Talk:Oom Yung Doe

Chicagoland Daily Herald

Speciate just noticed that there is no such periodical as the "Chicagoland Daily Herald", and corrected it to "Chicago Daily Herald". I tried to look at the URL source and found a broken link, and when I poked around trying to find an online copy of the reference, I found this, which refers to a different periodical with a different date ("Arlington Heights Daily Herald" from 4/13/1991 instead of "Chicagoland Heights Daily Herald" from 4/13/1995).

I think is overall an indication that that source was just made up. A while ago we had an issue with sources being inserted into the article that as far as anyone could tell weren't actually real, just fictitious references taken from a copypasta that circulates on the internet about the school. I've therefore removed the reference and the statement that precedes it (on the assumption that it isn't supported by any reference anyone can actually find).

--Subverdor (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Cool. Speciate (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put this information but I attended college in the Western Suburbs of Chicago in the late 80's and I remember the newspaper well. The name is called the "Daily Herald" and like other newspapers in larger metropolitan areas, they published a newspaper that contained some unique, local content for the smaller suburb or city it was distributed in. Therefore, using the term Chicagoland Daily Herald is correct and is probably a valid source. Although the name of the paper is "Daily Herald", there could be some unique content in the issue that was distributed in "Arlington Heights" for instance. Most of the paper however (90%+) would be the same across Chicagoland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.35.14 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Cost of training

Hi, I'd like to make a small addition to the Cost of Training section, to include that the schools now train on a month-to-month basis as opposed to requiring contracts. The reference would probably have to be to one of the training posters that are up in the schools, similar to the tournaments poster used as a reference. I think this is key information because it represents a shift in how the schools are operated. Are there any objections to this?

HTML75 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)HTML75

"Death of John C. Kim"

I've re-removed this section. To the editor that submitted it, what on Earth is wrong with you? I think this is about the most mean spirited thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

I'm going to do my usual thing and focus mainly on the relevant-to-Wikipedia reasons why this section isn't acceptable, but Jesus Christ what is wrong with you. Didn't the school win a significant court judgement against one of you guys for behavior like this a couple of years ago?

Strictly from a Wikipedia policy perspective: What's your actual source? I looked at the notes you included in a revision a few days ago and they linked a Facebook group that was extensively bashing the school, and a web site with user-submitted content from a member of the same group. Critics of the school have fabricated sources plenty of times in the past. Is this something you (or someone you genuinely know / trust) actually got from a San Diego records office, or did you just see it posted on the group?

What is this business about case number D-57212? I went to https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/ and searched for that number a few different ways and found nothing. Where did you get that information (or can you link me to somewhere I can view it online or check it directly without physically traveling to San Diego)?

--Subverdor (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What below Earth is wrong with you, Larry, for trying to perpetuate a fraud? Taking the name of Jesus Christ in vain, is a bad idea. You should not speak in such a manner and will not be tolerated. How are you an editor of Wikipedia, in any case. We will seek to have you removed.

Kim's death, by heart disease, is important for readers to know because of all the years he preached about superior health, he himself, his case concerning, was very sick, mentally and physically. People need to know the Kim is dead, there is no more reason to continue to pay money into the Kim Family Trust any longer.

As far as a 'significant court judgement', which was overturned and dismissed With Prejudice, because the Judge discovered Kim had his minions, possibly even you, fabricate their side of the story; only a Moo cult member would bring that up as if it was credible. Your mind has been twisted beyond reason, yet you continue to think you know something.

May you find peace.

--FrankPerry1998 (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Are you planning to address my questions about your sources?

I added a signature to your comment. You should write --~~~~ at the bottom of your comments. Wikipedia turns it into a signature so everyone can tell who said what.

--Subverdor (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have added this section back in with only factual (and verifiable) information and a copy of the death certificate that was obtained from the San Diego County Office of Vital Records and Statistics

--Squash1978 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Eh... I'm still suspicious. "Only factual information" in this revision... what was up with the non factual information in the previous revision then? I never heard anything back about my question about case number D-57212; is that the non factual information you're talking about, or do you mean something else?

In any case it looks likely that a death certificate isn't an acceptable source even if it's legit. From WP:PRIMARYCARE: "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources..."

--Subverdor (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I cannot comment on "case number D-57212" that you refer to as I did not make that edit. That edit was made by FrankPerry1998. Personally, I do not see how it’s relevant to John C. Kim's death and did not include it in my edit.

Second, WP:PRIMARYCARE does not state that death certificates are not a legitimate source. It says the Social Security Death Index is not a legitimate source. Those are two completely different things.

Finally, WP:DISPUTE states “When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text.” As a part of the dispute resolution process, could you please help me understand your reasoning for deleting my edit? Is there something about it that you feel is biased or inaccurate? Rather than carte blanche deleting my edits, let’s have a conversation about what you object to so we can improve it.

--Squash1978 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, you're different from the other user, but you see my point right? We've had a long history on this page of people adding stuff with falsified sourcing and then just moving on with no discussion when it's discovered, and it looks like that same thing happened with this exact statement the last time it was brought up. A user appeared with no other edits besides the OYD article, added this statement, I asked some questions including about an indication that some of the sourcing wasn't honest, and they disappeared and gave up on the edit instead of answering any of the questions I had.

That's why I'm suspicious that it's biased or inaccurate -- nothing to do with you specifically or the claim in its current form but just the history of other claims about the school on this article, including recently this claim in particular. I do take some issue with this use of primary sourcing, and the policy agrees with me, but that's not the main issue. The main issue that the last time this was brought up, it looked to me like it was another example of critics of the school coming on and posting made up stuff that makes the school look bad (or at least stuff with falsified sourcing, which to me starts to smell like something that's just maliciously made up). Definitely the process of adding a negative claim to the article, attaching a source that doesn't support the claim or is made up, over and over, starts to seem like for whatever reason you're making edits to bash the school as opposed to trying to shed light on anything. That's happened a *lot* over the history of the article. Many many times. Do you disagree with that statement? I can give you plenty of examples.

-Subverdor (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point if there has been a history of biased and/or inaccurate edits being made to this page. If there were issues with this section before, I can also see why you may have felt compelled to delete my edit, thinking that it was related to the previous edits made by FrankPerry1998. I don’t necessarily agree with your action to delete my edit but I do see your point of view.

To shed light on my point of view, I was unaware of the previous history/dispute with this section. I independently decided to add information about John C. Kim’s death because I feel it is relevant to this page. It was only after I reviewed the page history did I discover that similar edits had been made (and undone) in the past. In hindsight, should I have initiated another discussion before making my edits given the previous disputes to this section? Perhaps. However, I felt that it was not necessary given that I was only adding unbiased, factual information to my edit.

Which brings us back to my edit itself. You seem to acknowledge in your previous comment that the edit I made, in its current form, is accurate (“...nothing to do with you specifically or the claim in its current form...”) Am I wrong? Am I misinterpreting what you said? First and foremost, let’s deal with the accuracy of my edit. Once we deal with that, we can move on to the issue about source.

Are you disputing the accuracy of my edit?

--Squash1978 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with the history of this page you should look through the talk archives. It's a wild wild ride. Just off the top of my head I can remember:

• Someone claiming they took a photo when (by pure coincidence) I know the person who actually took it
• Citing statements to sources and (when I dug up the sources and discovered that the issues listed didn't contain the stories they claimed they contained) simply entering radio silence on the issue and never bringing it up again (I think the sources were "POWERLines Chicago" and "Chicagoland Daily Herald")
• Trying to cite a headline and a date with no periodical attached (no specific newspaper... just "a story with this headline was published *somewhere* on such and such a date"), and arguing STRENUOUSLY when I wanted to remove it
• Claiming that they'd read the "4th amended complaint" and it accused the school of violating the 4th amendment to the US constitution

You can read back up the thread and see, in addition to FrankPerry1998 posting a message that sounds like he's completely out of his mind, him saying "The case is under probate review at number such and such" and me saying "I searched for that case and didn't find it" and him entering radio silence on the issue and never bringing it up again or trying to defend it. I have no particular reason to think that he's lying... but I did make a good faith effort to verify what he was saying and it didn't verify and he didn't make any effort to claim that it was legit when I questioned it.

Oh, also in the archives you'll see:

• Claiming that the article needs to include a story about a man who died who had been an instructor years before, with an insinuation that the school probably killed him, because it is "part of the controversy surrounding the school."

The point that I'm trying to make with all this is that the critics of the school are not always truthful. They have this conception that the school is evil, and so to warn people about the evil, they have to spread the word, and to help spread the word it's helpful if they slant things and make up information that indicates that the school is maximally evil as best they can... you can see how over the course of about 20 years of repetition and festering that whole process could go in a weird direction. I've honestly tried (again see the archives) to engage with them and correct some of the misconceptions. A lot of it is really ridiculous if you have any genuine first-hand contact with the school. I thought when I first started this process that I would find a lot more grains of truth behind the bad stuff they say about the school. I genuinely really read into a lot of the negative stuff out of curiosity and I just didn't find that much there that made sense or was accurate or honest in any way. It seems like it's a big mean-spirited mix of half-truths, innuendo, total lies, fabrications, and guesses or hearsay from people who have never stepped into a school and have no idea what they're talking about.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know where on that spectrum the death certificate lies. I just know that based on the history, I'm suspicious, and that by my reading of policy it's not an acceptable-to-Wikipedia source even if it isn't fraudulent.

-Subverdor (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, to move forward with the open question about primary source policy I've asked on the RSN noticeboard.

-Subverdor (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it, understood that there has been some contentious history with this article. However, you never really answered my question, are you disputing the accuracy of my edit?

I take exception with you deleting my edit without discussing it first or working to improve it. Again WP:DISPUTE states, “When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text.” Particularly when your main issue appears to be with the source that was used versus the content of the edit itself. I content that my edit should stay in but with a [better source needed] tag while we work out this dispute about the source.

--Squash1978 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Saying there's been some contentious history with this article is *very* different from what I said. What I said was that a whole bunch of people with an "anti Oom Yung Doe" POV have made a whole bunch of edits which seem like they were based on some kind of falsification or dishonesty. That's way different from just people with differing viewpoints having good-faith disagreement with each other. There's a reason why, when the stuff people say to criticize the school gets subjected to a serious policy designed to to weed out unsupported stuff, a whole lot of it goes away. There's *also* a reason why when that happens, their reaction is to start lying to try to get it accepted, as opposed to starting to revisit their viewpoints or consider the idea that certain things aren't the way they think they are.

I'm not going to get into the truth behind your edit (see WP:NOTTRUTH); all I'm really saying about it is the source doesn't look legit to me. If you look on the noticeboard you'll see that other editors seem to agree with my interpretation as far as primary sourcing and the doxxing issue.

The doxxing issue is a real concern, too -- my understanding is that there was a court judgement entered against one of the critics of the school that stemmed partly from libel (saying provably untrue things that were harmful to instructors' reputations), but also partly from him stalking and threatening one of the female instructors.

As far as leaving the statement up even though it's not supported by any policy-acceptable source, see WP:BURDEN. There's generally a courtesy if you find unsourced information of marking that it needs a citation as opposed to blowing it away wholesale, but it's not a requirement, and the burden of finding a source is explicitly on the editor who wants to add or restore unsourced material.

-Subverdor (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)