reliable sources are peer-reviewed publications." But even one author can publish in HDJONGKYO. And its publications are not considered, nor has any values as scholarly materials.

- Wikipedia states "particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" But only few people know about HDJONGKYO, and is very unfamiliar among Christians. They have also lost their civil suit for human rights violations and paid 80 million Korean won (seventy four thousand dollars) for losing the trial. See http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/668

HDJONGKYO cannot be considered as reliable source.--Galemw2 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I read http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/ and it's clear that the guys of the HDJONGKYO have bias against the WMSCOG. The article is nonnuetural, isn't it? I agree with Galemw2. The HDJONGKYO.CO.KR has caused many problems. You should use scholarly materials that has neutral perspective instead of calling this religious movement a "cult." Trekkerguy7 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Requirements Part 2

The article has already been flagged for theese issues so I figured Id post this here and give people a couple days to figure out the best method of fixing it. First, when sourcing subjects, please source the actual subject, and not a 3rd party with a slanted opinion. I.E. when mentioning the WMSCOG link to ht tp usa watv org not a website that has Heretic as its subject line. If after sourcing the subject you want to expand on a subsection about said Heretic review by all means create a separate subsection for exploring that. But do not immediately try to pass off heresy bias as if it is source for wmscog. A lot of the flags can be cleared simply by being diligent to mention that most sources are based on interpretation and public opinion. Try to avoid advertising those opinions as facts, especially where such things as the SDA baptism list is under scrutiny for being a potential forgery, making the 1948 baptism more likely the truth, but ill work on that by finding better sources and better wording. JohnnyGospel (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Doing NPOV related edits now. I have no objections to anyone who wants to expand on controversies in subsections, but I'll be deleting NPOV skeptical material and recommending that venue for people who want to elaborate on it. Other Misc changes in formatting, ease of reading, et cetera will be done as I skim through it in no particular order. Finally, I will be deleting all things related to the keyword "heresy" according to my search function. Recommend neutral sources be used to restate the same point. Or, state the identity of the source as a biased opinion and do not infer or suggest with any vague wording that its a factual authority. JohnnyGospel (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT revisited

"Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted"

Seems like the bottom line to me.

Now I'm not an international copyright lawyer, however it seems to be Wikipedia's prerogative to respect copyrights according to their own internal rules. So unless something changes concerning the World Mission Society Church of God which created Melchizedek Publishing Co., Ltd. the claimant owners of the copyright and original material of Ahn-Sahng-Hong's writings; then I'd have to suggest that we not directly link to copyrighted material.

And if you do want to directly link to copyrighted material or quote it, it should be sourced to the copyright owner at the very least, if even allowed; which would be Melchizedek Publishing or the WMSCOG.

Now I don't think the NCPCOG has any tenable copyright claims or are official claimants in a case. But even if there is some argument for this, the verbage "violates any copyrights" seems to indicate that WMSCOG's official claim should be respected.

Relevant changes to come. JohnnyGospel (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Refworld reference

I deleted Refworld since it states "Further corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate." This means, they're not sure about this which can't support the info. about changing the name and etc. Probably needs another decent reference to support this info. Thanks. -Nellyhan (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Refworld cites this entry: The deification of Ahn Sahng-hong and Zahng Gil-jah has been "harshly criticized,"... This is clearly supported in the Refworld article. The part of the Refworld cite Further corroborating information could not be found is regarding that the church claims to be growing rapidly and Refworld author can not find sources that support the church's claim. Your deletion of the citation is not justified. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Further to the comment on the edit, "There isn't even the church there," if one were to reverse the address, much like Westerners reverse the names (Ahn is his last name, not first), you get this on Google Maps - WMSCOG location. If you look on the building, it clearly shows the web page address. The image is dated from 2009. Superfly94 (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong/Archive_1&oldid=1136502083"