Talk:Ilchi Lee/Archive 1

Inclusion of Controversial Material

This article is as bogus as it gets. There are numerous controversies and scandals in Lee's life. In fact, the man has a bogus degree, never studied with any know masters, and many of his former disciples claimed he had sex with hundreds of female adherents and even tried to create an organized crime wing of his operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.182.128 (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilchi Lee earned a degree from Dankook University, an accredited university that has never been accused of being a "diploma mill" in any publication I have seen. If you have legitimate evidence of this you must cite that source. Dankook is an ordinary, respectable university like any other in Korea. The degrees that are in question are two honorary Ph.D.s that were bestowed by American institutions unrelated to Dankook University. The edit that you made is clearly factually incorrect, unsourced, and not in compliance with Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living people and violates the policy against independent research.Nicola Cola 16:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you address the other points brought up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.160.221 (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the "issues" you raise have any place in the article because none of them have any validity that can be supported by any reputable journalistic source. Ignoring these accusations is not my personal preference, it is simply the standard Wikipedia demands. If you have some reputable proof of these things, they can be added. Wikipedia is a place to present varifiable facts, not a place for muckraking, especially in biographies of living people. I am really trying to create a straightforward, neutral article here. It shouldn't be used as a soapbox for people that have some axe to grind. Nicola Cola 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Please let me know of any suggestions you have that could help improve this article. I would like to prepare it for GA review. I think I will start by making some sub-catagories and expanding those a bit. Any other ideas? Nicola Cola (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think more of Ilchi Lee's contribution to Brain eduation can be added. We can add his activities for the International Brain HSP Olympiad events. I also want to know about how much we can deal with his activities in Korea. How much that will be notable for the Wikipedia in English. Itshappyday (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean in terms of his contribution to brain-based eduction? Because his methods are quite non-traditional, I am not sure how he fits into that educational mode as a whole. Do you know of any sources that speak of him as an educator? I think adding info about the Olympiad is good. I know I've seen things written about that, but is he mentioned by name in the source? Nicola Cola (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a little searching and ran across this article which mentions him by name in connection with the Olympiad held this year in New York. Hope that helps you. Forestgarden (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article I found about that Olympiad. It doesn't mention Ilchi Lee, but you could use it as a source for writing about the event, depending on how much detail you plan for that part of the wiki article. Forestgarden (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To what extent can I use Korean references? I feel sad I can't share some of them with you because I am not sure if you can read Korean. I have lots of Korean references regarding Ilchi Lee, some of which I used for the National Order of Civil Merit for him. Please give me some advice. Itshappyday (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be okay to put a selected list of Ilchi Lee's Korean publication? Itshappyday (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As a veteran GA reviewer, I can tell you that no article that uses books authored by Lee as its primary source to verify controversial factual claims will ever be GA. What this article needs is to present a more balanced view on the subject using reliable secondary source material not produced by the subject. Using an autobiography or other self-made work is okay if you're verifying expressly what Lee says he did, his version of events. But when you use his word as a verification of events that many people have contested, it is not neutral or reasonably reliable. To state that the only controversy about Lee is that he was involved with the wrongful death suit is a grave violation of NPOV. VanTucky ^talk 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Van Tucky. I admire your commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia, but I am really doubting your ability to stay neutral in your assessment of this article. Right from the beginning of my interaction with you, your biases have been obvious. However, I do appreciate your attention to it, since I really do want to create a properly neutral article.

Please let me know what are the "events that many people have contested" are and what reliable sources confirm your claim. Are you speaking about the events in his biography itself? What events specifically? I have looked at many Wikipedia biographies and many rely heavily on autobiographical sources, including many with high ratings. As far as the controversies go, I can not find any reliable sources that discuss the various accusations beyond the ones cited. Most of the mudslinging has occurred in Internet sources that are not considered reliable because they make no attempt present a balanced view, and they make no attempt to confirm the "facts" that they present. If you know of reputable journalistic treatments of these controversies, please let me know, and let's include them!

The fact of the matter is that controversy has been part of Lee's life, but no one has bothered to really investigate these things properly in a journalistic context, or to ascertain to what degree he is responsible for controversies surrounding Dahn yoga. Most sources that I have seen focus on Dahn yoga and do not discuss Lee's role in any detail at all. I really resent this statement, VanTucky: "To state that the only controversy about Lee is that he was involved with the wrongful death suit is a grave violation of NPOV." I have never claimed that that is the only controversy surrounding him, neither in the article itself nor in any talk page comment, so I reguard that as a completely unjustified accusation. The lawsuit is simply the only one that has a legitimate reference source, and even in that case Lee's role is not discussed. As I said before to you and the other detractor, if you have sources to cite these things properly, PLEASE let me know! It really seems like you want these things included whether they are verifiable or not. Please don't let your personal dislike for something guide your assessment abilities. If you want something included in the article, just present the sources, and I'll be happy to oblige. Nicola Cola (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have pegged me wrong. I dislike articles that make claims using flimsy sources. I didn't even know Dahn or Lee existed until I began working on this article, and I haven't read any of his works or attended Dahn classes or whatever they are. I do however, find articles that lack secondary sourcing for obviously contentious subjects (ala the thread above this one) to be lacking. The article needing secondary sources is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a simple fact. All articles need them. To rely only on sources written by the subject of a biography is a grave miscarriage of basic standards of factual accuracy, even if the person is uncontroversial. You just don't do it. VanTucky ^talk 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "To rely only on sources written by the subject of a biography is a grave miscarriage of the basic standards of factual accuracy." Again this is a completely inaccurate representation of my work here. Did you bother to notice that many of the citations listed are NOT written by the subject of the article before making this accusation? How can you say I've ONLY used sources written by the subject? Furthermore, I have read very carefully through the biography policies, and I have found nothing prohibiting autobiographical works. If you know of such a policy, please cite that specifically. Even in articles where thousands of sources written by people other than the subject are available, autobiography is used frequently, as in Benjamin Franklin and Malcolm X. Unless the facts given in an autobiographical source are in dispute, I see no reason why they should be considered factually inaccurate. Lee has been criticised in the blogosphere for a lot or things, but even in those places I have never heard anyone claim his books contain lies about his own life.

You really show your true colors when you say, "I didn't even know Dahn or Lee existed until I began working on this article, and I haven't read any of his works or attended Dahn classes or whatever they are." The cynical tone of the statement aside, your unwillingness to really consider the facts of the "whatever they are" before asserting yourself upon an article on the topic is really reprehensible. Don't you think you should have at least glanced at a book on the topic, rather than pretending that only negatively slanted treatments exist, before attempting to rewrite an article?

I am willing to consider anything you say, VanTucky, as long as it is accurate to the actual state of the article and can be used to improve the article. I really want to learn from you, but I need information that I can actually use. If you believe something is factually inaccurate in the article, please tell me specifically what those things are and what sources present that information. I am definitely willing to include anything that can be cited properly. Also, provide a link to the policy against use of autobiographical sources. Nicola Cola (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Controversy Section

I’d just like to remind everyone about policies on writing biographies of living people, no original research, having a neutral point of view, and making sure things are verifiable. There seems to be some, er, issues. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the essential problem is that the controversial stuff has been covered to an extreme degree in weak sources like blogs, forums, and what I call "rumor collection sites," like rickross.com, Steve Hassan, and selectsmart.com. These sites clearly thrive on negative, reputation-busting content and make no attempt to varify the validity of accusation made or to present supportive points of view. Very few "legitamate" journalistic sources mention Ilchi Lee at all. Most focus on Dahn yoga centers, not on Ilchi Lee. According to the policies regarding biographies of living people, it seems that only the highst quality sources should be included, but clearly detractors will not be satisfied with the limited information available from these sources. But then again, should Wikipedia be a platform for a person's critics?Nicola Cola (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to discussion 1/29/08: First, I apologize to you, Nicola, for removing a paragraph you had written in the controversy section (Nicola wrote to me on the user talk page that I shouldn't have done that.) I tried to work with it, but ultimately, after adding my own content, I felt that the flow was more important than trying to keep your exact wording, and I didn't change the meaning of your paragraph. I tried to post an explanation here but it didn't go through (my fault - newbie here). About Rick Ross, and Steve Hassan, for that matter: Is it against wiki policy to cite them on ANY wiki live biography to indicate that a person is controversial and the nature of that controversy? (I have already removed the content that I referenced with selectsmart.com/ilchilee.html, as I continue to try to understand Wiki policies while still trying to contribute factual content.) Nicole, I find your condemnation of Rick Ross here and in your direct message to me disproportionate to the credibility that I believe he holds as an expert in his field. And, I don't see how Ilchi Lee can be regarded as separate from Dahn operations. He founded it, he owns many Dahn-related tradenames and websites, he provides management consulting through BR Consulting only for his own programs, he shares some of the same directors or owners and property with other Dahn entities. He is "Grand Master" Lee, revered by followers, many whom attend or work for Dahn yoga centers. More than a dozen Ilchi Lee fan blogs suddenly appeared online - obviously orchestrated from a central authority. Maybe the attempt to disconnect Ilchi Lee from controversy surrounding his programs is a point of controversy in itself. --Timelyheart (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Timelyheart. I have to disagree that meaning in my original content was not changed. In fact, it went from a neutral discussion to a non-NPOV discussion of the controversy. I think you had a hard time working with my version simply because it did not fit your intention to emphasize the controversy, which is not proper in a living person's biography, or any article for that matter. If this is not your intent, then why did you quote profusely from court prosecution documents and nothing from the defense? (By the way, you completely failed to mention that the one case was dismissed, but that doesn't help spread the accusations, does it?) You have also chosen to go far beyond the sources that you cite, which is wrong for any article, bio or not. An administator and another highly experienced editor have consistantly removed the Rick Ross and Steve Hassan links from the Dahn Yoga article, in spite of having clearly negative feelings about Dahn yoga. A quick read of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and living person's biography will show why they are rejected (and that selectsmart should be, too). And by the way, Steve Hassan and especially Rick Ross are highly controversial figures in their own right, hardly the respected experts that you suggest they are. Think of it this way, Timelyheart. You wouldn't want me to use the blogs you mention as a source for this article, right? Obviously they do not follow basic standards of journalistic balance. The Hassan, Ross, and selectsmart.com sights are no more reliable than those. All three sites are willing to list any negative information they can find about the people and organizations the seek to destroy, and they would never dream of including any information that refutes the allegations they gather. I have asked Green Caterpillar to take a look at your edits. He was the one who originally graded the article and presumably knows more about biographies of living people in Wikipedia than either one of us.Nicola Cola (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Timelyheart responds: Like I said, I already removed the selectsmart reference (as well as the content about blogs, etc. that that site referenced.) And, I already did add that the Alameda "case was reportedly settled out of court without admission of guilt.[22]" I think you're right that more of the defense's position could be included (And you can add that yourself, right?) I assume you're referring to the Alameda case. I didn't find much detail in the defendants' response to the charges among the online documents, other than essentially an uncategorical denial - which I did include in the content. What is your reference for claiming that the case was dismissed? (I assume you're referring to the Alameda case; I don't know if there is an outcome of the Siverls case yet.) If you're talking about the Siverls case, is there a reference for that case being dismissed? And I would like to know the policy on using Rick Ross or Steven Hassan as references for controversy about ANY living biography; it shouldn't just be for this one person that they are regarded as inappropriate sources, imo. Imo, they are controversial because they deal with a highly volatile subject matter; it come with the territory. I think that more neutral and analytical information could be provided on the other subtopics, which would make the controversy section appear less weighty, and I am working on that now. I'll keep trying to find an answer on using Rick Ross and Steve Hassan as sources and will remove that content if I am in the wrong. I'll try to find where Wiki describes "balance." For some biographies, trying to keep an equal weight between negative and positive content would appear ludicrous and biased (e.g.Hitler), so I doubt that wiki wants equal wording. I headed straight for the controversy section because what I read seemed much too glowing, especially in light of all the news reports, a death during training, and other documents posted on websites (that I didn't include). In fact, I thought I was using great restraint! --Timelyheart (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Nicola said: "You have also chosen to go far beyond the sources that you cite, which is wrong for any article, bio or not." Please be specific. What line(s)? --Timelyheart (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this. To determine whether the content is reliable or not, find the same information on another website. All information needs to be verifiable. Green caterpillar (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But does repetition of rumors on more than one non-fact-checked Web site really ensure reliability?Nicola Cola (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some direct quotes from Wikipedia policy, all of which I believe are being violated here:

• From Wikipedia:Biographies of living people:"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." Clearly harm is being done to the subject of the article here. Timelyheart has taken "facts" from prosecution documents for a case that was actually dismissed and therefore the truth of the claims were never substantiated. Also, claims are well beyond what are available throught the link, and no defense response is available.
• Also from Wikipedia:Biographies of living people:"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Including long quotes from non-neutral sources gives the entire passage an incendiary, not encyclopedic tone.
• Also from Wikipedia:Biographies of living people:"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics." The controversy section is no longer proportional to the rest of the article. It is now the longest section and the most detailed.
• Also from Wikipedia:Biographies of living people:"Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." There definitely seems to be some "biased and malicious" intention here, as there is in the sources relied upon. And the "guilt by association" claim has been made in this very discussion.
• Also from Wikipedia:Biographies of living people:"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links." Cult-buster sites and prosecution documents from dismissed or unresolved legal cases are clearly unreliable and intentionally derogatory.
• From Wikipedia:Verifiability:"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Cult-buster sites definitely "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinion" and make no attempt whatsoever to check the validity of claims that people make, unlike proper journalistic sources. They should not be used in ANY article, much less in a biography of a living person.Nicola Cola (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello folks, upon reviewing this conversation and the recent rewrite of the Controversy section, I see two main issues to resolve:

(1) Some sources added by TimelyHeart don't seem to meet Wikipedia standards, especially for inclusion in an article about a living person. According to generally accepted standards, "newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". Self-published books are also weak sources, except when used solely to document what the author has said. “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.” It does seem that Nicola Cola is correct in classifying the Rick Ross site as focusing almost exclusively on derrogatory information and "rely[ing] heavily on rumors and personal opinions" and thus not appropriate for sourcing an article about a living person. Does anyone else have good evidence that they thoroughly check their facts before publishing information online? Also, if the material sourced from this site is notable and verifiable, it should be possible for TimelyHeart to find a different (more reliable/verifiable) source to use. I read that “the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.” This suggests that the questionably-sourced material should be immediately removed from both article and talk page.

Of the new sources, I would divide them this way (reference numbering is accurate as of today):

(A) Appropriate sources:

24-Ducey

27-Bergantino

30-Belgiorno

34-WCBS

35-Elton

(B) Sources with questionable reliability:

26-Alameda court record (I'm guessing this is probably fine for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I don't know the exact guidelines about this type of content, so I include it here for double-checking)

28-Siverls lawsuit (the document looks appropriate, although I don't know what the Wiki standards are for accessing government documents second-hand on a non-official site -- has anyone else seen any guidelines regarding this?)

29-Coroner's report (I have no reason to doubt that contacting the county would allow me to obtain the coroner's report, but again, I can't check it directly from the reference provided. I don't know if Wikipedia has standards governing verifiability of this type of document, or what they are -- anyone else have information?)

32-Conners letter (per discussion on the dahn yoga talk page, this seems admissible under narrow circumstances, only to support statements about what the spokesperson said)

33-Dahn Yoga FAQ (similar comment as previous item, although I don't see the material you quote on the page when I check it)

(C) Sources that are not appropriate for Wikipedia:

25-Ross (Cult News is described on the site as a "weblog", which does not qualify as a reliable source)

31-Ross (this is a page of links to copies of potentially-reliable sources, not a reliable source itself -- if the material is supportable, then it should be possible to use the original of these listed sources to support it)

(2) There is some question regarding whether all the new material is drawn directly from the sources cited, or whether there is some original research mixed in. Perhaps Nicola Cola could provide examples, or I could check the citations later (don't have time now).

In addition, it is worth noting that, "it is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view—our article on Adolf Hitler does not portray him as a sensitive and misunderstood individual who was kind to his mother—but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities.” (Quoted from the Wiki page on tendentious editing). It seems like there are concerns about balance between positive and negative material in the article.

One other point regarding balance is that the article length should also be in balance with the available source material. Articles about well-known and well-documented individuals should be longer than articles built from the number of legitimate sources that are available for this article. I wonder if the article as it stands now (with the most recent additions to the other sections) may actually be too long in proportion to his notability.

Forestgarden (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material sourced solely by the references listed in section (C) above. If reliable sources can be found, the material can be worked back into the article, but removal was necessary based on the current sources. Also, please see my post here for the beginnings of discussion regarding the use of the first three sources listed in the (B) section -- I asked the Wiki community for help on this question. Forestgarden (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Forestgarden for your expertise. I'll need a little more time to study all that you wrote, and will make necessary changes asap, but meanwhile I want to mention that the reason you can't find the Dahn Yoga FAQ question where they say it’s not a cult and not a religion is because they removed it immediately after it appeared here. Right now it is still accessible through the Google cache if someone searches and might be available thru Wayback in the future. Also, I understand why you would think that Rick Ross's newsletter is not a reliable source, being a weblog, so I agree with the removal. I don’t believe, though, that his Rick A. Ross Insitute site and Steve Hassan’s site should be, in effect, banned from Wikipedia as a source for the nature of a controversy regarding some living notables. Their credentials are strong, and their sites will never appear balanced because of the nature of what they do. They do link to other sources, and not all media articles are available (anymore) online, so contributors should at least be allowed to use their sites for that. I can see your point that the Ilchi Lee article might be too long relative to the notability (or notoriety, for that matter) of Ilchi Lee. But, I don’t think it’s because of my additions but because of the detailed account given of this person in the first place, especially with its PR advertising tone, e.g. the detailed outline of Ilchi Lee’s “BEST” program. This article sounds like it was written by a devoted follower of this group, like one of the many Ilchi Lee fan blogs that appeared on the internet around the same time. It cries out for the other side of the story and for the facts so that the reader can get a true perspective. In fact, I would like to see removal of the detailed BEST outline, for one thing, and see a more objective, historical perspective written about this person. I am researching that now; it can take some time. Thanks. --Timelyheart (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello TimelyHeart and thank you for the well-reasoned response. From the available information (both what's admissible on Wikipedia and what's not) it seems like most information publicly available about Ilchi Lee is either really negative or really positive, with little that is neutral or mixed. Regarding your desire to remove the BEST outline, I don't agree -- as the basic structure at the core of many of his teachings, programs, books, etc. it seems like essential content for a section about his Training Methods. I have added a word to make the attribution more clear. The tone doesn't strike me as particularly PR-like, unless you characterize PR as anything that only mentions positive information. There don't seem to be any glowing descriptions of benefits or other similarly non-neutral assertions. Actually, when I look at the whole article in perspective, this section is small (half the size) relative to both the Personal History and Controversy sections, and it seems like there's a lot of information left out -- I'm guessing there is more information in the available sources (especially the books, when properly phrased as his own assertions) that would give greater detail about how his philosophy plays out in the training methods. I don't particularly want to add more of that sort of material myself, on the grounds of balance/notability, but it does look like you see fit to add mention of specific training programs in your edits (e.g. programs at SIMC), but hold this section to a different standard. Please keep an eye on your neutrality; I am doing the same. In any case, I don't think it should be deleted.

Regarding the Rick Ross Institute website and Steve Hassan's personal site:

I don't see Steve Hassan's site listed as a reference, so I won't address it for the moment. The reason I don't think the Rick Ross Institute site is a valid source has nothing to do with Rick Ross's reputation as a consultant, or the potential validity of any of the articles linked or duplicated on the site. As I said in the previous comment, "this is a page of links to copies of potentially-reliable sources, not a reliable source itself -- if the material is supportable, then it should be possible to use the original of these listed sources to support it". You are perfectly justifiable in citing reliable articles indexed on this page, and you can cite an article in standard print media format even if no copy is available on the internet. As far as I know, material just needs to be accessible in some format, even if it's a microfilm at the library or in a publication's own archives. Similarly, Rick Ross's statements can be mentioned if they are quoted in a reliable source, but not if they're only mentioned in his own website or weblog. Make sense? Forestgarden (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any place on Wikipedia that Steve Hassan or Rick Ross are cited as sources? NO? CASE CLOSED!!!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Timelyheart, I don't think Steve Hassan's blog and Rick Ross's blog can be considered as reliable references for Wikipedia. Itshappyday (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding recent revisions to Personal History, Training Methods, and Philosophy sections

TimelyHeart, your zeal in adding to these sections is commendable, although it looks like a few goofs were made in following Wiki policies about sources (similar to the points discussed in the thread above). I have made some edits, the largest of which involved removing the paragraph discussing Tao Fellowship (there were some issues in the paragraph which I didn't address, because I'd decided to remove it). When I checked the documents available through the Arizona Corporations Commission for each of the business entities listed in the paragraph, I did not find any mention of Ilchi Lee or his given name Seung Heun Lee. Unless I'm missing something, this means there is no source provided that links him to Tao Fellowship, so it seemed like the whole paragraph was not relevant to the article, which is about him. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and tell me what I missed. Thanks! Forestgarden (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the annual reports at the link I provided, you can see Seung Heun Lee is director. The "Dahn Institute" record doesn't list Lee as a director (some of his associates are listed), but they are a non-profit entity located on the same property as the Tao Fellowship on Bill Gray Rd. in Sedona. Here's another source on the address of the Dahn Institute. [1] And, this link (whIch I hadn't included) shows the "Dahn Meditation Church," President Seung Heun Lee, in 1996. [2] This link shows the "Sedona Ilchi Meditation Center" as a tradename belonging to Tao Fellowship (and they are described together on the Tao Fellowship Web site, which I did link to): [3] I believe I provided the information that you removed without any opinion or judgment connected to it. How is this information contentious? If not, why remove it rather than discuss it? --Timelyheart (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my hasty removal. I was getting a little Wikied-out by that point, and I agree that I skipped a step. I didn't remove it on the basis of it being contentious, but primarily on the basis of it being not reliably sourced as related to the subject of the article; also because I am somewhat concerned that the Personal History section is too long at present in proportion to his notability and the available reliable sources. What do the rest of you think?

The second link you added in your comment is helpful, since it's the first place I've seen him listed as an officer of any of the entities mentioned. Which annual report link are you referencing in your first sentence? As far as I can tell, though, this is still a case of original research -- there is a document saying he was President/CEO of the Dahn Meditation Church in 1996, which doesn't support your claim that in 1998 he "founded and began directing" Tao Fellowship. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see in the sources you provided.

In a separate matter, I wonder about the inclusion of the financial information you added on the Tao Foundation. Did you mean Tao Fellowship? I couldn't find any listing for "Tao Foundation" in either the Arizona Corporate Commission or the Arizona Tax-Exempt Organization databases, so at present this is also original research. (I was also confused about this because the figures listed in the Corporate COmmission database for Tao Fellowship only partly match what you wrote: $500 and about $2.7m net.)

Another piece of original research in this same paragraph concerns the programs you say are taught at SIMC -- I didn't see a source for this. If you have one, please add it. Also see my comment in the other thread about an apparent double standard in adding this level of detail to the article.

I'm guessing there must be documentation in one of these databases showing a name change from "Dahn Institute" to "Dahn Foundation" but you should provide the specific reference. Same goes for the BCC Consulting --> BR Consulting name change you mention in the next paragraph. You'll see I added a "citation needed" note for a similar claim you put in the Personal History section regarding a "Dahnhak Seon Won" --> "Dahn World Co" name change. It's not that I necessarily doubt the truth of things you claim, but as has been discussed before on this page, sourcing must be especially rigorous in bios of living people, even for material that's not overtly contentious.

One more example of original research is the section about Dangun and ancient Korean history. I was going to edit, but then thought you might like a chance to review your source and adjust appropriately. Let me know if you'd prefer me to edit.

Onward and upward! Forestgarden (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Another comment on content: Since we're on the topic of validation, I don't see any validation for any statements in this paragraph: "In his adolescence, he turned to the martial art Taekwondo (태권도 跆拳道) to help calm his restless mind. He eventually earned a third-level black belt and opened a successful martial arts studio.[4] After he graduated from Dankook University (단국대학교 檀國大學校) with a degree in clinical pathology and physical education[5], he opened a health clinic, which also proved to be successful.[4] He soon married and settled down to raise a family.[4]" It is this kind of verbiage that shows this article to be essentially an Ilchi Lee fan blog and too detailed relative to the person's mainstream notoriety. I recommend removal of this content, in addition to removal of the BEST content, or at least further validation, beyond citing the person's own claims. I also think the term "health clinic" is very misleading to readers. A "health clinic" is normally understood to be a licensed conventional medical clinic. He opened a medical clinic with just a bachelor's degree? And how do we know it was "successful"; by whose standards? Also, this article should be noted on top as a disputed article. I'll look into how to do that (Newbie) --Timelyheart (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You have some good points. I disagree with your aim of removing most of the material, although I agree it could have better sourcing and maybe some word choice adjustments to avoid misleading readers. I'm guessing there aren't many English-language sources for his early life, since he lived in Korea. There was an editor a little while back who added some Korean sources, so I'll ask him if there are any to support the statements in this section. Thanks for being so rigorous about standards. Following your suggestion, I have put a BLP dispute template on the article. Forestgarden (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Forestgarden, seeing that you left a memo on my talk page, I guess I am the Korean editor you are talking about. Sorry for my late reply. I have been out of town. Anyway, I added a reference about his Taekwondo career and found out that he earned 4th-level black belt. That's a very legitimate source - one of the biggest monthly magazine in Korea. I will try to find some more but my English is not perfect, so I will need one of you guys' help for the grammar. Thank you in advance. Itshappyday (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the irrelevant and probably vandalistic section.--Timelyheart (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed what I think looked like original research. I also made a lot of additions and changes today. I would like to add more based on a new publication that I found ,by Dr. WOO Hai Ran [4] “The New Age in South Korea" Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, that provides a good historical perspective on Ilchi Lee as founder of a new spiritual movement. I think this article needs a new, separate section to aid the flow of content.--Timelyheart (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Timelyheart, I read you wrote "The Kukhak Institute and other affiliated NGO's founded by Ilchi Lee dedicate themselves to promoting Korean nationalism and the reverence of Dangun, the legendary divine founding father of the original Korea." I read your reference, but there is no direct description about Kukhak Institute is promoting Korean nationalism. In addition, as a Korean I can say, Dangun's teaching is not Korean nationalism. There are many other journal or legimate references that portray Dahngun very differently. As far as I know, Kukhak Institute seeks to provide help for the whole humanity as its website says. Please provide more direct reference of this please. Itshappyday (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Itshappyday, last night I caught a mistake in the url I provided for the reference written by Woo. Please look again at that reference. (I will also review what I wrote, for accuracy, when I get a chance.) Thanks.--Timelyheart (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

About these references, please make sure they comply with WP:RS. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Weazely Word Additions

Timelyheart, please read Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia: Words to avoid. Please do not manipulate word choice to try to create doubt about simple, undisputed factual statements. Nicola Cola (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, Nicola, but a problem arises when statements are made that aren't documented from a source outside of the person's or the organization's own account as if they are fact. E.g. saying that Lee is no longer involved in the daily management of Dahn Centers. That seems unlikely given that he is the spiritual leader of Dahn. I don't know why that was included in the first place, but since it was, what is the legitimate source for that information? And, e.g. the statement about his "successful" "health center." That needs an outside reference, imo. That said, I will also go back and review any edits that I made and change them to try to avoid "weasel" words.--Timelyheart (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the Personal History section and made some edits to remove potential "weasel words," and replaced with words that better convey that much of what was written there about his background was based on self-reports. --Timelyheart (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few more changes to other secyions to convey certain statements as opinion or viewpoint rather than as fact but also avoiding Weasel Words. I added back the word "water" because there is no dispute (is there?) that Lee says he went without water too on Moak mt.--Timelyheart (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent edit [5] seems to have reinstated phrases that User:Nicola Cola flagged/removed, and you have added even more than the ones you had originally. It's not clear to me how this constitutes removal of "weasel words". To quote from the guideline, "The problem with weasel-worded statements isn't that they are false; the problem is that they are chosen to imply something which they do not say." Your edits in this section, and in general, do seem to show a tendency towards subtly casting doubt, particularly regarding personal achievements and purpose/nature of training methods. Is that your intent? Forestgarden (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry you get that impression and am surprised, but like I said, the material was presented in a way that made the person's own accounts, opinions, and contentions sound as if they are verified facts - like an advertisement. That's not encyclopedic, is it? I tried to be careful to eliminate and avoid Weasel Words at the same time as making the distinction clear. I thought I did a very good job on that. Can you please be specific on what you think is verifiable fact that I edited to cast doubt? Thanks. --Timelyheart (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I just went to your link to see what you were referring to. OK, but aren't most of those just very minor changes, for the most part. Some I put in just to change the tense to past tense (for future readers, this may be past information); I'm fine with having those reverted back. Adding the name of Lee's book was simply to be more descriptive of where the these games and exercises that were mentioned can be found - certainly they don't mean any games. I added the words "termed as" because they aren't actually "known" as "BEST" but are tradenamed as such by Lee. Most important, though, I added the words "said to" because not only is there no consensus in the scientific community that his program opens up energy system of the body, but there is not even recognition of "energy systems of the body" in the field of scientific study of biology. What are the other ones that concern you? And how do you flag something? I wasn't aware of my edits being flagged. --Timelyheart (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of them I agree are minor. Please take a look at my recent edits in the Personal History section. One of my difficulties with the way you've been attributing material is that it often makes the sentences less readable. Also, adding things like "said to" seems a perfect example of "weasle words" because it casts doubt on the statement without directly attributing or showing if there are differing opinions. I'd agree with Nicola's comment below about some of the statements you edited because in some cases it seems unlikely that any reasonable person, even a hard-core critic, would dispute the statement. Another example, seen at [6], involves using a phrase like "are described as" without saying who's doing the describing. In the edit I referenced before, you wrote "with the said intent" and we are to assume that this is Lee's intent. There's also that other "is said to be" in that edit, the one you mentioned above. The statement you replaced with this weasel phrase just said "are designed to open up the energy meridian system of the body" but doesn't claim that it works. That seems like a reasonable phrasing to me. I suppose we could say "intended" instead of "designed" to leave the efficacy open for each reader's opinion, but that word has been used a lot already. Additionally, there actually are scientific references for "energy systems of the body". There isn't universal recognition of this across the scientific community, of course, but I have read some interesting and highly respectable research about the body's electrical fields, the efficacy of accupuncture, etc.

(By "flagging" I just meant being mentioned here on the discussion page.) Forestgarden (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The weasel words I take issue with are the ones used to cast doubt on simple uncontested, factual statements about the subject’s life or the nature of the training practice. Wikipedia policy states clearly that autobiographical sources are considered reliable for such things. For example, there is no need to add anything to the statement that the training focuses on the brain, because it simply does. No one in their right mind could really dispute that fact. A two second glance at Lee's book confirms the fact. You can dispute whether it works or not, but not the fact that it focuses on the brain. It’s a no-brainer (pun intended). It also makes sense to use Ilchi Lee’s own books as a source for basic information about the training method since he is certainly the foremost expert and this is information for his bio. It would be different if the statements in the article were making some statement about the efficacy of the training, but that is not the case in any of the statements to which you added weasels. In addition, some of the sentences that you weaseled are now lacking in readability. Frankly, it seems like you are doing this not to help improve the article, but as a means of supporting your intent to discredit this person, as seems to be the case with many of your editing choices. Nicola Cola (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More reply later, but for now I want to show here that Lee's claims about his programs focusing on the brain, this certainly is a disputed notion. Here's an example of how this and many many other scientists would regard his claims: [7] And, I'm not the one creating controversy over Ilchi Lee; it is already in the public eye elsewhere --Timelyheart (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC) I must add as an aside that I do think the scientist who wrote the article isn't up on the latest research showing that a (ANY) good exercise regiment could create new brain activity. Later. --Timelyheart (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That article actually seem to verify that Lee's programs focus on the brain, although it of course presents a different opinion of the efficacy than Lee would. The point is not that the programs are beneficial for the brain, or have any effect on the brain necessarily, but that they focus on the brain with unspecified outcomes. I would say that this article solidly supports the earlier phrasing, rather than the "have been described as" or "are said to" phrasing. What say ye? Forestgarden (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your copy editing skills, and agree with your changes that improve readability. Thanks. But I think some bias is showing with your new comment on Sedona's "vortexes." Your references for this statement are full of the very "weasel words" that you criticize and full of disclaimers, as they attempt to distinguish a statement of fact from one of opinion or belief or personal experiencer - words like: so-called, claimed, according to believers, said to, New Age, credulous, sketchy at best, is considered, scientists may scoff, I just didn't sense anything, attributable to very ordinary causes, the vortexes were eluding me, etc. Also, some are first person pov, obviously just opinion. I can understand your wanting to put the statement in the article about the vortexes in a context that shows that belief in or the mythology of Sedona's vortexes is not unique to Dahn. I oppose that you state it as verifiable fact, it is so far from it. (Remember too that the Dahn student Julia Siverls died in Sedona, with its many healing vortexes.) I would expect Wikipedia to value fact over media articles. (There is a very good scientific explanation for the twisting of the trees, which some people say is proof of energy vortexes.) On the other point re: Lee's training methods focusing primarily on brain and its development, from what I have read in his books and articles, the original wording gives the wrong impression, imo. Lee's primary focus looks to be much more far-reaching than exercises for brain development or brain potential, at least as most people understand those terms. You can see that if you even just read the few pages from his Peaceology book available on the Internet. I didn't want to totally change the given phrase, and since the only source for that was something from his own self-published book, I thought the statement should at least show it came from that source. But, all that said, I am not going to waste any more time on it. I appreciate your keeping in modifiers on some of the other phrases. RE: Your removing the details of the Alameda case, I was going to do that myself today, and I think your reasons are valid, given the Wiki policies on living bios. I'll put my comments on your problems with my quoted material below.--Timelyheart (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As you could probably tell from my userpage, I am an inveterate copyeditor, and I am glad these tendencies are welcomed on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above, I apologize for removing the reference to SIMC as having vortexes when I rewrote the sentence. My intent when rewriting the vortex passage was just to show that the region has a wide reputation for having energy vortexes (it's one of the main attractions to visitors). I apparently didn't phrase my sentence clearly enough to limit it to this meaning, but I did not intend to use those sources to say anything about whether or not vortexes exist or are provable by normal scientific methods (i.e. "verifiable fact"). I only intended them to support my statement that the area is known for containing vortexes and that many people not connected to SIMC or Tao Fellowship hold this opinion. I chose those references not because they didn't contain skepticism or "weasel" words (because of course they do) but because they mention that this is a widespread belief, regardless of the article's conclusions or tone. I don't think Julia Siverls' tragic death has any relevance to this discussion about sourcing. I have made some further edits to your most recent version to improve syntax & flow, attribute information directly, and to remove the "is said to" of which you are so fond :) Forestgarden (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I left a note for Bradeos Graphon asking for his expertise in editing, because he was involved a while ago in some edits for the Dahn_yoga article. Forestgarden (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of academic publications as fact

I want to start a discussion here about the use of the scholarly pieces by Dr. Woo, Donald Baker, and Massimo Introvigne. The relevant passages are copied below:

Writes Korean religion scholar Dr. Hai Ran Woo: "Lee did not just teach physical and mental exercise but attempted...from 1987 to mobilise large numbers to worship Tan-gun [a/k/a Dangun, Dahngun] as a great holy man. He claimed the so-called cardinal idea of Tan-gun, 'Widely benefit humanity, rightfully harmonise the world' should be the core spirit of the reunification of Korean and this idea would contribute to world peace such that Korea would be a spiritual leader in the world."(Woo, 2008:11-13,28) Religions scholar Donald Baker writes that Dahn World shares with other new religious movements in Korea the "Korea-centric" worldview that Korea is "the spiritual center of the world," the organization insisting that its own founder, "Yi S˘ungh˘un (Seung Heun Lee), is a renowned spiritual leader who is leading humanity toward an 'enlightenment revolution.'"(Buswell, ed. 2006:29-30) Religions scholar Massimo Introvigne states: "The Dahn World School, or Danhak...is in fact an offshoot of Taejonggyo, although it denies it and downplays the connections to Taejonggyo, particularly ouside Korea (but a large statue of Tan'gun has been erected outside its U.S. headquarters in Sedona, and passages from Taejonggyo's scriptures ["Heavenly Code," or "Chun Bu Kyung"] are still memorized by members).

I think in general, quotes need to be properly attributed, in line with the notability of the view (majority view, minority view), and balanced where necessary by text stating the other views. According to the Wikipedia policy on using quotations, "...while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia." These two paragraphs are almost entirely quotations. The policy also says, "never use a quote when summary would be better."

I would also suggest that quotations should not be used as a means of introducing derogatory or inaccurate content against the subject, especially when it's an example of academic scholarship that is not supported by another source. The tone of the first quote is strongly doubtful and rather critical of the organization and its leader. The second quote contains a rather controversial claim about the origin of the Dahn practice, given that I cannot find another source to corroborate the claim. Perhaps our Korean editor could tell us if it's a tiny-minority view (which aren't supposed to be included in Wikipedia), or if there are any Korean sources that support the claim.

Basically, I don't think the quotes are used appropriately at present; I believe these quotes (or others as appropriate) can be used sparingly to provide direct statements from particular authorities, attributed appropriately and balanced by any reasonably widespread alternative viewpoints with reliable sourcing. I intend to edit the passages copied above, but wanted to open it up to discussion first. Forestgarden (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the wiki link on quoted material, and what I wrote doesn't look like a violation, but I agree that it needs some editing for better readability. Most if not all of the quoted material can just be stated with just the ref. I went with the quotes because someone commented here earlier asking where it says what I had written (before I expanded it). I see your point that the Korea Club is a blog. But since you read it, you do now see that it is not some kind of secret thing that they do. It is much more encylcopedic, though, imo, to include material from experts rather than all the self-published content and articles that for all we know (not reading Korean) could be PR pieces or press releases. Also, I don't know why you or anyone would see that information as contentious, unless it is the intent of Dahn to hide or downplay what it says. I think that if someone is defensive over what these experts wrote, then they are not aware of a major goal of the organization they defend. What specifically is doubtful about the tone and critical (other than the one source saying that Dahn downplays their connection to Taejonggyo, which does sound critical - but it might be very true.) I plan to get the book he is reviewing to see all that expert Don Baker says. Thanks.--Timelyheart (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I reread what I had quoted in light of your comments, Forestgarden, and I DID see your point. I just edited it to neutralize the tone. --Timelyheart (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Use of Rick Ross Institute as a valid source

I added this section because of the controversy expressed on this and the Dahn Yoga Wikipedia discussion pages that could result in an unfair precedence of banning his Web site and him as a resource, not just on this and its related articles but on all living biographies. It is not my intent to start a discussion on the pros and cons of his character or opinions, but of the validity of his Institute as a legitimate source of information about the controversy surrounding the subject of a Wiki article. Some people have called, not just his weblog pages but to his entire site, "a blog."

This is from the Rick Ross Institute Mission Statement:

"The Rick A. Ross Institute (RRI) of New Jersey is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization devoted to public education and research. RRI's mission is to study destructive cults, controversial groups and movements and to provide a broad range of information and services easily accessible to the public for assistance and educational purposes. RRI maintains a large archive on the Internet and is available to assist researchers, the media, professionals and those concerned with accurate information about various cults, groups and movements and related issues of interest.

An Advisory Board of well-recognized experts assists the Institute; one of the most prestigious yet assembled in the field."

--Timelyheart (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The RRI is not a proper source for ANY Wikipedia article, except under very particular circumstances. The Rick Ross Institute simply does not have proper fact-checking proceedures, nor do they make any attempt to balance the views they present as a legitamate jouralistic source would. Ironically, in their zeal to stir up contoversy about other people, they have created a lot of controversy for themselves, and for good reason. Essentially, they will put anything negative about the groups and people that they target, never anything positive, and they don't care at all if the allegations they list are true or not. Their site is nothing more than a rumor dump, and it should not be used on Wikipedia, except perhaps when there is some reason to talk about the "institute" itself. The idea that they have "well-recognized experts" is nice for their PR piece you quote, but a long way from the truth. Rick Ross himself has no academic credentials to support the notion of being a "cult expert," other than the fact that he has been a busy muckraker for a long, long time. The Rick Ross Institute is not "prestigious" by any stretch of the imagination, and even if they actually do have some properly credentialed experts involved, that does not make up for their complete lack of journalistic standards. P.S. Let's move this to the RS talk page. Nicola Cola (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered question regarding Tao Fellowship

User:Timelyheart, I just noticed a conversation we never finished, regarding your statement that Ilchi Lee founded and began directing Tao Fellowship. Here's the relevant conversation from above:

When I checked the documents available through the Arizona Corporations Commission for each of the business entities listed in the paragraph, I did not find any mention of Ilchi Lee or his given name Seung Heun Lee. Unless I'm missing something, this means there is no source provided that links him to Tao Fellowship, so it seemed like the whole paragraph was not relevant to the article, which is about him. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and tell me what I missed. Thanks! User:Forestgarden 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the annual reports at the link I provided, you can see Seung Heun Lee is director. The "Dahn Institute" record doesn't list Lee as a director (some of his associates are listed), but they are a non-profit entity located on the same property as the Tao Fellowship on Bill Gray Rd. in Sedona. Here's another source on the address of the Dahn Institute. [8] And, this link (whIch I hadn't included) shows the "Dahn Meditation Church," President Seung Heun Lee, in 1996. [9] This link shows the "Sedona Ilchi Meditation Center" as a tradename belonging to Tao Fellowship (and they are described together on the Tao Fellowship Web site, which I did link to): [10] I believe I provided the information that you removed without any opinion or judgment connected to it. How is this information contentious? If not, why remove it rather than discuss it? --User:Timelyheart 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my hasty removal. I was getting a little Wikied-out by that point, and I agree that I skipped a step. I didn't remove it on the basis of it being contentious, but primarily on the basis of it being not reliably sourced as related to the subject of the article; also because I am somewhat concerned that the Personal History section is too long at present in proportion to his notability and the available reliable sources. What do the rest of you think?

The second link you added in your comment is helpful, since it's the first place I've seen him listed as an officer of any of the entities mentioned. Which annual report link are you referencing in your first sentence? As far as I can tell, though, this is still a case of original research -- there is a document saying he was President/CEO of the Dahn Meditation Church in 1996, which doesn't support your claim that in 1998 he "founded and began directing" Tao Fellowship. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see in the sources you provided. User:Forestgarden 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Forestgarden (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just replaced your generic Arizona Corporations Commission reference link with the direct link to Tao Fellowship's record; I don't think the main page of that site is adequate sourcing for specific claims, as I'd mentioned last week. When considering the conversation copied above, please remember that you'll need to provide specific references for each step in your chain from Ilchi Lee to Tao Fellowship, since there's no source that directly supports your claim. Also, my issue is not really doubt about your claims, but the fact that what's in the article right now is original research. Forestgarden (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed one reference, added other references, changed some wording. It should appear as fully cited now. I mistakenly thought I had seen Seung Heun Lee listed as the first director of Tao Fellowship; I changed the wording to correct that assumption. (Interestingly, Sun Hee Park is listed as an early director of Tao Fellowship. That is the same name as the plaintiff in the 2002 Alameda lawsuit.) On another point, I really think that your addition about Sedona's vortexes is overreferenced (one would be sufficient) and out of place in this article. It makes it look much more important than it is, in an article about Ilchi Lee. I thought it worked better as a paranthetical comment, or maybe it could be worked in to the other sentence about vortexes. Btw, there is some mention (critical) of vortexes on the Sedona, Arizona wiki article. --Timelyheart (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TH. I can see your point about over-citing the vortex bit, so I've deleted a few of the sources. The wiki article on Sedona is mostly irrelevant for this discussion, because Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, but my earlier comments about establishing notability not scientific legitimacy still apply. About the Tao Fellowship passage, I'll check your edits to see what you're describing. I don't think coincidence of same name is enough for reliable sourcing in a BLP, especially when there's no corroborating 3rd party source, but if you really think so we can discuss here. Forestgarden (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing your edits, I'm a little confused about some things you added. For example, the page about Mago Castle -- that's described as not being open to the public, and being a house, so I don't see how that could be SIMC as described on the Tao Fellowship page. (Also, when I check a google map for 3500 Bill Gray Rd. it doesn't seem to be in the middle of the major landmarks described on the Mago Castle page. This page does describe Lee as being on the board of directors for Tao Fellowship, which can be used (properly attributed of course). However, I don't see anything in the Now Toronto article that supports the statement directly linking Lee with Tao Fellowship, and this piece also seems to be an opinion piece rather than a fact-checked article. The page showing registration of the SIMC name with the state is a solid addition; thank you for correcting it. You didn't say anything regarding my last note from before ("Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see in the sources you provided") so I went back and waded through the Tao Fellowship paperwork again. This time I found his given name listed as one of the directors starting in 2000, so now I understand why you wrote that (this conversation would have been simpler if you'd just told me that it was there in the Tao Fellowship record and that I should look again -- I had to conclude that you were trying to construct a link from the Dahn Meditation Church to Tao Fellowship...) I've edited the phrasing to match what the source says. Thanks. Forestgarden (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I had told you where to find the record showing SHL as a director, and you even replied to me; look back, above. And then, you put in the url for the actual record page. Also, above, you can see that I had linked you to the tradename page to show you that the SIMC is a tradename of the Tao Fellowship. Later I saw that I had the wrong url in the ref, though, and corrected it after you brought it to my attention. I ref'ed the Sedona Live article to show that the public record is not the only place that you can find Ilchi Lee identified as a board member of Tao Fellowship. You're right that it looks like a ref for the property purchase, so I'll move that. It is a simple fact, not an accusation and I can't think of why it would be contentious that the Tao Fellowship bought majectic property in Sedona for the Tao Fellowship/SIMC. If you doubt the purchase of the land by Tao Fellowship you could search property records yourself. It's public info. available online. I used the Now Toronto article as a ref to show a non-primary source for the existence of the Tao Fellowship as a non-profit religious organization. Since it is already a substantiated fact by public record, the Now Toronto mention of it is therefore fact, and not a primary source.

RE: Sedona and the term vortex versus vortice, I think you're incorrect. The term "scientific legitimacy" may be as close as we could ever get to the term "fact." And if it's not a fact, then it needs a modifier to show that. I think you're right to want to put their claim about vortexes in the context of a wider popular belief (one of your refs called it "fabled"; that would work); the article isn't about vortexes. I don't object to how it is worded now, but I suggest taking out the "properly called vortices" thing. Read the dictionary definition of vortex/vortices. Here is one: [11], and this article [12].

RE: your saying: "I don't think coincidence of same name is enough for reliable sourcing in a BLP" if you're talking about the SunLee Park name, I never intended to put that into the article - it would be "original research" and could be coincidence (that's why I said it was the same name, not nec. the same person).

I feel that that you are taking a lot of your own time, and my time, to make sure that what I have contributed is technically correct with wiki policies, and I can appreciate that. Let's get it right. But, I hope you put that same effort into the content contributed by Ilchi Lee's followers here. I see a lot of self-published content and refs to what looks like feature stories that have made it into Korean newspapers. Typically these types of stories are based on self-reported information and are typically requested by a person or company for PR purposes. They are not typically fact-checked. E.g. if SK company is mentioned, then so should the more objective expert opinion of Dr. Woo too - that SK eventually quit working with Dahn and developed their own program because Dahn introduced Dangun worship into the program. I think a general encyclopedia would either not have an entry for Ilchi Lee at all, or just a short one with main points of interest and controversy while this article will get longer and longer. I look forward to seeing you examine the Dahn contributions as carefully as you are mine. --Timelyheart (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tao Fellowship: I had indeed replied to you, asking "Which annual report link are you referencing in your first sentence?" but didn't get an answer. As I said above, I missed seeing Lee on the TF directors' list the first time I looked through the TF documents. I saw the SIMC tradename document the first time, and was merely thanking you for adding it to the article in the appropriate place. Thank you for moving the Mago Castle article reference -- as a limited source showing him as a board member, it seems fine. I was confused by your reference placement suggesting that the property described in that piece was related to SIMC in any way. Or is that what you wanted it to say? I don't see any contention about TF buying the Mago Castle property, or operating SIMC, or Lee being on the board of directors for TF; I was calling attention to your use of statements not supported by your references. I've replaced the Now Toronto ref with a different one that is more reliable source for your statement that Tao Fellowship is a non-profit religious org (a fact-checked article is more reliable than an opinion piece, which would strictly only allow you to say that the author was of the opinion that <...> rather than directly supporting <...> as a "fact").
• Vortex stuff: I agree about "properly called vortices" being unneccesary (I was trying to work with your addition) so I deleted it. I also rearranged the sentence to focus it more on SIMC than on vortexes or Sedona.
• I'd been keeping an eye on this article due to its relationship with the dahn yoga article I'd edited a while back. It seemed of an appropriate length relative to his notability, and I didn't start editing until its size and editing frequency exploded recently. It's not entirely accurate to describe the other steady editors' contributions as "Dahn contributions", although it seems clear that they are in favor of the subject, you are opposed, and I am somewhere in the middle. None of this should really matter in our edits. The point is to create an appropriate article, not air our own beliefs about the subject. As discussed last week, the article is getting a little out of hand in relationship to his notability. Let's start a new thread to discuss this.
• As for the Korean articles, I'm curious what makes you see them as "feature stories" of dubious reliability? Can you read Korean? In the cases where Korean references back up Lee's words, I am in favor (Wiki policies say that foreign-language sources should be used only when English ones are not available, or are not adequate by themselves.) When used as the sole support for material that turns out to be contentious, non-English sources are on thinner ice. I didn't read Woo's paper thoroughly, so I must have missed where he (she?) discussed SK. Can you give a page ref to help me out? Let's see what the contentious information is (conflicting information, I should say) and go from there. Regarding your comment on "self-published content," the biography guidelines say that's fine, unless the material is contentious. So, wherever there is reasonable contention about a statement only referenced with one of his books, just note it and we can resolve them (if there are any left after the flurry of editing this week) one by one. Forestgarden (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "training seminars, workshops and children's camps" reference seems to be a slightly simplified version of [this article]. I replaced the reference source, since your previous source doesn't actually say anything about seminars, workshops, or camps (our old friend original research) but you might consider changing the wording to avoid the accidental plagiarism. Forestgarden (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing that link. You're right - but that wasn't a case of "original research," it was a simple error. Also, copying nearly verbatim a short statement of fact, especially sourced (thanks to your correcting my error) would doubtfully be regarded as "plagiarism."

The information on SK by Woo, I recommend using the search function on Dahn World or SK. It's a footnote, if I remember correctly. While you're looking for that, I'd appreciate if you could let me know where Nicola's addition that Dahn practitioners deny being a religion can be found in the Woo ref. I couldn't find that - although I think what Nicola wrote is probably true. It illustrates the contradiction in how Dahn Hak or Dahn Yoga can be perceived by participants.

Since you mention the topic of including the actual words used in a source without attribution, it looks to me like the detailed outline description of BEST is a large block of material taken verbatim from published material. Maybe it just needs quotation marks, but you raised the issue before of including a large block of quoted material.

I do see your point about not needing to scrutinize foreign or self-published material unless controversial, but I think that the high level of detail and praise in the article, especially as it increases, and especially in light of the controversies (whether allowed to be included or not by wiki), could be seen as self-serving. It would be much more neutral and informative to read a historical perspective on the nature and development of Lee's training methods and changes in his marketing approaches rather than a verbatim block quote description from Lee's own material.

RE: Korean sources, that's part of my point; many people don't read Korean. Since it's in Korean, there is no way we can know if they are feature stories/PR piece or a fact-checked type of news article. My point about self-serving and non-neutral POV applies to this point. The reason I personally think they might be feature stories is because of the content that they reference, which sounds to me like PR. The other problem is the possibility that a lot of counterbalancing controversial information has also been published by legitimate sources in Korean that likely won't be provided by those contributing from an advocacy viewpoint. (Sorry this discussion deviated from your header)--Timelyheart (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed reply.

Nicola Cola probably was paraphrasing from the quote you'd provided originally, which I remember as having somethign about Dahn in Korea denying any connection to the religion that also uses the same ancient verses (Taejonggyo). I'd have to check the exact reference for that. The text currently in the wiki article just says that practitioners deny any connection to Taejonggyo.

About Korean references, I understand what you say, but I wonder about a few things. Wiki policies say that non-English sources are ok to use in specific circumstances. You seem concerned that the sources used in the article at the moment are only used to support statements that are supportive or neutral about the subject of the article, and not the critical statements. I'm not sure we could reach an equal balance of Korean sources, since I don't read Korean and I'm guessing you don't either. Seems like a good situation in which to remember to assume good faith from Itshappyday, especially since he or she has been editing the article in helpful ways for a while. Without being able to directly read those sources, we have to trust that they do say what they're sourced as saying, unless there's a particular reason to doubt. Remember also that a perfectly legit news piece (in any language) could easily contain a wide range of positive or negative statements, so your conclusion that all the Korean articles sourced here are excessively positive "PR" pieces, does seem a bit strong. As I said before, let's deal with specific points one by one if there are concerns about statements being contentious. Forestgarden (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem with delay; all was moving too fast anyway and taking a lot of time.

I think I put the wrong source for a stretch of content; ref'ed Woo instead of Baker; I am checking on it now (or maybe it got changed in some of the shuffling of content).

You're right that NicolaCola didn't quote as much verbatum as I thought. She did a good job of paraphrasing Lee's description. The subheaders are Lee's terms, though. [13]. Maybe they could be quoted, but I think what bothers me more is the emphasis on just the latest name (I added "Brain Respiration"); maybe it's the look of it that is making it seem self-serving to me (bulleted and more spaces than other content), similar to the criticism that my first edits garnered when I used quotes and bold and spaces, which I took out immediately. The history of his training methods lie in KoukSundo, I read, which would be interesting for wiki readers to know. Woo offers an interesting perspective; maybe Don Baker does too. I haven't gotten his book yet so I don't know all that he says. Dahn Hak has a history before Lee's use of the term, and he wasn't the only one to open a Dahn Hak center during the 80s (if I understand Woo right). Why did he go from Dahn Hak to Dahn Yoga, and Power Brain yoga, and Brain Respiration, and now BEST?

Good point to assume good faith re: the Korean articles, and the modifiers help too to show self-reported content. No, I don't think all the sources are positive only. I can see they aren't. In fact, I don't know why the critical Albuquerque article is used as a ref for how many centers have been opened.

I plan to soon add/change some content coming from Woo. I think the essence of her view is missing, that Dahn World is a very profitable spiritual products business, admittedly so, according to Woo. I will try to keep it concise with a neutral POV. I'm sure you'll let me know if it isn't :).

RE: Nicola's statement and ref: the source said they "downplay" the connection, not deny. I thought it sounded like a critical opinion, so I took it out. When I re-check the Baker material to fix my ref, I'll see if it's there.

Sorry no "brain" on the link I gave. They must rotate articles daily. Glad you found the other article interesting.

ISome other material that I read showed the Dangun statues project as very controversial in Korea, probably got a lot of news coverate (large public protests and statue vandalism). I want to add something about that. It was awhile ago, so just something very short with refs.

Thanks for your perspective.--Timelyheart (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's No Soabox policies

I discovered Wikipedia's guidelines [14]that address a concern I have raised about this article. An example of my concern is the "BEST" program content. This is a new term for Dahn, probably reflecting a new marketing approach based on a new general interest in "brain-based education." Certain claims by programs calling themselves brain-based education are controversial in itself, as shown here [15] and here, [16] which points out: "...some scientists "cautioned educators to resist the temptation to … use neuroscience as a propaganda tool to promote a pet program," and this: "a prominent psychologist and neuroscientist, warned that "these ideas are very easy to sell to the public, but it's too easy to take them beyond their actual basis in science" (Taher, p. 5)." In addition, as I said before, the BEST section is a large block quote taken directly from Dahn material. That section of content should be changed to non-SOAP.--Timelyheart (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TH, a little confused because the word "brain" isn't mentioned on the booklist (your first link), but I enjoyed reading that second article you linked and quoted from. You seem to feel strongly about removing most of the content from the Training Methods section -- how are you planning to cover this part of article content? An encyclopedic article on a person who has developed a bunch of training/education methods should have coverage of those methods, I'd think. Your personal opinions on the validity of said methods shouldn’t have much influence on whether this article covers them (it’s an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for opinions from either end of a spectrum). If there are reliable sources expressing the opinions you share, of course they can be worked in, and the material balanced to match the notability, etc. just as in the other parts of the article.

Since you keep saying the current text is "taken directly from Dahn material" I tracked down a copy of the “Principles of Brain Management” book listed as a source for the section, since it’s pretty recent and the title was most promising. I looked through it for a passage structured and phrased like what’s here, but had no luck finding one. Did you have a particular source in mind when you made your evaluation of the material? Without a specific reference to text that’s being inappropriately quoted, it would seem that the Training section text is an independent synopsis of the available material on Lee’s training methods. (I might also mention that it seems to be rather condensed relative to the published material available, and it’s currently our smallest section of the article.) Perhaps the original editor of this section could chime in – the article history says Nicola Cola added this material originally, and is luckily still around for us to ask about this. Forestgarden (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, sorry, I answered above, under the wrong header.--Timelyheart (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Timelyheart, I can see from your confusion about the terms BEST, Brain Education, Dahnhak, and Dahn Yoga that the training section needs to expanded to make the distinctions between these terms clear. They are not simply different terms for the same thing, as you seem to think. This distinction may also not be clear for Wiki visitors, so I will expand appropriately as resources will allow in order to clarify the matter. Also, you should remember that this section is about the training method, not about any affiliated organizations or businesses. Lastly, I find your continuous suggestion that I have somehow plagiarized the content of this section to be completely reprehensible. It is extraordinarily uncivil to make such a suggestion without any tangible proof of such a thing. I challenge you to find a single sentence that I have added that was not properly paraphrased. This on top of your unwarranted deletion of properly sourced additions I made to the article show your unwillingness to behave in a civil manner with other editors with whom your opinions differ. Please follow Wikipedia policy.Nicola Cola (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my answer to Forestgarden before accusing me of accusing you? Let's both be civil and not assume mal intent. I said you did a good job of paraphrasing (especially with the esoteric names Lee came up with for each step), and that I came to realize that just the step's names are verbatum. Should they be in quotation marks to show that they are his invention? I have other issues with that section that I have offered up for discussion. What did I remove that you had written? --Timelyheart (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You did suggest very clearly that I copied it from the source, apparently without checking the source. It is very wrong to make such a statement (which you made several times) without evidence. It was a very unfair attempt to harm my reputation as an editor. What did you delete? The entire controversy section so you could rewrite it yourself! (I know some good brain-training methods to help you with your memory problem, by the way. ;)) If you had information to add, you should have worked with the existing material, unless there were some justifiable reason to delete it. Now, you are apparently working up to deleting the training methods section since it does not fit your agenda. It did not come from a PR source, and it does not "soapbox" anything. It is a very simple (too brief really) explanation of the thing Lee is most famous for--his training methods. I have never deleted any of your edits simply because they do not suit my point of view. I wish you would extend the same couresy.Nicola Cola (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "entire controversy section" that you keep harping on my deleting consisted of just this:

"Ilchi Lee was named in a wrongful death lawsuit filed after the death of Julia Siverls, a 41-year-old Dahn yoga practitioner who was seeking to attain master-level instructor status.[6] News reports suggest that lack of access to water during a strenuous hike may have led to the woman's death.[6] The case precipitated a number of television and print media reports alleging the cult-like nature of Dahn yoga, a practice founded by Lee.[19]"

I've already tried to explain to you that I wanted to integrate what you had written with my own additions for better flow and that the overall meaning remained (and some of your wording). There are a lot of wiki policies to learn, but wiki also seems to urge editors and contributors to be "bold" and join a collaborative effort. I can put your exact wording back, and I can work around it, adding to it, if you feel a strong need to have your exact wording back in there. Do you want me to put it back? I think we'll never agree on how much controversy should be included relative to his notability because we see it differently. I see even more controversies than those mentioned. In fact, as I said earlier, the whole brain-based education trend comes with some controversy when it's combined with ideas of "ki" energy while deviating from mainstream science.

I already admitted I was wrong about the training section being all verbatum, (do you know of a program that can teach forgiveness?), but I do still have issues with it. I still think that section gives an overall impression of an ad for his latest name, BEST, which is probably why I presumed (sorry!) that it was all verbatum. E.g. Where do "Shim Sung" and "Master Healer training" fit into his training programs, and finding your "true self"? I see Lee most notable for "Dahn Yoga" and "Dahn Hak" and maybe "Brain Respiration" or "Power Brain yoga," yet these words were left out of the training description. How do some of his training methods compare to what is known as "large group awareness" programs (which are sometimes controversial)? I think he's most notable as a charismatic spiritual leader with a following of masters, their Grand Master, who leads them on an urgent mission - at the same time being a successful businessman. How can that be integrated into describing the notability of Ilchi Lee? --Timelyheart (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgiveness is not the point; civil conduct is the point. I have nothing to forgive you for; your perspective is your perspective, and I have nothing against anything you have included when it is sources correctly and added properly. In fact, I am quite happy to see some of the sources that you have used that I didn't know existed. I will, however, continue to insist on civil behavior, which has nothing to do with me forgiving or you appoligizing for anything. I am bringing it up for a second time (twice is not "harping" by my definition) because you have made clear indication that you plan to do the same thing again by deleting the training section. This is obviously not what it means to be a "bold" editor and deleting to help create your own "flow" is completely contrary to the word "collaborative." I already have explained plans to expand the section as noted to make the other terminology clearer. I am limited to whatever has been written about in reliable sources, which I am not sure exist for some of the programs you mention. Frankly, I think decribing all the different aspects of the training will make it seem even more like PR copy, which is why I only included the basic BEST concept originally, but have it your way.Nicola Cola (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your use of bullets, bold, and numbers to highlight a list of esoteric terms coined by Lee is either inapproporate and should be removed or sets a precedence for other contributors to use similar methods to highlight their contributions.--Timelyheart (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bullets and numbers are very commonly used to indicate steps or components of things. (See yoga, tai chi, and 12-step program for examples.) If you know of some policy against their use, please reference that directly. I don't think there is anything about these elements that indicate some underlying personal or PR motivation, as you seem to suggest. If you have some stylistic concern about how these things are used in this particular case, then you should address that rather than jumping to the conclusion that the material is plagiarized or not neutral. So that you feel better about the content, I will remove the bold and bullet points, but the numbers definitely should stay for the sake of clarity.Nicola Cola (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vesatilizing?

OK, what is vesatilizing, as in Brain Vesatilizing? Is it a term unique to Lee's system or a typo? --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a term coined by Lee for the training system. Nicola Cola (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it was spelled wrong. Should be "versatilizing," as in "versatile," but it is not a standard word.Nicola Cola (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)