This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is a joke. It is completely filled up by members of the church and does not contain any mention of the various scandals that surround such sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.106.4.26 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been taken care of to the fullest extent. Any further edits are being closely monitored for their validity. V3ritas RidjalA (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article need the section of the Adultery commited by Eusebio Joaquin, in which himself had one son called Abel Joaquin Avelar with Guadalupe Avelar and a daugher called Marta Joaquin with Ramona Oliveres. The evidences that Abel Joaquin Avelar, indeed is the son of Eusebio Joaquin are found on youtube where member of his church uploaded videos of him and Eusebio Joaquin.

Just to mention, all the sources about the sect la luz del mundo are not against cristianity nor even against the sect actually, all the information posted is the reality of la luz del mundo, which was founded based on the anti-catholic Fanatism promoted by the government. there is no way to deny it, la luz del mundo is just the same kind of "church" like the one of Jim Jones , Jose Luis Miranda, Josmar Flores, Vissarion, etc, founders who always create a moustrous myth in order to create hysteria, in the case of la luz del mundo, it was among the poor people who indeed fell into the hands of a charlatan.

thanks for protecting this article, since it is not rare to find out that members of the sect modify, erase, oppress, hide the truth in order to beautify their cult.

in the case of some comments below that argue that in other wiki pages of other churches there is no section about controversies actually they are linked to another article not a section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

That's very funny seeing that sex scandals made about the Apostle of God Samuel Joaquin Flores were never proven and yet the sex scandals of the Catholic Church you may belong to, are all true. If you wish to have a religious discussion, post your email and I'll gladly answer all your questions. p.s. I'm 14 years old and I do feel the need to defend the Apostle of God because there are people out there are wrong in believing he's a charlatan.

A Wikipedia article does not disprove the charges against Samuel, nor convict anyone of any charges either. The 14 year old writing above gives a good example of the blind statements of faith which propel this cult. This organization is built on fantasy stories which exalt Samuel and Aaron Joaquin to Messianic status, and vocal prejudice against Catholics; not built on the Bible. Samuel Joaquin is very wealthy and has close connections to the corrupt government and court system in Mexico, that's the reason why he's never even stood trial for the crimes he has been accused of.

I have removed the "Controversy" section for the time being, until we can work out whether the sources are reliable. It is the burden of the editor who adds the sources to demonstrate that they are reliable by Wikipedia's criteria. Please leave comments here for now before engaging in another edit war. ... [|discospinster]] _talk 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello [User:discospinster]

The accusations that are being made are incorrect 1. they are "RUMORS" i apologize for the caps 2. another thing you might want to take a look at is that if you wiki any other religions you do not find any controversial tabs in those pages the person who continues to make these changes is doing them with what feel is hatred towards this religous group. and yet they continue to update the information placed on this article with mishaps it is a shame to see how someone would try to hurt so many because of their beliefs a church or any religous group purpose is to help those in need another thing this website isnt a current events putting every mishap that occurs to place it here as it if where the 5 O'clock news ... the person or persons who are doing this do it only to cause damage i dont know who they are or where they live but i do wish that they stop cutting and pasting information from diff websites without knowledge of who the church 'la luz del mundo'is if you like take a look at these other artilces and tell us what controvesial tabs you find in them you will see that you do not find any

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

these are just a few to mention...

as the person who is continously editing this article said, this is not a church website.it should not be biased. this church does have its websites where one can get to know the church more and if your interesed in more information the doors are always open to anyone who would like to know us better.. I am a member of the church la luz del mundo and it does feel ofensive to use a resourse such at wikipedia to spread rumors and fallacies over my beliefs or any other beliefs for that matter..

thank you for your time.

I have cut down the controversy section to hold only material sourced to reliable scholarly sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section has been restored with references. The references cite research which has been done on La Luz Del Mundo including: Field work on The Light of the World by different investigators (De la Torre, Becerra and Reyes, and Bernal). Personal interviews with former members of the elite group known as "unconditional". Interviews with former pastors and leaders of The Light of the World who have personally known Samuel Joaquin Flores for many years. Recorded video testimonials of former members of La Luz del Mundo. Magazines and literature published by the Iglesia La Luz del Mundo. Letters signed by Samuel Joaquin Flores directed his followers. Doctrine of La Luz del Mundo. Newspaper files of public statements by Samuel Joaquin Flores and various sectors of La Luz del Mundo. Personal conversations with members of the group practitioners. Audio cassettes with sermons by militant ministers. Videocassettes of worship and religious festivities inside the main temple in Colonia Hermosa Provincia de Guadalajara, Jalisco. Historical literature and chronicles the origins and development of The Light of the World produced interchangeably by dissidents and active members. Public statements by the organization on its key doctrinal tenets. An extensive photographic archive of the leader and the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhacky25 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the websites used in references and external links, www.sectas.org, does not appear to be a collection of "academic research articles" as stated here and on that website. It looks more like an Antireligion website put up to debunk various religions. If it were a collection of academic research, it would have more than just articles attacking aspects of the religions it covers. Also, if they are conducting verifiable academic research, where's their accreditation? I would say that that website is about as credible as a blog. Fail per WP:ELNO. Also, since many of these sources seem to be self-published, and refer to a living person, they might not be appropriate per WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

I'm not a fan nor a member of this church, but I think the controversy section looks like a bunch of conspiracy theories with lousy references. They might all be true, but better sources are needed in order to keep them here. – jaksmata 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.sectas.org is not focused on the elimination of religious groups that are interfering with there way of beliefs. Their entire mission is to bring awareness to the public of not just religious but any organization that is using mind-control practices to control large groups of people for their own agendas and are therefore not looking to sway anyone to their faith or beliefs. Just a desire to liberate those people who have found themselves under the control of any one person or any one group. Furthermore, their program for victims of cultic groups is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.45.254.11 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the recent edit removing the controversy section. Users should provide some rationale for removing such a large amount of content with cited sources. Jenrzzz (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the point in including the section about Mass suicide. As the section itself points out, it was a bogus charge to begin with. Last time I heard, Wikipedia isn't a place to post bogus charges about organizations even if it does state that they are unfounded. Deleting it would be my option since it is just taking up space. What encyclopedia type goal does it achieve? The only justification for it would be to add that the Church is targeted with baseless charges such as the mass suicide. So should it be deleted or edited as I stated?Fordx12 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with Wikipedia and encyclopedias, the Mass Suicide section serves a historical purpose. Although the charges turned out to be untrue, they were nonetheless part of a post-Heaven's Gate hysteria. If we follow your reasoning, then by the same standards we must also remove the O.J. Simpson case out of Wikipedia because he was found innocent of any wrongdoing (good luck with that one).

RidjalA (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jorge Erdely

I am going to add the following section in the controversy section. Please take a moment to read it and voice any concerns, add any changes, and discuss. If there is no objection, I will be adding these at some point in the near future. My justification for this is that it part of the controversy, controversy means that multiple sides are in conflict. La Luz Del Mundo does have a conflict with those that accuse it, and this pictures part of that conflict. La Luz Del Mundo is being accused of attacking one of its accusers via the media and legal proceedings.Fordx12 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jorge Erdely became known for accusations against the Church in the Mexican media and publishing research on the subjects of abuse in La Luz Del Mundo in the late 1990's.^[1] He is described as "the critic most despised by La Luz del Mundo and a former head of a small religious group" by an LA Times article. According to the same article, La Luz Del Mundo has accused Dr. Erdely of attacking minority churches to sell books. ^[2] Erdely has been identified as a directer of a church, La Iglesia Christiana Restaurada (also known as "Los Perfectos", which was involved in an international ring of kidnappings of children who were placed in shelters known as "Casitas."^[3] A former pastor of the Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada claims that Erdely was a "Spiritual dictator" and that he manipulated the church and prohibited the reading of news papers or watching the news.^[4]. Lydia Cacho in her book "Esclavas Del Poder" said that Erdely illegally gave up Latin American and Asian children who were rescued to couples of his church.^[5] Recently, Dr. Jorge Erdely has accused La Luz Del Mundo of working with another church and the Mexican government to discredit him as revenge for his attacks on those churches.^[4] Jorge Erdely asserts that he was never a member of that church nor did he start any religious movement. He also said in an interview that he considers "denominationalism" the cause of many problems in Mexico. He also pointed out that the Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada denies his involvement.^[4]. The Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada has also indicated that many families are filling for asylum in the European in light of losing their registration as a religious association in 2010.^[6]

I would reject this addition, and I'm pretty sure most editors would too, on grounds that although Jorge Erderly may be a nuisance to the faithful of lldm, he still isn't significant enough of an entity to warrant the spotlight on wikipedia. RidjalA (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012

I do believe that his significance does warrant mention, given that the majority of the information in the controversy section is a result of his actions. He is responsible for the "fraudulent" accusations of suicide, his research his cited for the "Founder's" alleged exploitation of underaged women, his research is also cited, and the source of, rape accusations in the 1990's. His research is also the source of information in the Belief and Practices section regarding LLDM's nontrinitarianism and was sourced, if I remember correctly, on an other item or two in that section. Lot's of more information in the Spanish wiki is a result of Erdely and he seems to feel important enough to La Luz Del Mundo that he accuses the church of fabricating rumors and inciting legal proceedings against him for his actions. Take him out of the equation and the only stuff left in the controversy section are sections on the Silver Wolf Animal Refuge and possibly the 2004 rape accusations. Secondary sources (LA Times, Elio Masferrer K., La Jornada etc) seem to feel that he is significant enough.

I request further discussion please, so that we can arrive at a consensus. All editors are welcomed Fordx12 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very short on time but I remember reading something like that in Sanjuana Martínez's book "Se venden niños." There is also a blog dedicated to reporting about “Los Perfectos.” I suggest you look into both of these. However I would like to bring into attention his formal education. He supposedly received a Ph.D in theology from Newport University, and then was a fellow at Oxford University through the graduate theological foundation. Both, Newport University and the Graduate Theological Foundation (GTF) are very suspicious distance learning institutions that have been accused of being diploma mills. Newport is now called Janus, and is unaccredited in Mexico (http://ses2.sep.gob.mx/dg/dges/rvoe/avisos/av2.pdf). At one point the GTF sought accreditation from Accrediting Commission International. In Martínez's book, one of the individuals interviewed states that Erdely received an online degree. I believe that by looking into his education we can make an assessment on the reliability of his research Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the only objection is an issue of notability. According to WP:NNC this isn't an issue for information found within an article. However, various prominent Mexican news sources speak about Erdely in relation to the information in the proposed subsection. Lydia Cacho, prominent journalist/feminist in Mexico, makes mention of him in her book (cited above). A prominent journalist in Mexico wrote extensively about him in a book detailing the kidnapping ring that he is implicated in (and makes references to La Luz Del Mundo and it's relationship to Erdely, that's Sanjuana Martinez's book. An excerpt can be found here http://www.m-x.com.mx/xml/pdf/177/30.pdf. As stated in the proposed subsection (cited), Erdely accuses LDM of causing these accusations. Each news paper that deals with him mentions LDM to some capacity. Elio Masferrer K (cited in the proposed subsection) mentions him as the guy who started the 1996/7 accusations and goes into detail on his dealings with LDM making him significant (Especially since he is used extensively as a source for the controversy section). Both US newspapers cited in this wiki article mention Erdely in their discussion about LDM.

Right now it seems that out of three editors who have spoken about this subject, only one disagrees on the grounds of notability or significance. It seems that the secondary sources (And at least two US journalists, and a few Mexican Journalists) disagree with the opinion that Erdely is not significant/notable enough. With the information one can make an independent wiki article on him and mention LDM in it to a great extent. If The anonymous woman who claims that her police files went missing, a woman who claims to have had relations with the "founder," are significant enough to mention (When they are absent in all other sources independent of La Revista Academica cited in this wiki), then so is Erdely.

Spanish Wiki for info on Sanjuana Martinez http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjuana_Mart%C3%ADnez Fordx12 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of notability, I believe Jorge Erdely has played a central role in the history of LLDM in the past two decades, in fact, he can even be considered the main antagonist of the story. It was him who began the accusations against LLDM and its leader 1997, by publicly accusing LLDM of being a destructive cult with the potential to commit collective suicide. In the words of Renée de la Torre, "this event unleashed a controversy brought into the public arena through desplegados (flyers, newspaper ads?) and statements/declarations made ​​in various news media, in which at least three positions were expressed: members and supporters of LLDM who defended the integrity of the religious movement, intellectuals and academics who demanded a climate of tolerance for religious minorities, and two non-governmental organizations (el Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos and el Instituto Cristiano de México) whose leaders [Hugo Elizalde and Jorge Erdely, respectively] reaffirmed and supported accusations against the Light of the World." Elio Masferrer also makes a similar statement. Erdely is currently an editor for Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, which has been responsible for publishing most of the accusations against LLDM. It is worth mentioning that both Jorge Erdely and César Mascareñas (both editors for the Revista Académica) have been involved with the Las Casitas del Sur incident (César Mascareñas was even arrested^[7][8]). In my opinion, this says a lot about the Revista Académica and casts doubt on its credibility. Additionaly, I have already mentioned how his PhD has little merit as it was apparently obtained through a questionable, unaccredited distance learning institution. Furthermore, when the first volume of the Revista Académica (the one on LLDM) was published, Erdely was still pursuing his Theology degree as indicated at the end of the first chapter. As far as I know, Newport University never offered any theology degrees, so Erdely's PhD might as well be a sham. Therefore, I propose that references to Erdely and the Revista Académica as sources be removed, and instead be included only for their historical purpose. Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an on-going edit war with regards to the "Controversy" section. One editor removes it, and another puts it back, ad infinitum. I brought the discussion to the talk page, hoping to get some more information about source reliability and possibly some kind of consensus. I removed the section in the article for the duration of the discussion, but it was put back almost immediately. I have no ties to this church nor to any organization criticizing the church. I'm only interested in the reliability of the sources. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references cite research which has been done on La Luz Del Mundo including: Field work on The Light of the World by different investigators (De la Torre, Becerra and Reyes, and Bernal). Personal interviews with former members of the elite group known as "unconditional". Interviews with former pastors and leaders of The Light of the World who have personally known Samuel Joaquin Flores for many years. Recorded video testimonials of former members of La Luz del Mundo. Magazines and literature published by the Iglesia La Luz del Mundo. Letters signed by Samuel Joaquin Flores directed his followers. Doctrine of La Luz del Mundo. Newspaper files of public statements by Samuel Joaquin Flores and various sectors of La Luz del Mundo. Personal conversations with members of the group practitioners. Audio cassettes with sermons by militant ministers. Videocassettes of worship and religious festivities inside the main temple in Colonia Hermosa Provincia de Guadalajara, Jalisco. Historical literature and chronicles the origins and development of The Light of the World produced interchangeably by dissidents and active members. Public statements by the organization on its key doctrinal tenets. An extensive photographic archive of the leader and the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.45.254.11 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no ties with this church or with any group criticizing it. However, the editers removing this section are members and spokesmen for the church who appear to be removing the information for no reason except than to protect their own public image. At one point, the references in the controversy section were the only references in the whole article, and one editer removed the section saying it was "offensive." I am in the interest of keeping this article neutral, not biased either way. There should also be a section describing the enormous amount of work Samuel Joaquin Flores does for the poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhacky25 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only semi-reliable source among the references is LaJornada. The others are obvious anti-LLM websites. I think a controversy section is probably necessary, but it sshould be written in a neutral manner and based on reliable sources. That is not the case with the current article that seems very biased against the church. I think a possible way to proceed would to shave the article down to include only information that is sources to sources that are unanimously agreed to be reliable for the claims here on the talkpage. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section is no longer disputable, as it is fully backed by primary research (L.A. Times and San Antonio News among other sources). Any further editions must be done in that same manner; in other words, the only way section blanking can occur is if the section contains a wiki-editor's opinion, or if any claims are not backed by reliable sources. Otherwise, all further edits or blanking will be reverted. User:RidjalA 4:33, 15 April 2011

The section titled "Founder's exploitation of underage women" states that "Eusebio was later sued by two minors, Guadalupe Avelar and Ramona Olivares". However the source states that "was later sued by the mother of Guadalupe Avelar," and makes no mention of Ramona Olivares or Martha Joaquin Olivares.--Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else had written that section some time ago; I simply offered a source to back up their claim. Everyone outside LLDM knows that Eusebio (i.e. "Aaron") at some point exploited and raped some of his female followers. The article states it, and you can no longer disprove it. In fact, Aaron registering himself as the father of someone else's baby makes for quite a powerful statement! As the saying goes, "The guilty man is his own hangman". V3ritas User:RidjalA 5:16, 03 February 2012

I have been doing some research, finding actual scholarly data online is very hard when dealing with a small group. It seems that most articles that talk about this all have roots in the body of work compiled by "La Revista Academica" which according to my Mexican History professor, is not really known for its scholarly value. She wasn't fund of some of its comments regarding Islam after checking its website out. They don't seem to do much other than talk about Islam and this group.

There are many reasons why someone would register other children as their own, my own Grandmother did that. I would refrain from making leaps and taking one document (newspaper) or two as pointing to a particular fact. If this were so, then the Protocols of the elders of Zion would be considered factual as well as all the evidence that shows that Jews are evil monsters who control the world (which can be found in many newspapers and articles around the world during first half of the 20th century). I hope we both can agree that these racist arguments about Jews are no more factual than the Earth being flat. Anyway, I am just merely trying to offer my opinion after trying to find as much as I can online and reading it. Take it for what it is worth, one person's opinion Fordx12 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fordfox12/Ajaxfiore, it would be nice if your Mexican history professor can provide 2 things: 1) a reference to what exactly she is not fond of in regards to La Revista Academica's publication on Islam (was it because it explored potentially taboo topics like extremism and Islamic feminism?), 2)what exactly (in her opinion) would deem this publication 'non-academic'?

So the difference is that Eusebio registered himself as the child's father, and it is noteworthy that this occurred exactly during the culmination of the investigation of sexual abuse. Your grandmother, on the other hand, can claim you as her 'legal guardian', but she cannot register herself as your mother. There is a clear distinction because firstly, your grandmother did not register herself as anyone's birth mother, and secondly, I'm sure she was not being charged with rape (I pray to God she wasn't) during the time she claimed legal guardianship.

This is an excerpt from the article: "Aarón Joaquín, eventually recognized the infant and registered him as his own son". I don't make any 'leaps' when I say Eusebio was illegally having sex with women other than his wife (specifically underage women). His admission of guilt for any wrongdoing is only compounded when he registered himself as the father. There are no false implications in what I just wrote, and if I make a mistake, however obvious it may be, I ensure to acknowledge it. But in this case, I made no leap.

Also, who says that a newspaper or two can't point to facts? You mean to say that you're against what academians use on a daily basis for their research?! So long as it's not a fictional tabloid, it's perfectly reliable. Keep in mind the painstaking work and oversight of researchers, writers, editors, senior producers, and other staff that goes into publishing every newspaper, journal, and book. In actuality you're confusing "bias" for "validity". Simply because a publisher focuses their work on taboo topics does not mean it is unreliable. As anthropologists, it is important to cover every aspect of their subject matter, regardless of how unacceptable their publication may sound to you or anybody else.

As for the Protocols of Elders of Zion, there's countless books that refute and prove the fraudulent nature of it. I do agree that ANY predisposed beliefs based on intolerance of others' race, religion, and beliefs, not just against Jews, but against all minorities, are false.

Now that we're on the topic of intolerance, this brings me nicely to my last point. It seems to me that you may be finding ways to discredit any claims made against the church founder because, frankly, I believe you to be a member of the church (which I frequently encounter on wiki lldm, but that's okay). This could potentially become a huge problem when you edit the controversy section because of the following:

The basis for your arguments against those updating and protecting the "Controversy" section becomes flawed because any argument that is contrary to members of lldm's beliefs is "intolerable" to you (to see what I'm referring to please read or google Genetic Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy ). Even the La Revista Academica is somehow distasteful to you. Thus your arguments become based on a discreet dislike of people who are not on your side of thought (just like Protocols of Elders of Zion was intolerant of Jews, you're now intolerant of scholars who want to give light to the personal lives of church leaders), and that becomes a catatlyst for you try to remove as much content from the controversy section (which is impossible by the way). Do you believe that Samuel Joaquin is the Apostle of God? ~V3ritas

User:RidjalA 2:28, 07 February 2012

I can't quite tell to who your comments are meant for specifically since you state both my username and someone else's. But anyway, I did not make my statements with the desire to edit the section in question. There is something you ought to know about Mexico during those times. People did not always register their children at times of their birth, at times it didn't happen until years after the fact. My parents got registered during their late childhood, and it was common for some in the area to register children who were not their's (Lack of DNA and Blood tests and the commonality of late registrations made this possible).

I was also not saying that newspapers can't be used as evidence for historical events, however historians tend to look at the greater context of articles. Given the hostile environment that non-Catholics faced at the time, any allegation against any entity that does not confirm to the Church's liking is bound to arise and become popularized (even if it is against the Catholic Church's wishes). My statements were made with the goal of reminding everyone that nothing in History is 100% sure, and that throwing words like "Facts" when there are only a few articles that I haven't read myself (if you have links to them on an online archive, that would be appreciated). Historians usually use more than just two articles formed under such circumstances, do they not?

And to answer your question, yes, I do believe that Samuel Joaquin is AN Apostle of God (for there have been several like him in the past). Which is why I asked about deleting one portion that I though should be deleted. I am ashamed of what others (who may be members of the church) have done and their conduct. But that goes to show you that within the church we are all different just like members of LDS (Mormons) church or any other church. And based on the hostile environment in the past that the church has faced, I question most sources from the past. For example: I have always thought that my church did not have a centralized administrative organization that would insure the cohesion that I see in other places (based on my experiences). You can imagine the shock I have received when I read that some think the church is too centralized (not true from where I am sitting, and those who have acted rudely in deleting portions of the controversy section serve as proof).

My suspicion of such sources is extended to the detractors of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I believe that those two groups have been and are victim to fallacious attacks as is LLDM. So no, I do not base my opinions on blind faith. I have been reading much online about the church (my church) for I do not wish to make edits that I can not back up. If I find a good source that counters anything in the controversy section, I'll post it here first (as I did when I asked about deleting one part of it in the past). One of the things about revista Academica is its insistence that there is a paramilitary group in the church. This is news to me, unless of course this is a fact that members would be oblivious to? It is no more real than the fictional brainwashing in the LDS church or in the Watchtower. So I do consider the Revista Academica to be suspect (and the LA times article that gets most of its information from it).

If you can read Spanish, I found a nice link that talks about various sociological points in relation to the church (http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=59805304) published by a university. I plan on eventually adding more on this article with the information from that source. If you feel that I should post that information here before editing in, I will do that. As for Apostle Aaron's situation, I was under the impression that the child was just merely adopted and that the allegations were false and inconsistent. However I did not mention that because I have no hands on proof that I can provide (Same goes for the whole section) therefore my hands are tied. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773794) another source if you can access JSTOR you'll see that it says that LLDM is trinitarian. This is false, we do not believe in Trinity. So even scholarly sources can be wrong about our beliefs. There are a few more things that I believe to be in error in that article, and things that are spot on. Forexample, women do go out preaching, usually the preaching groups are one male and one female per pair. That could be a difference in the pastor that is in Fortin and the one that is here (See what I mean by not being centralized?). While we don't have the most centralized administration (talking about ministers) we do have a centralized doctrine that doesn't undergo as much variation from congregation to congregation thanks to Apostle Samuel. But that is beyond the point.Fordx12 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HOW CAN THEY BE OPINIONS WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY FACTS BASED ON EVIDENCE, IF YOU JUST WANT TO HIDE THE TRUTH AND OPPRESS INFORMATION JUST TO BEAUTIFY THE CHURCH JUST SAY IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MXZeroSectasMX (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This case must be a case of shame for the members of this cult who like to promote" ... "However since they are private school, they are most likely to be businesses where actually the employees or teachers are the people that impart the education." Really? Or redue your points of view or you will be reverted. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to more than half of the work contained in the controversy section, I am the last person on wikipedia to want to 'beautify' lldm. As Tbhotch points out, you use phrases like "most likely", which is strictly speculative on your part. The wikipedia community appreciates your efforts, and I would encourage you to try editing again. But in order for your edits to have a bigger impact (and also to have your contributions protected by the wikipedia community) they must be neutral, sourced, and unspeculative. If you'd like, message me some links and maybe we can work together.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RidjalA (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INTERESTING RidjalA, YOU PUT THE SECTION OF HEAVEN'S GATE TO ASSIMILATE POSSIBLE MASS SUICIDE FROM LLDM MEMBERS WHICH COULD ACTUALLY BE SPECULATIVE. WHY IS THE SECTION ABOUT THE DRUG-DEALER ARRESTED? IT IS A QUITE WELL CONTROVERSY. BUT IT IS FINE, KEEP BEAUTIFYING THE CHURCH AND PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM ACKNOWLEDGING WELL STABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT THIS CHURCH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0MXZeroSectasMX0 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with your edits. I tried my best to help. User:RidjalA 1:59 , 21 April 2011

Information on La Luz del Mundo page is being oppressed by members of the church, the postings i have made have enough evidence and are in the controversy section. the controversy section in the past has been vandalize by members of the church in order to prevent the public from acknowledging irrefutable evidence. Actually this the only page that oppresses information.

i request the privilege to edit since my editions are in the controversy section and are posted with enough evidence to support them

0MXZeroSectasMX0 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for several reasons, including the fact that you are blocked, and edits by sockpuppet accounts of blocked users are not permitted. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the section to avoid deletion, all claims made must be backed by publications that state that it is controversial (being that this section is in the controversy section). Again, THE CITATIONS *must state or imply* that it is controversial. Simply citing a lldm website where it refers to SJF as an apostle does not necessarily suffice to deem the information "controversial". Doing so may violate wiki original research guidelines since it would be advancing a position not advanced in the sources. Please refer to WP:NOR RidjalA (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for regarding the information in this section. Each of the three links used as sources do not work and I can't find the sources. Perhaps this should be moved into the "doctrine" section since this deals with beliefs? I mention this because I found the church's webpage that lists some of their beliefs. Fordx12 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add edit tags. Anyway, like I said, there doesn't seem to be any source cited for this section that I can find. So perhaps it would be best to delete the source and move the information into the belief section? I could look for new references/sources as well. Fordx12 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. You could delete it if you'd like, that section does violate original research guidelines, and no one has done anything to update it since May 2011. RidjalA (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} There was a section where about Samuel Joaquin being considered the Angel of Apocalypse 10:1-2, i believe the section was rejected and turn into a discussion, i believe there is no need to suppress the fact, or put is into the "Status of Samuel Joaquin in the group" is should be put in the controversy section,

The official LLDM site states: Hace 50 años, estando el Apóstol de Jesucristo pastoreando la Iglesia de Veracruz, se soñó leyendo el libro de Apocalipsis 10, versículos 1 y 2. En aquel sueño-visión escuchó la inconfundible voz de Dios que le decía: “Ése ángel eres tú”.

50 years ago, the apostle of Jesus Christ pastoring the church of Veracruz, He dreamed reading the book of Apocalypse 10, verses 1 and 2. In that dream-vision he listen the unmistakable voice of GOD that told him : "That Angel is you"

"being" in spanish "estando" refers to Samuel Joaquin but he is stated "the apostle of Jesus Christ" as present, having or doing something in the past without explicitly 50 ago being known as "the apostle of Jesus Christ" since being can be translated as ESTANDO or SIENDO,

here is the link: http://www.lldm.org/2007/pagina.php?id=365

IKKSMX (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking to be changed, or why; This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it - please can you be specific, and re-request? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should change the religious orientation of this church. It has many unorthodox beliefs, such as the concept of "the election", worship of their leader, architecture with pagan influences/symbolism, and many other doctrines that mainstream Christians would find heretical. It is also nontrinitarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laverdaderaluzdelmundo (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources can you cite to back these claims up? —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sectas.org/Articulos/luzdelmundo/laluz.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laverdaderaluzdelmundo (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is "reliable" sources. The sources that the article sites are not exactly easy to find, minus references to the hymn book. Everything else has a generic "La Luz Del Mundo" citation. Is it a magazine? A book? A documentary? An interview? A recording? A newspaper? A pamphlet? A textbook? An anthology? If that is valid, give me a few months and I'll have a ton of sources that will back up anything that I say. But of course I can't do that because I actually look for real reliable sources. Fordx12 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reservations that I have about Revista Academica which is sourced here in this wiki. Most of the information in the controversy section can be validated by other sources. However, within the articles of Revista Academica there are some assertions that are unsupported by other scholarly works cited in this article which include Fortuney, De La Torre, Hugo, and Biglieri. These assertions include the claims about a group called "Unconditionals." Many of the material that they get their information not shared by other scholars are from their own research which has not been collaborated with any other group, as far as I know, outside of the Revista Academica.

Then there are unproven allegations of political allegiance between the PRI and the church which have not been elaborated upon. Why a secular potical party of liberals will side with a "fundamentalist" church that allegedly only has around 60,000 members (According to Revista Academica there is only under 100,000 members) in Mexico when there are alternative groups available (Like the Mormon church with around one million members) is unexplained as well.

The only group that bears the name "Unconditionals" are a subsection of missionaries that agree to be married via lottery. That is that both men and women volunteer to do missionary work and thus enter their names into a lottery of sorts to be married off to whomever's name is pulled from the lottery. This also includes being sent anywhere in the world. Conditional missionaries marry on their own and set limits as to where they may be sent to carry out missionary work. Other studies of the church, as reference here, lack the presence of these "Unconditionals" and they only seem to exist within the Revista Academica's world and their "ex-LLDM" interviewees who are barely mentioned by other scholars.

Much of the information in Revista Academica about sex abuse relies on the existence of this group (If it were so secret, they wouldn't be listed in their public publications). This brings to question the authenticity and reliability of this source. But then again, wikipedia doesn't seem too concerned about authenticity when it can't even verify if La Luz Del Mundo is Trinitarian. I say this because I added two scholarly sources that contradict each other (reliable sources at that) about whether or not La Luz Del Mundo is trinitarian. The source that states that La Luz Del Mundo is trinitarian cites the Revista Academica as its source. Both scholars cited, Wyatt and Nutini, contradict the Revista and thecenters.org.

The truth about Christiology in La Luz Del Mundo? While I don't have a source right now, we are not Trinitarian, nor do we beleive part of Jesus is God. We believe that Jesus Christ was the sun of God, inside of him was God himself. We believe that divinity attributed to him is a byproduct of God being within Jesus Christ and God's command (found in Hebrews chapter 1 as well as other locations) that Jesus is to be worshiped. We do not comment on Jesus Christ pre-baptism since we consider that to be his private life. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes from? Anyway, either Revista Academica is right or wrong, and since none of the three sources seem to agree with each other, that begs the question. How reliable is this wiki at all if it can't select reliable sources from the get go?

I am not asking to get rid of controversial information. Independent sources are cited for the Silver Wolf Ranch, that's safe until a new source comes up. Independent scholars cite the Guadalupe Avelar thing (just not the conspiracy theory that the Revista Academica has). Other sources cite the controversy with the current Apostle, once again they don't cite the conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories to be posted as fact either, and sources that talk of them should be dealt with suspicion.

Last I checked, encyclopedias don't really go through these pains to list in detail the alleged (never convicted) evils of a religious group, wait...it's not the religious group in the case of the revista's conspiracy theories, just the two Apostles...is this an article about the Apostles or the church? Is it about their lives or the beliefs of the church? I request an edit to audit these claims from the "Conspiracy R Us" source.Fordx12 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publications are never perfect. If they were, then there wouldn't be the need for "2nd Editions" and "3rd Editions" for books and articles. But when the new editions are introduced, it's usually in the order of a handful of minor details that changes are made, but entire theses will still stand untouched.

There is no perfect book (unless you're religious, then I'm sure you think your own book respective to your religion is perfect), and what you're trying to do is discredit Revista Academica entirely for its minor imperfections (this is called 'the unnattainable perfection' fallacy for discrediting arguments, fyi).

You're trying to bring down the entire house with a minor detail. Simply put, whether or not La Luz Del Mundo is Trinitarian (the minor detail) does not suffice to discredit that the church founder exploited underage women (the major detail).

As far as I know, Revista Academica never published a revised second edition. If you feel there were minor errors made by Revista Academica, then simply provide reliable sources to backup your claim.

Whatever information contained in wikipedia that does not go unchallanged by an unbiased source will still stand as true.

And yes, even the most respected historians painstakingly go through years of work to expose all the details of any wrongdoings committed by establishments and their leaders(consider Howard Zinn, possibly America's best historian, (scroll down and read chapter 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States)) RidjalA (talk 011:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide sources to back up my claims....Oh well, fair enough, but I think you failed to see what I was asking. What I am really asking for is that we take other sources, like Fortuney's or a source I am currently reading, to weigh any future additions to the article that use Revista Academica as a source. That's what I mean by "Audit." The claim that the church is following Nestorius' view of Jesus comes from the Revista Acadmecia, I want that claim to be revised in light of other sources with preference to Wyatt's description.

The source I am reading

http://books.google.com/books?id=uO6rawFQbtgC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=iglesia+la+luz+del+mundo&source=bl&ots=JcPThazZgB&sig=4DEfcfxpYSE38eq-1VFZURRc6zg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EkA-UN_sM4bs0gH7hYGIDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=iglesia%20la%20luz%20del%20mundo&f=false It is your responsibility to actually read the cited information before deciding whether or not I got it from the source or some how (as an evil plot) made it up and decided to undo any of my future edits and claim that the information is not found in the source.

Like I said, I do not want do away with the controversy section. Just make it look more like the controversy section of other articles (I would like for it to go away, but that's not my intention). But I can't do that if you delete my nearly plagiarized additions that I take from cited sources. I practically copied the words verbatim because I knew someone would want to delete the extra information, looks like I was right. By the way, this isn't a history book, it is an encyclopedia. I looked at two real encyclopedias that deal with religion, no controversy sections! But it does give further readings that do talk about some of that information. Fordx12 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 24 hours since I posted my response and I feel the need to further add to this. Considering that the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons requires an article to treat said person as innocent until proven guilty, it is necessary to take the following seriously. The Revista Academica's editor, one of the major editors, is Jorge Erdely who according to the Mexican media is linked to cases of children who have vanished.http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/587735.html The book "Esclavas del Poder" by Lydia Cacho found in this link confirms the news report further stating that he would kidnap rescued children and have them illegally adopted to families of his group.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hTRReYtjeZkC&pg=PT320&lpg=PT320&dq=jorge+erdely&source=bl&ots=vrLcHjtpza&sig=CxlU15c0pO2cnA8og3ob0XhydO4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fBVAUIDgC4Tc0QHjy4DICg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=jorge%20erdely&f=false

According to the news article, he fled the country after picking several fights with the church of this article. According to the LAtimes at http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/3 reports that Erdely was accused by the church of the practice of attacking minority churches to sell books. The news article mentions how he was called a "Spiritual dictator" and even went On page 158 of this source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KawyNmfSh-gC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=jorge+erdely&source=bl&ots=FiKuB85Gtb&sig=sRvLeJQBH2AYuD9-ns6ZRwDXZ30&hl=en&sa=X&ei=URVAUNXNG7K-0QGe9YDoDA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=jorge%20erdely&f=false

We see that Erdely began the accusations that resulted from the Heavens Gates hysteria mentioned in this wiki article in the controversy section under "Mass Suicide" which is not given the neutral name of "Accusations of Mass Suicide." Neutral names are absent in that section all together as well as opposing points of view (I added some and they were promptly deleted). Anyway, this other news article mentions that attacks Erdely has also made on other groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and how the things that he preached did not agree with the actions of his own religious group. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/02/18/opinion/021a2polThe Jornada article (The Jornada is a major newspaper in Mexico) mentions how he became famous for insisting that La Luz Del Mundo would commit acts of suicide, once again debunked. This link has a source that adds very similar charges including domestic violence and child abuse http://losperfectos.jimdo.com/archivo/opini%C3%B3n/jorge-erdely-el-jefe/

As I mentioned above, the Revista Academica levies charges against La Luz Del Mundo that no other scholarly work repeats. It's information that it provides via original research is not repeated either. The accusations of sexual abuse are based on the existence of an elite group of enforcers that the Revista Academica calls "Incondicionales" which are not repeated by any source linked in this talk page or in the wikipedia page (In at least one paper while giving an overview of the 1997 heaven's gates fiasco that led to the accusations, one researcher does reference the Revista Academica). The language in all the essays not made by outside scholars in the Revista Academica is unilaterally biased consitently claiming that La Luz Del Mundo is a distructive sect. The word Sect in Mexico is a word that is used for "second class religions" a word rarely used in several of Fortuney's and De La Torre's papers (Key researchers of La Luz Del Mundo). It's offensive nature is confirmed and mentioned in this source on page 33 where it describes how members face discrimination:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAmdggo3hh4C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=la+luz+del+mundo+borders&source=bl&ots=UPD2G4nmSD&sig=I6h-yQ7-4vXLXtqOIiR9XTqGJg4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nh5AULXEH6W10QG9v4DoDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sect&f=false

Other accusations include the paramilitary training of members as well as being the brain child of the PRI party in Mexico. The source that I mentioned by Jason H Dormay, linked in my first response to RidjalA, does not provide any support to their historical claims outside of that of the Avelar case found in this wiki article under "Founders exploitation of underaged women" not that it isn't cited by others, just the accusations of organized human trafficing and abuse don't exist outside of the Revista Academica (Except for websites that use it as a source).

Jason H Dormay's paper http://books.google.com/books?id=uO6rawFQbtgC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=iglesia+la+luz+del+mundo&source=bl&ots=JcPThazZgB&sig=4DEfcfxpYSE38eq-1VFZURRc6zg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EkA-UN_sM4bs0gH7hYGIDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=iglesia%20la%20luz%20del%20mundo&f=false

In Dormay's paper on page 88 he shows that there was no other political party for La Luz Del Mundo to seek help from other than the PRI. In Paula Beglieri's paper found here http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=59805304 on page 420-421 she discusses how the PAN party (A Catholic party) was supportive of the Luz Del Mundo's activities even inviting a PAN reprasentative of the state of Nayarit. She also reports how in footnotes how church members upon interviews answered that they would vote for the PRI, PAN, and PRD.

These are at least two claims, that of incondicionales and the political issues, that Revista Academica fails at. Not to mention a few issues over what the members of the Luz Del Mundo believe as discussed in my first statements. In the Sectas.org a paper by Jorge Erdely near foot note 93 we see him attest to the suicidal tendencies of La Luz Del Mundo, once again a debunked myth. If this does not make Erdely and his Revista Academica unreliable and biased, then I seriously question Wiki's idea of what unbaised and unreliable is. Given the evidence, there is at least enough cause for concern. And here is my concern, that Wikipedia is inadvertently advertising a source that spreads hatred and provokes religious discrimination against men, women, and children that profess membership of the church.

The Spanish wiki version of this article contains twice the information from Erdely and most of it, I fear, produces religious hatred and is not neutral. Discrimination and religious hatred against La Luz Del Mundo, as well as groups attacked by Erdely like the Jehovah's Witnesses, is real. Jorge Rocha at one point called for the "Social lynching" of La Luz Del Mundo according to another Mexican News Service http://www.lajornadajalisco.com.mx/2012/02/10/el-correo-ilustrado-15/ near the bottom of the section about La Luz Del Mundo, the article even mentions the possibility of physical harm done men, women, and children. Another news service even reported violence RECENTLY against the member of the Luz Del Mundo. http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=299274 (Proceso is also another major news service in Mexico). La Jornada reported also how a hospital has refused to allow ministers of the church to attend to the spiritual needs of the church http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/09/05/estados/031n2est The LA Times article cited previously here and in the Luz Del Mundo article also mentions that several people in the US have attempted to prevent the church from getting a permit that would allow it to have services based on accusations against the church. Despite the fact that researchers like De La Torre affirmed that any problems would only be isolated to the church in Guadalajara (The Mexican city where the Church began). While I don't think the English version of the wiki has reached the point where it puts members of the church at risk in the US, I feel that it should be something to be aware of. The way to do this is to include ALL viewpoints, but that's another problem.

My attempt to add more viewpoints has been reverted even though I used information directly from the source. Read the last section of this talk page for details.

I ask for a third opinion on this matter. Should the Revista Academica be considered unreliable and should ALL view points be added to the controversy section as well as including information about the discrimination that members of La Luz Del Mundo face near or inside the controversy section?

EDIT: I would like to add the following quote from a recent interview with Jorge Erdely where he proclaims how he is agaisnt any denomination of any church which begs the question as to his ability to be neutral in his publications and research (he seems biased).

"Una lectura somera de mis textos, especialmente La explotación de la fe... marca mi postura teológica. No considero a las denominaciones intermediarias, sino intérpretes; (…) el denominacionalismo religioso en México contribuye más a la problemática social que a las soluciones, porque es parte de esa misma matriz cultural que reproduce una serie de vicios, sobre todo los de tipo monárquico, contra los cuales he hablado, investigado y escrito mucho." http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/166751.html

He says how denominations cause many problems in Mexico, effectively blaming organized religion. He deneis charges reported by other news cites including the one that interviewed him. However the Iglesia Cristiana Restuarada has been tied by the Mexican Government to Casitas de Sur and it's kidnapping issues, as well as Erdely.

(I am going to make the Thrid Opinion request, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion, in about 10 hours of this edit. I have tried to give enough time for response of these matters and attempted to reason properly.Fordx12 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rape accusation reversion

This edit done by RidjalA is based that on the belief that my edits are not found in the works cited, however I wish to see how this is so. How am I misrepresenting the material from the source if it is basically copied directly from the source? Here is the link to the edits in question

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=509701785&oldid=509701614

I present direct quotes from the cited sources, please compare them with the edits done by RidjalA and his claims.

"The Luz del Mundo controversy actually had its genesis in a Southern California event: When 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves in Rancho Santa Fe last spring, Mexican media set their sights on religious groups at home."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361

"Silva, the Luz spokesman, denied that Joaquin or the church had anything to do with the attack. He accused Padilla of orchestrating the assault to give credence to his previous charges."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/3

"In addition to the sex abuse charges, Arguelles said she fears the church's "totalitarian control of powerless people." She said she is especially concerned about vulnerable recent immigrants.

Ontario officials have been meeting with residents and researching La Luz del Mundo while considering the permit necessary to operate a church in a commercial zone. Local police have checked with other cities that have La Luz del Mundo churches, city spokesman George Urch said.

"We couldn't find any problems at all," he said.

"One thing is the church . . . another thing is the Hermosa Provincia, the center of power," said De la Torre, who has written a book about La Luz del Mundo.

She noted that even church dissidents in Los Angeles, who have accused Joaquin of creating a cult of personality, do not allege sexual abuse."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/2

"Applying sanctions to this man and his organization would open the door to sanctions against the Catholic clergy."

http://books.google.com/books?id=U6opyVE_IYkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Legal+Situation+of+Religious+Minorities+in+Mexico:The+Current+situation,+Problems,+and+Conflicts&source=bl&ots=TYV9WZ5_so&sig=MS2ygr-DRs7oHfb2VAxHrwWpjYs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lTg-UMT3BMbv0gG324DwCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mundo&f=false

Is it not the responsibility of the editor to check and confirm such accusations before using them to revert an edit? If a mistake was done here then please undo the reversion. Perhaps it would be best to get a third opinion to see this and have them make a decision as to whether or not reverting that one edit is justified. I stand corrected with the other revisions done to my edits, we all make mistakes.Fordx12 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The preamble first sentence you added seems unnecessary. On the other hand, the counter-accusation against Padilla by the church and the findings of Renee De La Torre are mentioned in the LA Times article. Personally, I would say it is fair to mention these facts in the 'Rape accusations' sub-section, though in a sentence each. For example "Church officials counter-accused Padilla of orchestrating the attack himself" and "It has been pointed out that the sex abuse allegations were not widespread, but focused only on the Joaquin and the Guadalajara church." Sionk (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Researchers" vs naming said researchers reversion

I would like to discuss this particular reversion. I am not sure as to what purpose stating "researcher's" versus naming them fulfills and what wiki policies are involved here. (I do need and would appreciate your assistance with Wiki policies). I would like to refer to this policy found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL

"The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote."

I am not sure why adding the names of the authors of the quoted text would be an "unwiki" thing to do that would require a reversion given this policy. It's just attributing a name to the voice.

I am not sure about this next policy though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL

"Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."

One of the examples given is "experts declare" which is the same as "researchers say/claim/assert." Since the article where the quote comes from is not claiming that scholars generally agree on that to be a fact, this becomes a unique discovery that ought to be attributed. Clarification here would be appreciated.

Help needed here: What other policies are involved here? What policies require the presence of direct contradiction from other sources to name the two authors?Fordx12 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title on Founder's section in controversy section

I would like to bring attention to this wiki policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BDP#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead

However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, 
particularly in the case of recent deaths, or list of suicides, is covered by this policy. Contentious 
or questionable material that affects living people or about the  recently dead should be treated in the 
same way as material about living people

There are still children of the "founder" alive. And as such this does impact living people. There are still other close relatives and friends alive of the "founder" of the church in question. Also, the information is still maintained. The issue is the title which treats exploitation.

There are also article title policies to consider such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NDESC

Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. 
(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, 
discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSHEAD article title policies apply to section and subsection titles. So based on Wiki policy, even if WP:BLP does not apply, article/section title policy does apply. Is this a fair assessment? Fordx12 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for your concerns in these matters.

So I think I mentioned previously that wiki:BLP does not apply to Eusebio per the following line:

Anyone born within the last 115 years ago is covered by this policy

Eusebio was born 116 years ago, so his history is fair game.

As for your other concern regarding the avoidance of non-neutral words, I'd like to clarify that upon you adding "accusations" to the subtitles on lldm wiki, you violate the same policy that you're stating: "accusations" is synonymous to "allegations", and thus violating the example. The titles have been in place for so long after having gone through extensive revisions from different parties in the past that at this point they're as neutral as possible; as we just proved it, making any further amendments would make it non-neutral. RidjalA (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is can change as time goes on (Refer to WP:CCC ) I have offered a new arguement since this is not an article title, but an article subsection title. The addition of "accusations" to the subtitles on lldm wiki does not violate the policy that I was stating. If you read the quoted section that is found in parenthesis "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations)" Please review Wiki policy more carefully. Using wiki guidelines, I am assuming ( WP:DGF ) that you missed that exception.

3O Response: Hi guys, I gather the dispute involves this title: "Founder's exploitation of underage women". This isn't correct and should read, for example, "Allegations of exploitation of underage women". This is a dispute with two sides: the exploitation either took place or didn't. The allegations should be described as such. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits done user fordx12 are up for immediate reversion, given that large portions of the sources that the user provided have been copied, pasted, and reorganized in some way or form onto wikipedia in violation of WP:NOR. For instance, the entire section in the "Women in La Luz Del Mundo" can be traced back verbatim to its source, even punctuation usage was carried over from the reference onto wikipedia.

"Their hair can be long enough to reach the waist or shorter (to about shoulder length)." (Wikipedia edit by fordx12, 18:15, 18 September 2012)
"Las mujeres de la Iglesia de La Luz del Mundo usan vestido hasta el tobillo, el cabello largo (el límite es hasta los hombros)." (Fortuny, 2001, p. 126)

When even the parentheses are used exactly as the reference, it's difficult to prove you're not plagiarizing. The rest of the paragraph follows:

"They wear a head covering when they are in their religious services, listening to religious topics, and when preaching to others. 
When involved in sports or at locations such as the beach, they do wear bathing suits and other normal attire for those activities (Wikipedia edit by fordx12, 18:15, 18 September 2012)
"Se cubren la cabeza con un velo o chalina durante los servicios religiosos o, inclusive, cuando escuchan o predican la palabra de
Dios fuera del templo...sin embargo, en sus vacaciones pueden usar trajes de baño, así como ropa de deportes cuando realizan 
ejercicio físico." (Fortuny, 2001, p. 126)

The rest of the section continues in that same pattern of translating and copying. Wikipedia articles must be written entirely in your own words, unless you're quoting someone; translated works are no exception. Lets take another random example of a fordx12 edit:

"... there are an estimated 70,000 members of La Luz Del Mundo with 140 congregations with a minister and 160 other congregations that
range from 13 to 80 members" (Wikipedia edit by fordx12,  03:11, 21 September 2012)
"... La Luz del Mundo posee una membresía de unos 70 mil fieles desde los 14 años, 140 congregaciones con ministro, 160 grupos que van
desde los 15 a 80 seguidores." (Alfaro, W., 2012)

Thus by inductive hypothesis, there is a strong likelihood that the rest of the edits done by the aforementioned user must violate WP:NOR. I would encourage you, fordx12, to try again. Only this time please ensure to review your work before you publish, or feel free to prepublish in the talk section. It will save you lots of trouble. 'Till then, good luck. RidjalA (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these issues. However, I could have done without the harsh accusative tone, inappropriate tags, and the assumption of bad faith editing. Editing Wikipedia is an ongoing process and I still consider myself to be a novice (which is another reason why I haven't branched out to other articles). While I do not agree with the last example, since facts can only be transmitted in a limited amount of ways (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When_there_are_a_limited_number_of_ways_to_say_the_same_thing ). This also goes for several instances. Also, I am very tempted at considering the tagging of most if not all of my recent edits for problems found in two areas to be a personal attack (defamation). Please consider editing the tone and nature of this contribution to the talk page immediately so that we may work together in editing problematic parts of the article that may be too closely paraphrased without any ill feelings. I'd hate to involve dispute resolution when this may simply be a misunderstanding.

My rational (done in good faith before learning of the close paraphrasing issue, of which I learned about today) for these edits was to avoid providing editorialized information not found in the sources used. Since I know more on the subject than I am typing I can at times accidentally add more than there is in the sources. These mistakes can happen, so paraphrasing is a good way to prevent them. Please review the wiki policy that I linked in my previous paragraph and assist me in correcting any issues. Fordx12 (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fordx12. There's one significant caveat to that rule, and it goes as follows:

"Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem."

There's no way around it, and it shouldn't be perceived as hostility on my behalf. On the contrary, I thought I'd explain the reasons for tagging your work so as to avoid misunderstandings. I know it's difficult to have to redo your hard work. But I was considerate of that and I tagged it instead of blatantly erasing it, that way it could be brought to the attention of the community.

In my opinion, your edits are pretty verbose and loaded with minutia. Keep in mind that this is all information that will require editing soon or will have to be deleted; to say that synthesizing it all in your own words will be daunting is no exaggeration. But I'll help in any way that I can.

I do appreciate our dialogue, and any disagreement that arises out of our discourse is merely a necessary process that is characteristic of progress. I look forward to continuing our collaboration, and in contributing our share of knowledge to lldm wiki.

RidjalA (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, perhaps it would be best to refer to my own talk page with such an issue without using words such as "plagiarism" and "you are" as they do tend to cause defensive responses. Plagiarism is a serious issue, and throwing it around does merit a very serious response. At that point we both could have agreed to post the call for assistance here and properly tag the problematic material without throwing any nasty legal terms like "plagiarizing," or causing suspicion, around. The violated policy tag isn't original research, there are other tags used to point out this specific situation (I replaced the OR tags with the paraphrasing tags).

As can be noticed by the edit history of the article, as of yesterday I have began rewording areas that you pointed out (minus the info in the demographics section and Architecture section. For those two sections, someone will have to point out the closely paraphrased material since I obviously did not notice any. The one example in the demographics section is limited since it is a regurgitation of facts. In other words, if you or anyone else know of another way of repeating cold factual information please feel free to edit it. Otherwise, I am unaware of any other way to reword it without removing the information itself (Facts can not be copyrighted, if they could, this website would simply not exist).Fordx12 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to address the problem of excessive close-paraphrasing, we are going to have to establish a close-paraphrasing threshold of no more than half of the content contained in wiki lldm.

Therefore at least half of the work must be written in our own words. I think that‘s being too generous, but its fair nonetheless. A heads up however, that rearranging words or replacing words still constitutes as close-paraphrasing/plagiarism since the content is still being copied and pasted from the source, with the exception of a few words here and there that are replaced or reorganized. If this issue is not addressed by the original editor (fordx12?) or anyone else, then the likelihood that anyone else will fix it is slim given the limited number of wiki editors. Effective 11/19/2012 (one month from today) I will start removing sentences until this threshold is met. Please review paraphrasing guidelines WP:PARAPHRASE for further details.

I would take it upon myself to help rewrite the content, but given the large volume of recently added information, that is a daunting task. So I leave that as the responsibility of the original editor, or anyone else willing to lend a hand. The most that I could do at this point is remove some of the weaker close-paraphrased sentences, and rewrite the remaining sentences so that they no longer appear to be plagiarized.

Cheers. RidjalA (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, another editor removed the tag. The issue of close paraphrasing is not a strict "not allowed" policy. Secondly, if there is close paraphrasing fix it. If you delete the whole section without providing all specific instances of close paraphrasing here or in user talk pages with reasonable forbearance, you will be reported. Thirdly, if you don't want to fix them, point the problematic sentences out, all of them, and someone else, such as myself, will work to fix them. Once you pointed them out and a reasonable time elapses, then you may feel free to delete the content if they were not addressed within Wiki guidelines. Lastly, you are not allowed to establish a threshold or any rules. Any further attempt to do so, or if you remove sentences on 11/19/2012 without previously pointing them out, you will be reported.Fordx12 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Fordx12. Ajaxfiore is a second opinion echoing your viewpoints and edits, and doesn’t constitute a third opinion to determine a neutral consensus in removing templates.

Close paraphrasing guidelines state that one should summarize content, and that is a basic responsibility of being a contributor. Unfortunately, in what you write I don’t see any summary of articles, except for extensive reiterations from the sources, almost verbatim. You have been contributing for quite some time now, so the "newbie" excuse doesn't cut it anymore. It seems careless, and the information appears irrelevant in the worst of cases.

I'm sorry to appear antagonistic, but this is not a position in which I have put myself. And you’re right about the threshold; in fact, given the ever-changing dynamic of wikipedia, information that is deemed insufficient in any way should be removed or replaced immediately.

For future reference, please know when to limit the content you seek to add. Doing so will avoid you blinding readers with seemingly endless information, and ultimately avoid making the wiki page irrelevant to some degree (for instance, what devotees wear or not wear for beach-going is not important).

This wiki page should be concise, summarized in your own words, and relevant.

Per the aforementioned reasons, I will remove sentences in good faith, and if there’s anything anyone believes to be erroneous, please consider requesting a third opinion. Thanks. RidjalA (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fordx12, per your request, here are some preliminary sentences that you could work on to help address the issues with close paraphrasing. They need some serious work done and they are at risk of being removed. Here are the results from your edits that I've checked thus far:

Source (Fortuny): “desde la década de los veinte del siglo pasado, la iglesia instituyó una oración…a las nueve o diez de la mañana”

Bing Translate: "since the 1920s of the last century, the Church instituted a prayer... of nine or ten in the morning"

Fordx12: “Since the 1920's there has been a prayer at around nine or ten in the morning.”

Source: “desde la década de los veinte del siglo pasado, la iglesia instituyó una oración…a las nueve o diez de la mañana”

Bing Translate: "since the 1920s of the last century, the Church instituted a prayer... of nine or ten in the morning"

Fordx12: “Since the 1920's there has been a prayer at around nine or ten in the morning.”

Source: “exclusivamente femenino, dirigido por mujeres y hacia mujeres”

Bing Translate: “exclusively female, directed by women and to women”

Fordx12: “These prayers are exclusively led by women in which mostly women attend.”

Source: “es una actividad religiosa igual que cualquier otra”

Bing Translate: "it is a religious activity like any other"

Fordx12: “These prayers are seen as a religious activity equal to all other activities.”

Source: “Este espacio les da acceso a aprender y transmitir la doctrina, y también les brinda la oportunidad de construir confianza en ellas mismas y estatus frente a la membresía” (pg 144)

Bing Translate: “This space gives them access to learn and transmit the doctrine, and also gives them the opportunity to build confidence in themselves and develop membership status.”

Fordx12: “This prayer provides space for empowerment in which women are able to express themselves and develop a status within the church's membership” (this last one just needs some minor tweaking so that it sounds more brief, yet original to your own words)

What you're writing is too close to the original sources. Wiki contributions should be reflective of your own summary and words, and not copied in any way from sources. Please help address these issues, and with the rest of the Women of LLDM section. Good luck. RidjalA (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally doing what wiki policy says you should do in this case, to be honest I was worried there for a second. Now for your concerns I shall respond to each example, as per wiki policy.

Source (Fortuny): “desde la década de los veinte del siglo pasado, la iglesia instituyó una oración…a las nueve o diez de la mañana”
Bing Translate: "since the 1920s of the last century, the Church instituted a prayer... of nine or ten in the morning"
Fordx12: “Since the 1920's there has been a prayer at around nine or ten in the morning.”

Faulty translation, she didn't number the year. The sentence is purely factual. Besides notice the break "..." Anyway, would you prefer "Since the year of our lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty something, the religious institution denominated La Luz del Mundo established henceforth a religious service of prayers and songs at alternating times in the morning that may at times range between nine o'clock in the morning to ten o'clock in the morning"? Please excuse my humor for a moment there. I just don't see it. So I decided to just go ahead and changed the source to Dormady, since he reports it from a historical perspective.

Source: “exclusivamente femenino, dirigido por mujeres y hacia mujeres”
Bing Translate: “exclusively female, directed by women and to women”
Fordx12: “These prayers are exclusively led by women in which mostly women attend.”

You'll have to prove close paraphrasing here. Notice the absence of half the words from my sentence in Fortuney's sentence. Paraphrasing is not discouraged at all, you yourself have done it in the controversy section, the one about the woman who was allegedly abused and her case file vanished...according to a philosopher's words.

Source: “es una actividad religiosa igual que cualquier otra”
Bing Translate: "it is a religious activity like any other"
Fordx12: “These prayers are seen as a religious activity equal to all other activities.”

This one is the same as above. The only same words are "Activity" ""Other" and "Religious." The only other way to reword this is by going to redicioulous lengths, observe

"Each ecclesiastical meeting is seen with the same value as the 9 AM ecclesiastical meeting by proponents of La Luz del Mundo movement." It is most simple to just say that 9AM prayers are seen as a religious activity equal to other activities. It is not closely paraphrased. This is a close paraphrase

"This is a religious meeting which is the same as any other meeting" it is not the same as an accurately translated (your translation is very inaccurate) but it is extremely close. This is the translation "It is a religious activity equal to any other" Notice the similarity? It substitutes words and rearranges them slightly. That is close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is not covered by wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, RidjalA, "Ajaxfiore is a second opinion echoing your viewpoints and edits, and doesn’t constitute a third opinion to determine a neutral consensus in removing templates." I find it a bit annoying that you keep pairing me with another editor, "Fordfox12/Ajaxfiore, it would be nice if your Mexican history professor can provide 2 things..." I kindly ask you do not do such thing, and that you do not accuse me of being a church member as you did when you said "frankly, I believe you to be a member of the church," after I removed un-sourced content from the article. It seems to me that you categorize everyone who questions your edits or the Controversy section as members of the church. You also seem to be clearly biased as can be seen when you said "Everyone outside LLDM knows that Eusebio (i.e. "Aaron") at some point exploited and raped some of his female followers. The article states it, and you can no longer disprove it," after I removed the un-sourced content on Ramona Olivares and Martha Joaquin Olivares. Your sweeping generalization seems to imply that you believe that LLDM members are somehow blind to all the accusations against their leaders.

You went as far as doing a sock puppet investigation: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fordx12/Archive. You have also stated that "I know it's not going to end since their followers are tens of thousands of people strong, so it's a tough one to manage since it's not a random act of vandalism we're dealing with." I do not seek to start a war, I am simply asking you to be a bit more objective and to stop making personal attacks/accusations. Thank you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just annoying, his or her conduct is suspicious and I beleive it should be discussed. If you wish to discuss this with him/her it may be best to do it at a separate section of this talkpage or their user talk page. Personal "attacks/accusations" are in violation of wiki policy and can lead to sanctions including blocking. WP:NPA WP:OUTING It is best to compartmentalize these things. Fordx12 (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that "In May 2008 it was discovered that Samuel Joaquín Flores purchased an exotic zoo in Seguin, Texas." This sentence gives the impression that the ranch was purchased by Samuel Joaquín in absolute secrecy (since it was "discovered" that he purchased it). However the San Antonio Express News article by Todd Bensman does not give such notions. Bensman is careful to point out that church members make donations and volunteer in the maintenance of the ranch. Bensman also reports that the family also lets children's groups take educational field trips inside the zoo.

Additionally, I looked into public records to learn more about the Silver Wolf Ranch (900 Savage Ranch Rd), and according to the data found here:

http://www.co.guadalupe.tx.us/Appraisal/PublicAccess/

http://www.guadalupead.org/

The ranch is not owned by Samuel Joaquín and its appraised value is $17,088. I suggest a revision of this whole section. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the first sentence since it is not backed up by the cited source. I included the information that Bensman provides regarding the nonprofit nature of the zoo as well. Feel free to add any sourced information about the value of the ranch. I had to edit the "over 3 million" part of the section since the source did not say it valued over 3 million dollars.

I also changed the subsection to match what the source implies in regards to the ownership of the ranch. However this is not does not appear to be acceptable since it is not explicitly mentioned that the Apostle Samuel or his family owns the ranch itself. Aditional assistance with editing that information is required.Fordx12 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several edits have removed sourced information claiming various things such as the removed content begin off topic. This will explain why the removed information was restored since edit reversions are not possible.

First edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518417685 reason for adding unsourced content is

the source clearly states "lavish private zoo-themed family retreat", hence it suffices to paraphrase as "exotic zoo"; this publication
came to light on May 2008

This was done against consensus in this talk page subsection. Issues of neutrality, as another editor pointed out, are involved here. Not to mention, the article does not state that anything was "discovered" as if it were hidden in some insidious manner.

Second edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518418619 reason for edit is

Please refer to Bensman article. Its entire premise is based on the ranch owners sidestepping tax exempt laws by closing off access to
the general public

This is a biased opinion. The premise was the reporting of a previously unknown church which bought a ranch and has caused a stir among the local community due to the lack of information. Bensman's comments on the lawyer's quotes is a minor addition to a lengthy article and is the first mention of the issue. However no where does it say that there is a legal accusation initiated by citizens, the government, an organization, nor the reporter himself. To say so is to misrepresent the source.

Third edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518419487 Justification is

This has no relevance to Silver Wolf Ranch.  In fact, the article states "Federal tax records show the nonprofit has accumulated upwards
of $1 million since 2004. This money comes from church collections taken weekly and annually"

However, the deleted content explicitly says that church donations do not reach private holdings. Source does not state that the money comes from church collections, much less that they are taken weekly and annually. Bensman was reporting the deleted content for a reason, because it served as a counter to any instigation that laws were being violated. The issue of neutrality is raised by deleting the sourced information. The content is right after the lawyer's statements...in fact Bensman does not counter the claims that the church donations do not benifit private claims, see below.

Church officials are careful to point out the donations from the faithful go into the nonprofit and does not benefit the family's private
holdings. Castillo said the zoo and its complement of full-grown lions, a white tiger with cancer and an aviary full of squawking exotic
birds, benefits the public in part by taking doomed or homeless animals off the hands of surrounding counties, like two tigers to be
euthanized for mauling their original owners' son.

In fact, the deleted content based on bold section of the quoted paragraph from the source states how the nonprofit benefits the public thus answering the lawyer's concern.

Fourth edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518419714 with the justification that

This offers no explanation as to why it is closed to the general public.

Deleted content is as valuable as the info about the vintage cars. It has more to do with the nonprofit nature of the zoo. Since the nature of the zoo's status is brought up. Bensman once again does feel that this would explain whether or not the nonprofit aspect is being fulfilled. since the info is mentioned right after the tax lawyer is quoted. Is this either about the tax law or the closing of the zoo to the public? Either way the info is relevant.

Fifth edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518419873

This is off topic as to why Silver Wolf Ranch remains closed to the general public 

The topic is "Silver Wolf Ranch" not "Ranch is closed to the public" no editor can limit sourced information because it does not deal with an ultra specific one sided topic and thus eliminate different views. The quoted lawyer says that nonprofits have to benefit the public, not that they have to be open to the public. The deleted content points out how the zoo benefits the public as mentioned also in Bensman's article.

Since these edits are made with justifications that do not hold water, and seem to push an unbalanced view by eliminating counter arguments represented by deleted content, the deleted content has been reintroduced. The mention of accusations of tax exempt codes is removed once again since it is not supported by the source and gives the impression that LDM is actively subverting US tax codes all over the place and not limited to the Silver Wolf issue. Fordx12 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section is now divided into two portions to include both points of view.

As for the inclusion of “violations of tax-exempt codes“ in the Controversy introduction, the reasons are two-fold:

1)Firstly, it servers as a synopsis of what is about to be discussed (Silver Wolf Ranch violating tax exempt codes by benefiting the Joaquin family and closing access to the general public)

2)Secondly, in discussing Silver Wolf Ranch, the Todd Benson article quotes a lawyer, stating that “IRS regulations require nonprofits to actively promote their tax-exempt purpose of benefiting the public and not the personal wealth of anyone”. So frankly,whether you disagree with it or not is another issue.

If in fact this is not an issue about tax evasion, why then did you bother to write counter arguments about "rescuing animals" and "offering trips to childern" to try and prove that the ranch is NOT violating tax codes? This only proves my point that this section IS about whether or not Samuel Joaquin is the sole beneficiary of the ranch (i.e. whether or not his actions constitute a violation of tax codes). V3RitasRidjalA (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the inclusion of "violations of tax-exempt codes" this is once again misleading. It gives the impression that the church is actively violating codes in more than just one instance. Also, the lawyer failed to say that the tax codes were indeed violated. The source does not explicitly say any accusations have been levied. This is fully the editor's opinion and is thus editorializing. Provide quoted proof that the church or individuals involved with the church are being accused of violating tax exempt codes. If there is no proof, not even a statement, then this contentious material should be removed. If the editor wishes to inform people that the church is possibly violating tax codes, I suggest starting a blog about it would be most effective and appropriate.Fordx12 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed claims regarding Silver Wolf Ranch

The following statement within this subsection is not supported by the source:

Flores came under fire by local communities for closing off access to the public

This statement is not found in anyform within the content of the source nor is it implied. The reporter has not explicitly or even implicitly mentioned that the church's leader has come "under fire" for closing off access to the public. This is in violation of wiki policy WP:NOR:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such
as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of
published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. 

The statement in question here is an analysis of the source at best and thus original research as the quoted wiki policy states in bold which presents an issue of neutrality. There is another example of original research here as well. RidjalA has reverted the deletion of the following from the controversy section lead (in bold):

La Luz del Mundo has been the subject of various accusations, including violations of tax-exempt codes, rape accusations, 
exploitation of underage women by the group's founder, and the potential for mass suicide.

Once again, as evidenced in the above section of this talk page, RidjalA has strongly implied that inserting this bolded material is a result of an analysis of the source though nowhere does it state that the church has actually been accused of violating any tax exempt code. This also violates the neutrality policy in that it implies that the church is accused of violating more than one tax code and can lead one to think that this happens more commonly than just the editor's accusation of the church itself. This is original research since there is a lack of sources to back up this claim.

Without these two statements it is hard to articulate that there is a controversy with the material that is left (if one were to delete both statements) and thus this subsection should probably be removed. The only other thing found in the source are allegations of people with guns in the area. However the issue of undue weight is also a problem in that regard. The article states that the police have found nothing problematic with the ranch and its owners, this now ceases to be an issue about the church itself. Without any other claims, what is left is the reporting of a living person's personal holdings and a quote about tax laws.

Deletion of the content will make the subsection unreadable and thus the only reasonable action to take is to delete the section(unless new info is introduced).Fordx12 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

| Response to third opinion request: |- |style="padding-left:0.6cm"|Reading the source, I can find no evidence that the ranch has "come under fire from the local community". That statement needs sourcing if it is to remain. As for the tax exemption, the lawyer quoted merely says that it is "troubling", implying that there might be a problem, but both he and the article stop short of what can really be considered, in my opinion, a real accusation of wrong-doing in that regard. However, I disagree that that makes the rest of the section/paragraph useless, because it does seem that there's a genuine controversy over the Church's accumulation of private wealth. I would strike that sentence, and the "...including violations of tax-exempt codes..." from the first line of the Controversy section, until better sourcing can be found. Anaxial (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |}[reply]

Thanks, Anaxial. I think those are concessions that both parties can make. RidjalA (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anaxial. I did not see the controversy of wealth being involved. These are not concessions in my opinion though. It is recognizing what is true with regards to the content and the sources Fordx12 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the following sentence has been removed, or at least corrected, as well as other parts of the section

Flores came under fire by local communities for closing off access to the public

The Silver Wolf Ranch subsection of the article no longer belongs in the Controversy section. Controversy is defined as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view." However there was no prolonged public dispute or debate as in the case of rape accusations, allegations of exploitation of women, and potentiality of mass suicide. The Silver Wolf Ranch matter was more like criticism / scrutiny by the curious reporters of The San Antonio Express-News. Perhaps the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection should be placed somewhere else, perhaps removed altogether, perhaps the whole Controversy section should be renamed to Critique to incorporate both Criticism and Controversy. Please have a look at WP:CRIT especially WP:CRIT#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22 Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence has several problems

Additionally in 1998, a handful of women went public with similar accusations of being raped by Samuel Joaquín.

What exactly is meant by a "handful"? According to Merriam-Webster a handful is "a small quantity or number." However the word handful seems too vague. I am aware only of the accusations made by Karem León, aka Isabel (oral) and Amparo Aguilar (vaginal). El Universal also circulated an article Eva Ambriz had been the subject of physical violence and sexual abuse and as a result ended up in a psychiatric hospital. Ms. Ambriz would later deny everything and sue for defamation of character. Therefore we have two counts of sexual abuse, which are not "similar" to Padilla's accusation. In fact these three accusations seem a bit contradictory, as each describes a different modus operandi. For example, León states that Joaquín had "oral sex, este (hmm?), all types of sex, except penetration," which contradicts Aguilar and Padilla's accusations. Therefore, I believe this sentence needs to be rewritten.

I also have a problem with the source used to support the following sentence:

Among other data, he provided a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín.

The source is a personal interview with Moisés Padilla by the Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos. I am sure we can all agree that this a primary source. Furthermore I seriously doubt one of the editors has accessed the archives of Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a source I can use, this information could be inserted as a short term solution until the Revista Academica is reviewed for its reliability. The source in question tends to omit contextual information and deduce serious conclusions from minute information. Patricia Fortuny is considred the leading expert of La Luz del Mundo ( http://www.osea-cite.org/about/ab_people.php#patricia ), it is interesting that she does not repeat any of Revista Academica's claims.

As a Result I am deleting the phrase "Handful of women" to "Three women" since this is a biography of a living person and adding accusations that are poorly supported/sourced result in sanctions if reported to administrators.

I am also deleting the following:

In 1997 and 1998 Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member of LLDM, was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and
psychologists. Among other data, he provided a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín.

Aside from a few implications, such as the report only citing two anthropologists and no psychologists, this is as has been stated a primary source. Primary sources can only be used to state facts WP:PRIMARY and may not be used to state assertions about living persons WP:BLPPRIMARY

 Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

Fordx12 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sexual abuse accusations were circulated by El Universal. Copies of some of the articles have been mirrored at www.sectas.org. I think in the case of Moises Padilla it is worth mentioning what the LA Times article says: "Authorities are investigating the attack and several others that have been reported. But judicial authorities say the victims haven't been fully cooperative."

Additionally a paper written by Argüelles, Erdely, and Barcenas-Mooradian states that Padilla received political asylum in the US, http://www.21stcenturysociety.org/L+J+M.html

This might agree with LLDM's claim that Padilla orchestrated the attack on himself, to get political asylum in the US. I find it silly to simply move from Mexico to the US, where there is a large number of LLDM members.

I believe we can also include LLDM's response to the accusations made by Argüelles in the LA Times article. Despite the LLDM churches being built in the US, Argüelles concentrated on the one in Ontario. According to this site http://www.sectas.org/bajoelyugo.asp, Argüelles' efforts paid off and the temple was not built. However, Google Maps shows that the temple was in fact built. Anyway, it appears that after the temple was built, Argüelles seems to have gone quite about LLDM. Was she not concerned for vulnerable recent immigrants? Why concentrate all the efforts on preventing the construction of a single temple? And when she failed, she apparently gave up on protecting the powerless people.

Carlos Montemayor, director of public relations for LLDM wrote a letter to the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/30/local/me-34191) in which he stated that "The real problem in Ontario is the Mountain Avenue property; we brought [sic] a gold mine without knowing it." Montemayor refers to the fact that the church was to be built in a commercial zone as stated in the LA Article ("...while considering the permit necessary to operate a church in a commercial zone.")

In the LA Times article Argüelles only mentions that she fears the church's "totalitarian control of powerless people." However in the L+J+M paper previously mentioned, she claims that children were working in the temple's construction for over 12 hours without food. She also told Masferrer Kan (http://www.revistaacademica.com/tomouno/cap4.asp) that there were children and teenagers working there over night, in dark precarious conditions. She also claims she received death threats. It seems highly unlikely that such things could occur in a commercial zone without anyone ever noticing it. Furthermore it seems that there were no charges against LLDM for supposedly exploiting children and teens. Once more, Argüelles did not seem to care about the powerless people, her main objective was to prevent the construction of the temple.

I have much to rant about the methodology, and the sweeping generalizations and assumptions that can be found in the articles she has co-authored with Erdely, but these can be easily noticed by reading their writings. I have so far questioned the credibility 3 of the 5 members of the Revista Academica (http://www.revistaacademica.com/consejo.asp), César Mascareñas de los Santos, Jorge Erdely, and Lourdes Argüelles. I think this is sufficient to show that the Revista Academica is not a reliable source.Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for your contributions.

Unfortunately, I have reverted your edits per the following reasons:

"Handful" of women is used to paraphrase (something Fordx12 is pretty familiar with).

Fordx12, the actual interviews/transcripts that Moises gave to anthropologists are not used as a source. Instead, this was something that was stated in Revista Academica.

FYI Co-author of Revista Academica Lourdes Arguelles was at the time of its publication a professor at Claremont College (which yearly ranks in the top 10 nationally, http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/2013-best-colleges-preview-top-10-national-liberal-arts-colleges )

Where is anyone's proof that Revista Academica is not reliable? If you dislike her or Erdely's work for having scrutinized your church, then I understand. You're more than welcomed to feel resentment and even wish to burn their books. But this source is suitable for wikipedia.

Ajaxfiore, without any sources, it is difficult to prove your point that Moises Padilla orchestrated his own attack to gain legal entry into the states. That's strictly speculative, which won't get us very far if it originated from your keyboard.

On a side note, I feel that I need to mention my concerns regarding recent attempts to delete information in the controversy section (primarily fordx12) using a multitude of explanations, none of which I think were valid enough to warrant deletion (please see the third opinion on Silver Wolf in the talk page to get the idea). Please be mindful that this is not a publicity page for lldm. It's a balanced page for its readers for the purpose of offering the full scope and history of lldm for the sake of their research. Please do not be offended by my efforts to ensure that this page is a neutral as possible, which I do neither by promoting nor denouncing your beliefs in lldm. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to whom you were referring in the beginning, RidjalA, since I did not make those edits. Unfortunately, I have reverted your reversion per the following reasons:

There is no need to paraphrase when it comes to quantities, that's just intentionally being vague. According to your logic we should totally edit the Demographics section to something like: "According to INEGI in 2000 LLDM had a lot of members, and by the year 2010 it had nearly tripled in size and now has a lot more members."

Regarding this sentence: "Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member of LLDM, was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists..." This sentence seeks to make the article "readable enough to impart wrong or biased information, but confusing enough to prevent readers from questioning the reliability or factuality of the article." The sentence makes it seen as though several anthropologist and psychologist from all of Latin America interviewed Padilla. However, the obscure source cited, the archives of the DIAR, states two Mexican anthropologists, Laura Collin and Masferrer. The whole sentence is dressed with authority, but with no substantial basis.

Since "the actual interviews/transcripts that Moises gave to anthropologists are not used as a source," why are the archives of DIAR still stated as a source?

Regarding Argüelles, the fact that she was a professor at Claremont does not automatically make her a super human with unquestionable academic integrity. Individuals from more reputable institutions have come under fire for fabricating research. The link you provided lists Claremont McKenna College as being in the top ten national liberal arts colleges for 2013, (Where did you get "yearly"?). FYI, she was a professor at Claremont Graduate University not Claremont McKenna College, although they both belong to the Claremont Colleges consortium, they are different entities. You completely disregarded what I wrote about Argüelles and simply provided this argument.

To answer your question, "Where is anyone's proof that Revista Academica is not reliable?" The Revista Academica has been discussed in several parts of this talk page, please read them.

And lastly, I was not trying to prove that Padilla orchestrated the attack on himself, I was merely questioning the Revista Academica. They portray Samuel Joaquin as a deranged individual with a dangerous paramilitary group that kills anyone who speaks out against LLDM. Supposedly this group killed Castañeda Contreras and nearly killed Padilla, for which he sought asylum. Yet elsewhere, they mention Guadalupe Avelar who openly spoke out against LLDM and its leaders, yet she was still living happily as a member of LLDM. Cheers, Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude our discussion on the credibility of Ms. Arguelles and Mr. Erdely, if there is any publication you'd like to present at this point to prove the validity (or lack thereof) of Revista Academica, then please do so.

I have again reverted what you deleted; here's what Revista Academica states:

"One ex-member reporting torture treatment in LLDM is Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member who in 1997 and 1998 was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. Among a wealth of valuable data he provided was a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín[42]. Padilla also says that his 13-year-old sister had been victimized.

After part of this information was published in several scholarly articles, Moisés was kidnapped and tortured on February 9, 1998, allegedly by unconditionals aided by state police in Jalisco[43]. He was later found naked in the outskirts of Guadalajara and was taken to the Antiguo Hospital Civil with 69 knife wounds that left permanent damage to nerves and muscles in his back. During the ordeal, Moisés lost two liters of blood; he barely survived the assault[44]. To this day, however, Padilla’s mother and most of his siblings remain staunch members of LLDM. "

I hope I am not usurping what the source states, and if at any point you feel that I do please contact me and let me know. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RidjalA, due to your constant reversions of what other editors do, I fear that you are trying to take ownership of this page. Two editors (including me) do not consider Revista Academica a reliable source, neither do scholars (e.g. Fortuny, Dormady) who have written about LLDM. You are the only one that believes Revista Academica is actually reliable. I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring what has been discussed about Revista Academica or if you have not seen it. Please have a look at this Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#RfC:_Is_Revista_Academica_a_reliable_source.3F. We do not need to look further than Revista Academica itself to conclude that it is not a reliable source. But anyway, you might also want to read Erdely's writings in which he clearly states his intentions to destroy all those who do not conform to his ideology. You can also read Sanjuana Martinez's book, as well as the vast number of articles published in Mexican newspapers about Erdely and about Mascareñas. Now regarding Argüelles you can read what she has written about LLDM to see her lack of academic integrity, please also read what I have written and follow the links I have provided. Lastly, Revista Academica clearly exaggerated stating that Padilla received 69 knife wounds, when LA Times reports 57 wounds with a dagger. At this point, it is you who has to prove that Revista Academica is reliable. I have reverted the page to a previous version, although another editor removed what you wrote due to copyright issues. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply ensuring that you two (Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore) don't go too far in turning this into a promotional page for LLDM. I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't as dedicated to wiki lldm, the entire controversy section would be nonexistent by now, or skewed beyond recognition. So no, I am not trying to take ownership of this page, rather I'm trying my best to be fair and balanced so that this page doesn't turn into a lopsided page used for promotional purposes.

Let me also say that you two don't comprise a consensus given that you both consistently reflect each others' opinions. Perhaps you both are adherents to the church and believe that SJF is an apostle of God, but that's my guess (I'm pretty sure fordx12 is).

If we get a better understanding of what Wikipedia is NOT, then I hope we could close this discussion on the reliability of Revista Academica. Wikipedia is not a place to create our own independent investigation. Especially not on the reliability of sources in the way you're trying to debase Revista Academica by stating that the author is a despicable man. You would need a solid piece of published work to prove your point that Revista Academica is flat out wrong. Even so, this would not suffice to remove content from Revista Academica. All that would happen is that your new anti-Revista Academica article would go alongside it as an antithesis.

As for the discrepancy on the number of stab wounds Moises Padilla received (Revista Academica states 69, vs 57 on L.A. Times), this ignores the entire premise that Moises Padilla was stabbed in the first place. It's a trivial discrepancy. But even if this was a crucial mistake, how do you know that it wasn't the L.A. Times who erred on the exact number? I'm inclined to say that your dislike of Revista Academica is personal for having shed light on your religious leader's acts of sexual abuse against young women and boys. Regardless, minor details like these do not prove your point that Revista Academica is not suitable for wikipedia in bringing light to these rape accusations.

I hope to issue a third opinion to clear things up. RidjalA (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you make unbased accusations that make me uncomfortable simply to discredit my views. I am neither trying to turn this into a promotional page for LLDM, nor am I trying to completely remove the controversy section. I am here to ensure that this not turn into an anti-LLDM page that promotes religious intolerance as does Revista Academica. I have provided published material on Erdely and Mascareñas (both members of Revista Academics) which you chose to ignore. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring everything. Are we supposed to blindly believe everything a source says without questioning it? Btw, your request for a third opinion is redundant since one has already been made. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe it's better to be safe than sorry. So I've requested a third opinion anyway. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that to my defense, I think it's fair to say that I cannot rewrite the first two sentences you and fordx12 deleted in Rape Accusations without negatively affecting the sway and effect that the source intended to convey. Revista Academica states it best, and I cannot do it justice if I were to rewrite it. These are only two sentences, not an entire paragraph. Which was why I wrote the rest of the paragraphs in my own words and used other sources like the L.A. Times. I really do think that the rape accusations should be reverted back to this, which was just prior to Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 complicitly tinkering with it. I did not in any way copy and paste entire paragraphs, and I certainly hope to continue contributing to wiki lldm in a careful manner. RidjalA (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reintroduced the original two sentences with the exception that I gave credit to Revista Acedmica in the opening line. I hope this settles the issue. Third opinion is still pending for its approval. Thanks RidjalA (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI ! One of you 2 warring editors has requested a 3rd Opinion. Since a request was formally made, and at the present time I seem to be the only editor around for "3O", how can I assist BOTH of you ?. I have absolutely no interest in this subject nor do I want to read the content you are fighting over or even your prior rants on this talk page. Please BOTH of you INDIVIDUALLY state in not more than 2 very short paras (with links to disputed content) what the real problem is for you. You may not reply to each other or dispute the other's statement. You may, however, modify your own 2 short paras taking into account the other's statement. AFTER THAT, I shall step in. Adios. RobertRosen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, user RidjalA requested the third opinion, I'm not sure why though. Since you told us to bring this back to the talk page, I will discuss the issues from there.

RidjalA has shown bias against the church, which is fine, but sometimes this bias spills over into the article. The user has added material which is not neutral. It also seems RidjalA wants ownership of the article, since the user constantly reverts edits by other editors. The user sometimes deletes sourced content, and insists on keeping unsourced content or content that violates wiki copyright policies. RidjalA also constantly accuses me of being a church member in order to discredit me, and also lumps me with editor Fordx12 in order to deny consensus.

I would like all this to stop. Although, in all fairness I do admit that recently I was the one that inadvertently violated the 3 revert rule. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am responding to this because of your post in the RfC on user conduct. I believe that I may have gotten carried away in trying, in my own mind, to bring balance to the controversy section which brought about fears RidjalA has about church members trying to "censor" (my words) this page to give it a good image. I have recently attempted to aliviate his fears here [1]. RidjalA has stated that he has a goal of using this wikipedia to keep the church leadership "on check" here [2]. The situation is very complex and it involves unfortunate mistakes from all three of us which has led to edit warring type behavior. RidjalA has added unsourced content here [3] The source used to cite the content is bogus, it does not contain membership information on the church. It was challenged time and time again. RidjalA instintly removes unsourced (and sourced) content that doesn't shed the church in bad light. This is a double standard that has caused much contention.

It is that sort of behavior that led me to overreact at times. Since I share Ajaxfiore's viewpoints, our edits tend to coincide. It is true that RidjalA and I almost exclusively edit here alone. However I have ventured to two other articles Birthday and Jehovah's Witnesses in an attempt to correct this mistake. Ajaxfiore is the only one of us who actually edits several other pages. This gives RidjalA the impression that we are team tagging. This leads to accusations which have turned to counter accusations which turn to what we have now. I do believe that RijdalA's bias is causing a conflict of interest. I would like for him to keep editing this article. Many times I removed or deleted or modified his edits, and content, using wiki policy to back me up. RidjalA has read this as my attempts to delete controversial content using a "multitude of excuses." He feels assaulted on multiple fronts and not sure of what he should do. I cannot speak for Ajaxfiore's actions. But I may have come on to strongly and been reluctant to warn Ajaxfiore about his conduct, that has now changed as mentioned on RidjalA's talk page. I appreciate your assistance and I hope all three of us can proceed to edit this wiki in peace. Fordx12 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary view. It is fairly obvious that User:Ajaxfiore is a WP:SPA for disruptive editing on this page. It is also admitted who controls the account {"Ajaxfiore is the only one of us who actually edits several other pages. This gives RidjalA the impression that we are team tagging. "}. The only solution WP:BOLD at this point is for me to rewrite the section to conform it to the LA-Times source. After that if any genuine editor wants to amend it without edit warring that's fine with me. RobertRosen (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I seem irritated, but I am utterly confused, and I'm having trouble believing what I just read. Not even editor RidjalA would make such far fetched assumptions, you didn't even wait for RidjalA to make a case. You seem to have incriminated me based on the opinions of another editor, i.e. Fordx12. I you see here, I was the one who had rewritten that part to conform to LA Times, before you made corrections to it. Could you please elaborate on your preliminary views? How am I a single purpose account? What is my purpose? Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RobertRosen I feel that you have made a personal attack against me in clear violation of WP:NPA. If you actually believe what you have said, I suggest you go through the formal wikipedia processes, e.g. sock puppet investigation... Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify one thing. When I said "We" and "Us" I meant the three editors of this wiki. Ajaxfiore, RidjalA, and me. I really don't know how to respond to your recent edits on this page... Fordx12 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate RobertRosen's third opinion insight and recent revision of Wiki LLDM, and I stand by his contributions. In regards to the 3O request, the issue was whether or not I could use Revista Academica as a source (link here). For years no one seemed to have an issue with it until just a few weeks ago when Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore removed content that was backed up by this source. I wanted to request a 3O to close discussion and appease doubts, since I really don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to cite Revista Academica. Anyway, in all fairness I've included a my list of my reasons for its inclusion:

1. WP:SUBPOV allows for articles like Revista Academica to be included, even if they're introducing their own POV; this source cites victims of abuse, but ensures to include a church response.
2. Revista Academica was co-authored by a professor, now Emeritus. She received her PhD from NYU. Her page is here.
3. The book itself is found at university libraries, just as Berkeley does so here

So I feel that this book is legitimate for use in academia, and in Wikipedia as well. But I want to be fair and inclusive to Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore and open this up for discussionRidjalA (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request for comment on Revista Academica here: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#RfC:_Is_Revista_Academica_a_reliable_source.3F. I wanted to leave the easy way, but now I might seek resolution through wikipedia processes. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this sentence

 To settle the discord, Eusebio registered himself as the father of Abel Joaquín Avelar, the child of Guadalupe Avelar.

The "researcher" Jorge Erdely provides no proof of this other than the testimony of Guadalupe Avelar, and her son Abel Joaquín Avelar. It is worth mentioning that LLDM members deny this. However the current version of the Wikipedia article states this as fact. I have written a lot about why Erdely is not a reliable, but allow me to rant about him a bit more. Erdely states that Mr. Joaquín Avelar "keeps a low profile out of fear for his life" when he is in fact the leader (apostle) of two religious movements, Iglesia de Jesucristo and Camino al Cielo (http://www.asociacionesreligiosas.gob.mx/work/models/AsociacionesReligiosas/pdf/Numeralia/AR_por_SGAR.pdf). Erdely also states that "he fled LLDM after his father’s death in 1964," however another source states that he left LLDM in 1965 to form his own group (http://esnuestrahistoria.wordpress.com/historia/las-cuatro-vertientes-del-pentecostalismo-mexicano/). Erdely also states that "to try to settle the inner rift, the sect’s founder, Aarón Joaquín, eventually recognized the infant and registered him as his own son." Notice the use of the word "infant." However in the other source already mentioned, Joaquín Avelar claims that he was raised in El Buen Pastor Church and started preaching in 1957, but in 1959 he was called by Aarón Joaquín and became a minister of LLDM (by this time he was already a grown man, not an infant). Erdely also claims that Ms. Avelar has remained as a member of LLDM. Who raised Joaquín Avelar then? His real father, one of the men who left LLDM in 1942? Why didn't Joaquín Avelar return to El Buen Pastor, whose teachings are nearly identical to LLDM's (besides the lack of apostle)? Joaquín Avelar clearly sought apostleship for himself, could it be possible that he fabricated this in order to legitimize his apostleship? Lastly, Erdely claims that "Mr. Abel Joaquín Avelar, now a grown man, has corroborated this account." Why does he need Joaquín Avelar to corroborate the account. This would make sense if it was Joaquín Avelar making the accusation, and Guadalupe Avelar confirming it, not the other way. Did Erdely really interview Guadalupe Avelar, or was he merely basing everything on rumors? Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this information should be added to the article? One can easily find Youtube videos of Abel Joaquin Avelar preaching as an apostle to his followers. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7XPM4HfVAg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwr0uCicsK4 And there is more. Since his church isn't really notable, it is hard to come by many academic sources about it. Eitherway, I'd hardly call this "keeping a low profile" because he "fears for his life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting what is written in the subsection on alleged exploitation of underage women. As noted there, historian Dr. Jason H. Dormady has stated that during this time dissidents and sympathetic individuals only reported accusations. The Revista Academica doesn't even cite legal court documents or public records about the supposed registration of Abel as the founder's son. It just has the accusations reported on a newspaper which Dormady cited and knows about. It is odd that after giving a detailed analysis of the 1942 incident, a historian would omit such information unless that information isn't even reliable to begin with. Of course this analysis of the sources cannot be included in the article, but the information in the non historical source should be scrutinized and questioned. At the end of the day, who is to be believed? A philosopher/theologen working with an retired education professor who deal with what happens today? Or a Historian who deals with what happened in the past? Fordx12 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Revista Academica edited by Jorge Erdely a reliable source?

The source in question is unquestionably anti-lldm and contains accusations not supported by leading experts on the Luz del Mundo church such as Patricia Fortuny. Jorge Erdely and his co-editor have unreliable degrees and they also have questionable ethics and history. the structure of the cited papers are questionable. For example, when discussing accusations of exploitation of underage women by the founder Erdely fails to mention information on his sources such as the details of the origins and styles of the accusations. As cited in this wiki article as of today, Dormady (A historian) mentions how the accusations were just newspaper reports of dissident members who were breaking away from the church, not court proceedings. The Revista Academica often cites itself, or obscure primary sources that they claim to have. It is not created by any university and remains ignored as a source by notable Mexican scholars such as Patricia Fortuny. Erdely has even expressed his bias against organized religion in general. Religious historian Jason H. Dormady does not include this as a source in his list of sources, however he mentions that he has not included anti-lldm sources. One could infer that he meant Revista Academica.

Also, the controversy section is saturated (more so in the past) with this one view point that adds undue wieght to it and it's accusations read as fringe theories WP:FRNG such as paramilitary groups of "unconditionals" ritualized practices that Fortuny somehow missed in her many studies of the church, Political conspiracies such as proping up the church. This talk page has several sections that voice in detail (some with better writting than others) various issues about this source. These sections are the following

Jorge Erdely subsection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Dr._Jorge_Erdely Revista Academica section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Revista_Academica Rape accusations section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Rape_accusations Abel Joaquin Avelar section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Abel_Joaqu.C3.ADn_Avelar Fordx12 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the source html for www.revistaacademica.com, and found the following in its keywords attribute:

<meta name="Keywords" content="revista, academica, estudio, religiones, religion,  journal, legionarios de cristo, legionaries
of christ, luz del mundo, light of the world, cesar mascareñas, jorge erdely, lourdes arguelles, sylvia marcos, elio masferrer,
derechos humanos, mexico, sectas, samuel joaquin flores, hermosa provincia, marcial maciel, legionarios, legion de cristo, legion,
benedicto XVI, iglesia, protestante, protestantismo, britney spears, narcotrafico, chiapas, catolicos, islam, jihad, guerra santa,
santa muerte, narco, terrorismo, fundamentalismo, psicologia, sicologia, fe, virgen maria, juan diego, sociologia, vaticano, opus
dei, evangelicos, prd, pri, pan, free, gratis, download, tv, google, youtube, gol, 11 de septiembre" />
<meta name="description" content="Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones. The Journal of Religious Globalization in
Latin America" />

Notice how they unscrupulously place false keywords into their meta elements in order to draw people to their site, this says a lot about their honesty and professionalism. Notice the keywords "britney spears", "tv", "google", "youtube", "gol." I have yet to go through every single keyword, but I believe these are sufficient. Also notice how in English they present themselves as The Journal of Religious Globalization in Latin America instead of Academic Journal for the Study of Religions (Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones). They also appear to be inactive, as they still have a coming soon page for "El Caso de Maciel," dated March 2009. Perhaps because César Mascareñas de los Santos has been arrested and Jorge Erdely is wanted fugitive. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the "research" of the Revista Academica is based solely on the accounts of former members. However, they make no effort to verify whether these individuals were actually members of the church in the past. They also draw a lot from rumors. They present a one sided view of everything, in which LLDM has no voice. One can only wonder how reliable is the testimony of an apostate. Dr. Lonnie D. Kliever (The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements) writes

"By contrast, there is a much smaller number of apostates who are deeply invested in discrediting if not destroying the religious communities that once claimed their loyalties. There is no denying that these dedicated and diehard opponents of the new religions present a distorted view of the new religions to the public, the academy, and the courts by virtue of their ready availability and eagerness to testify against their former religious associations and activities. Such apostates always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group."

The Revista Academica itself mentions that the family of these dissidents still belong to LLDM.

One case worth mentioning is the case of Ignacio Castañeda Contreras, a very respected figure in LLDM as can be seen in LLDM's websites. According to Revista Academica, LLDM's paramilitary group beat him to death for speaking out against Samuel Joaquin. However his death certificate states that he died as a result of a stroke and hypertension: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-21253-2232-4?cc=1918187&wc=MMBB-2T7:419384259

The Castañeda family (widow and children) wrote a letter to El Universal clarifying that Mr. Castañeda died as a result of hipertension. "Castañeda Contreras murio a causa de hipertension arterial". El Universal, 26 May 1997. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Revista Academica violated Mexican law by wiretapping a conversation between Samuel Joaquin and Rogelio Zamora, http://www.revistaacademica.com/tomouno/cap10.asp

See Código Penal para el Distrito Federal en Materia de Fuero Común, y para toda la República en Materia de Fuero Federal, CAPITULO II, Violación de correspondencia, Artículo 177, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c2252,4565c25f11,3ae6b5c50,0,,,MEX.html

"A quien intervenga comunicaciones privadas sin mandato de autoridad judicial competente, se le aplicarán sanciones de seis a doce años de prisión y de trescientos a seiscientos días multa."

Which states that whoever intercepts private comunications without judicial authority will face 6 to 12 years in prison, a 300 to 600 days of fine.Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Academica is co-authored by an established scholar, Lourdes Arguelles. Normally, that means it is an RS. It could be dismissed only if there is a valid reason to doubt her reliability. I'm not able to find any such reason. Other scholars have also contributed.

The quote dismissing apostates as witnesses, above, is from a scientology website and has to be deemed very suspect. Objective scholars of religion use testimonies of apostates, using their own judgement to sort out bias.

Castañedas death certificate and his family's letter are not necessarily thrustworthy. If the sect is as totalitarian as is claimed, and if corruption is rife in Mexico, he may well have died for other reasons. (I'm not saying that this is what happened.) Boosting Google search results by using dubious key words is a very minor offense.

Unless evidence of their unreliability can be adduced, claims of Revista Academica should be mentioned in the article, along with RSs which make opposite claims. --Jonund (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jonung, thanks for contributing. Did you the follow and read the links that were provided? It seems you have simply disregarded the violation of Mexican law, and other points raised elsewhere on this talk page. Revista Academica is not co authored by Lourdes Arguelles, even if she were, this still does not satisfy WP:RELIABLE. She is simply a member of the Editorial Board, she joined on September 2002, before the release of Tome IV. The Tome about La Luz del Mundo was Tome I. Additionally, there it seems there is no peer reviewing going on as they clearly state: "The content of the articles published in the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, is the sole responsibility of their respective authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Editorial Board nor that of the other collaborators." Please read the links provided and also this one Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#a_note_about_revista_academica.27s_reliablity were Revista Academica is discussed. Thank You. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have stated the following:[4]

"It is pretty strange for an academic journal to put the words "Britney Spears" in its metadata, and some of the content from the article in question reads like a tabloid. On the other hand, the editorial board appears to have legit credentials. Maybe a good litmus would be to see whether libraries or academic databases like JSTOR subscribe to this journal. Alternately, see what other, more established scholars have to say about it. That would be my suggestion. Sorry I don't have time to look into it in greater depth." - TheBlueCanoe

"Well it seems like a minefield with accusations and counter accusations flying everywhere. You need further comments from editors who are completely uninvolved in the area". - Itsmejudith

JSTOR does not appear to subscribe to this journal, neither do the universties I have looked at. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not simply disregard an official death certificate and the testimony of a whole family as not being necessarily trustworthy. Also inserting false keywords in the metadata is not a minor offense, it is indicative of RA's lack of professional ethic, which can be seen throughout their website. I also doubt LLDM wields such political power. The controversy was fought out in Mexico's biggest media outlets, on TV, radio, and the press. This would mean that there is not one competent politician in Mexico because all of them are supporting LLDM, including the pro-Catholic National_Action_Party_(Mexico). Note that LLDM's number one rival is consider the Catholic church. Also the DIAR even sued the Director de Normatividad y Sanciones de la DGAR-SG, claiming that he had failed to act on the case. Hugo Elizalde (director of DIAR) would also denounce the Direccion General de Asuntos Religiosos de la Secretaria de Gobernacion before the Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Interamerican Comission of Human Rights) of the Organization of the American States (America = North+South America) and the Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos (National Comission of Human Rights). Elizalde never proved anything, and Samuel Joaquin was never called before any court. This implies that the whole Mexican government, and even the whole world is corrupt and incompetent, they're all under LLDM's rule. Also, I'm not sure why we should suspect someone simply because he is a Scientologist. Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mixed up Revista Academica with the paper Erdely and Arguelles wrote about secrecy and sexual abuse. RS is indexed in Sociological Abstracts. Here is a book review of an other of Erdely's books in Cultic Studies Review, published by the International Cultic Studies Association, which says that RA is peer reviewed. It also notes that "Dr. Erdely is a member in good standing of the Latin American Association for the Study of Religions, the regional chapter of the International Association for the History of Religion (IAHR)." Peer review does not mean that the reviewers (who usually are anonymous) assume responsibility for the content.

From an academic point of view, wiretapping in no way impairs the credentials of a scholar, however illegal it is. The ethical aspects may be judged in different ways, depending on wether you have reason to think Joaquin is a dangerous person or not.

Inserting irrelevant keywords in order to boost Google searches is a very minor offense - and probably done by the webmaster, not by the editor. It seems that your ties to the church makes you loose perspective.

Bribing a physician doesn't require very much political power, nor does it imply corruption or incompetence on the part of the Mexican government. (Again, I make no claims, I merely consider various possibilities.)

Scientology is a dangerous cult and notorious liars. --Jonund (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Jonund but looking at your opinion, your talk page, and your contributions, I think we need input from more editors.　I'm not comfortable with your implication that I have ties to the church and with your claim that "Scientology is a dangerous cult and notorious liars." Certainly we need further comments from editors who are completely uninvolved in the area. Note that Erdely is discussed here. You also provided a link to an anti-cult organization, the International Cultic Studies Association. According to Mexican media, Jorge Erdely is the leader of a dangerous cult, the mastermind behind the kidnapping of several minors, and a notorious liar. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, Ajaxfiore, please just drop it and accept that Revista Academica is reliable. RidjalA (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I too notice the almost incredible lengths one editor seems to be going to in the above comments to attempt to establish that it is not, but so far as I can see none of the lengthy attempts to impugn the source really do anything to indicate that it does not meet WP:RS criteria. If anything, the effort might be seen as being indicative that the editor in question has made a personal conclusion regarding the matter, and might even dispute any conclusions to the contrary. Jonund's statement that Scientology is a group of notorious liars above is actually rather clearly supported by multiple independent reliable sources, as is indicated in the article linked to. Calling it a "dangerous cult" is, admittedly, to my eyes maybe a bit of a stretch, but that has been alleged by numerous people as well, and supported by some evidence. The quote provided by Ajaxfiore to indicate that the journal is not peer reviewed does not in fact even remotely say that. Peer review does not in any way necessarily mean that the reviewers necessarily agree with the content or the conclusions, as can be seen by the peer review article we have and the sources and external links it indicates. Therefore, the quotation provided above in no way can be seen as indicating it is not peer reviewed.

It should be noted that calling a source "reliable" does not necessarily mean "perfect" - a senior editor some time ago told me he thought "acceptable" would be preferable as it is less ambiguous. There are times, and have been in the past times, when peer reviewed journals dealt with theories or beliefs which have later been found to be baseless. And, yes, history notes that the Washington Post and other leading publications whose status as reliable sources is, in general, not all questioned have in the past printed what was later revealed to be outright fabrications. So, getting things wrong once in a while does not necessarily mean that nothing the publication produces can be accepted as being from a reliable source.

Based on what I saw, looking over the website of the journal in question, I would have to conclude that the journal does in fact meet minimum WP:RS standards. That would indicate that I have no reason to believe that the source cannot be used in general. If there are differing opinions, as Jonund said above, from other reliable sources, they could reasonably be included as well. But I see no reason to rule out material from the Revista Academia based on WP:RS standards. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the first paragraph lacks sources. It also states that Joaquin Flores was baptized when he was 14, which is incorrect and shows how sometimes editors make false assumptions. Certainly, most teens in LLDM are baptized at age 14. However, in the case of Joaquin Flores, he was baptized when he was 16. As shown in the official LLDM website. http://www.lldm.org/2007/pagina.php?id=50 I wonder whether the age of his baptism has any relevance to the article. The current Wikipedia article also states that he "took control" of the church at 27. I believe this wording to be biased, as to take control is generally used in the following sense:

• "the United States took control of the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico"
• "Which spanish conquistador took control of the Inca empire in Peru?"
• "Nikita Khrushchev takes control in the Soviet Union by orchestrating the ouster of his most serious opponents from positions of authority in the Soviet government."

Clearly, there is a certain negative connotation to the wording.

The second paragraph uses Joaquin Flores' son as a source. I am not sure if we consider that a reliable source. I do not have access to the source, and therefore cannot say much about it.

In the third paragraph, the first two sentences (both need a citation) are completely unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph states that Joaquin Flores received the honorary degree for his work, but does not specify what kind of work. There is also a certain bias to this paragraph as the editor decided to include only the controversial award from CIHCE. There is no mention of the following honorary degrees, among others

How does an editor decide which award(s) to include? Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christology

The current version of the article states that LLDM

 teaches Nestorianism, dividing Jesus into two persons: Jesus (man) and Christ (God)

and also

denies the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ all together

The former is taken from www.thecenters.org, and the latter from Wyatt (who took it from Gonzalez & Gonzalez). www.thecenters.org states that LLDM

"denies the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divides Jesus into two persons: Jesus (man) and Christ (God)."

Wyatt states that LLDM

"rejects the eternal divinity of Jesus, instead believing that it was his baptism that made him the Christ and therefore divine."

Gonzalez and Gonzalez state that LLDM

"rejected the very notion of the eternal divinity of Jesus. It was at his baptism that he became Christ and therefore divine."

However, Gonzalez and Gonzalez state their source to be none other than http://www.sectas.org/Articulos/luzdelmundo/laluz.asp, the website of Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de Mexico. If you read the link you find the following

"La Iglesia La Luz del Mundo niega la doctrina de la Trinidad. Dividen a Jesucristo en dos personas. Jesús = hombre; Cristo = Dios. Reclaman que Jesús NO era Dios, sino hasta que fue bautizado. Después del bautismo, Jesús vino a ser el Cristo y Dios."

That is

"La Luz del Mundo church rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. They divide Jesus Christ into two persons. Jesus = man; Christ = God. They claim that Jesus was NOT God, not until he was baptized. After the baptism, Jesus came to the Christ and God."

The rest of the page goes on to try to prove that LLDM's beliefs are incorrect. It is clear that the page at www.sectas.org does not constitute a reliable source. It is also clear that www.thecenters.org, and Gonzalez and Gonzalez (and therefore Wyatt) all draw their information from that page. Furthermore nowhere is it mentioned that LLDM teaches Nestorianism, which does not simply consist of dividing Jesus into two persons. Also www.thecenters.org is clearly not a reliable source since their main goal is "to equip Christians in the developing world for discernment, the defense of the faith, and cult evangelism."
Given that no reliable source exist to support the aforementioned sentences, they will be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Millenarianism

At various places in the article it is stated that LLDM is millenarian, however none of the sources cited to support this claim make such assertion. WP:UNSOURCED Again, given that no reliable source supporting this claim was found, it will also be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.revistaacademica.com/ToLive/luz-del-mundo-mexico.asp#_ftnref42. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Fordx12 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source reads

Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member who in 1997 and 1998 was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists.
Among a wealth of valuable data he provided was a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín

Content deleted read

In 1997 and 1998 Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member of LLDM, was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and
psychologists. Among other data, he provided a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín

Content is not paraphrased from the source. Fordx12 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think things are starting to get out of hand and we need to stop editing this page (that is edits that may be challenged) to prevent any edit warring. Please allow time for dispute resolution to take place. This may take more than a day, so that means we all need to spend some time away from making controversial edits until dispute resolution tactics play out. Fordx12 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start. I think the main issue here is that our own personal views are preventing us from seeing what is here.

1. A controversy section is not something that is against wiki policy. It may be discouraged in most instances, but in this case it is something I can live with as long as all viewpoints are expressed.
2. Unsourced content must be deleted after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed. To not do so would be against wiki policy. WP:NOCITE
3. We must wait until responses for the Request for Comment on the source reliability of Revista Academica before continuing any action or discussion in regards to its reliability.
4. Tagging the article as a whole for having uncited claims and possible copyright violations and NPOV issues may be best for the next few days to prevent edit warring until proper dispute resolution tactics are used to resolve conflicts
5. We must refrain from further accussations not already made unless we are asking another editor(s) whether or not our conduct is X accusation.
6. We must refrain from controversial edits related to this possible war which include material in Rape Accusations section, and membership numbers in the infobox.

Can we agree on doing these things for the next few days until we sort things out? Fordx12 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my disruptive behavior. I will now refrain from making further edits. I am ok with what you have outlined. Regarding the membership numbers I believe an unreasonable amount of time has passed, over two years. It used to have a source, but the source did not mention what was attributed to it. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notice, Fordx12. If you'll allow me to explain, I don't believe my actions are disruptive at all. In fact, it is Ajaxfiore who has gone off on a mini-rampage deleting information. I don't think that the user is demonstrating good civility nor good faith. I also don't think we should allow the Rape Accusations section to remain in the current state that Ajaxfiore left it in. It doesn't make sense in how it reads anymore: Ajaxfiore just deleted a huge chunk of it so that it now starts off with "According to the L.A. Times Moses Padilla was kidnapped and stabbed 57 times with a dagger", which fails to explain how it ties in with rape accusations. Prior to Ajaxfiore deleting the introduction, the section mentioned how the stabbing was a result of him speaking out against him being raped. Not anymore. So in a sense, Ajaxfiore blanked information that was sourced and already there.

I firmly believe that the Rape Accusations information needs to be reverted back to how it was until an outside third opinion offers their insight, which is still pending. I think that this is the most sensible option since it will prevent the Rape Accusations section from remaining an unrecognizable mess for the time being. So we have a choice: 1)leave it a mess, or 2)revert it back so it is comprehensible until a third opinion is reached. It's simple. Not vandalism, not war. Just for the sake of comprehension until a neutral third opinion is presented. I know that if you dislike the controversy section, you'd obviously opt for the first option so as to render it useless. But again, we must ensure we act in good faith, because regardless of there being a serious copyright issue or not, I don't think it should be removed until enough time has elapsed and or an outside opinion has been provided.

As far as the membership information goes, it was tagged on September 2012, not years ago. I believe it would also be fair to reintroduce that information, instead of deleting it, until a source is found. In good faith and respectfully yours, RidjalA RidjalA (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have so far abstained from using ad hominem arguments against other editors, which is something RidjalA keeps doing. I do not think I have gone on a mini-rampage, the edits on the Theological tenets were justified, and I simply reverted RidjalA's reversions, and I removed the unsourced content on membership information (Wikis of other churches use official church numbers). I believe RidjalA is trying to take ownership of this article, due to his constant reversions. Also, I believe RidjalA does not act in good faith when adding sentences dressed with authority, but with no substantial basis, such as the recent addition: "Guadalajara's leading newspaper El Occidental reported that the founder of La Luz Del Mundo, Eusebio Joaquín González, was accused of exploiting underage women." This sentence is clearly highly subjective, El Occidental may be the "leading" newspaper now, but when it reported about LLDM it was barely 3 months old (Founded August 5, 1942 and reported about LLDM on November 20, 1942). Also the following sentence "As a result of this ordeal, Abel Joaquín has kept a low profile out of fear for his life." There is irrefutable evidence that Abel Joaquin Avelar is the leader of two religious movements, acting as Apostle of Jesuschrist. I have also already mentioned the sentence on several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. But then again, most of that is simply copied and pasted from Revista Academica. Regarding the membership information, it has been there for over 2 years with a source that did not support it, and the tag has been there since September. I do not see why I should remain, why can't an editor simply add it when a source is found (if any)? Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps RidjalA would be happier if I added the former source, and then removed the sentence all together with the following explanation "I didn't find this information in the source." Note that this is the explanation RidjalA provided for recently removing this phrase: "however this as well as other claims were not true." RidjalA is happy to delete information that is not anti LLDM when a source is not found or it is not in the source cited, however when another editor follows the same procedure on a controversial section, RidjalA is quick to revert it. I would do this now, but I have already stated that I will temporarily refrain from further editing. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RidjalA has clearly demonstrated that he/she has double standards. RidjalA has accused me of going off on a mini-rampage, and of demonstrating neither good civility nor good faith, when my actions are no different from his/hers. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RidjalA, you have yet to take responsibility for your actions. In this diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=prev&oldid=356359256, you said that most reliable recent research pointed towards those numbers. Now what is that research? Or did you make it up to defend that figure? And on this Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=prev&oldid=356284067 you inserted a bogus source with that information. What is your source or are you misrepresenting sources and insisting on reverting any justified deletions? You had two years to find a real source for that addition of yours, where is it? This is one of your earliest edits which shows a pattern of disruptive editing on your part. You seem to be the only one that refuses to admit that you are wrong when it comes to unsourced information that you added. Also you continually add information after a justified deletion. You have done that many times these past few days. I have not forgotten how you removed sourced content (discussed else where in this talkpage) and accused me of misrepresenting the sources when the content came from said sources. That is only but the tip of the iceberg of your behavior. Blanket accusations of plagerism, offensive remarks about my person's integrity due to my faith, baseless accusations of sock puppetry against me mainly because my opinions coincide with another editor at times, a pattern of relentless reversions of contributions that I have made when said contributions are backed up by sources and wiki policy, all of these point towards article ownership and that is my concern right now.

The last thing I want is for you to be blocked or sanctioned. Aijaxfiore has already acknowledged (rightfully so or not) and apologized for his behavior. I too apologize for mine, and have done so in your talk page. You have yet to show any good faith. You even refuse to accept the terms to a temporary "truce" until others are given the opportunity to intervine. Perhaps it is time for me to invite outside opinions to user conduct.

Your bias, and you clearly are biased, is not the issue. The issue are your adversarial and disruptive actions and consistent accusations. Perhaps if another editor points these out to you, and us, we may be more willing to cooperate. Therefore in interest of that goal I am inviting outside input to this matter. This is not an attack or an attempt to "get back" at anyone, just a tool available to wiki editors when such situations as this present themselves. Fordx12 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look you two, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, you and I know that there are major discrepancies in the actual number of adherents in lldm. Some sources state that Mexico (which is where we find the largest pool of adherents) contains 200K people, whereas the church states that they have millions of adherents in Mexico. If I used a source that stated 200K followers in Mexico, then I was pretty sure that the worldwide numbers couldn't possibly reach more than 1 million.

The leadership in LLDM wants to appear grandiose, and I'm merely keeping them on check (like the completely spurious notion that SJF is a "doctor" for having received a doctorate degree from CIHCE, which is an unaccredited organization and was called out for selling their degrees (http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/hay-premios-fantasmas-para-educacion-superior-380106.html)). And you seem to resent me for that. So I cannot seek penance for my actions, because I'm afraid I've done nothing wrong in balancing this page. I hope to continue working with you guys. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time you show some honesty RidjalA. My issues with you are your constant edit reversions and refusals to collaborate. You finally admit that you improperly used a source to contradict LLDM's official numbers. I think it is no longer disputable that there is no source supporting your claim, and it should be removed. There are major discrepancies in the number of adherents of all congregations, which is why I think the US Gov does not ask for religious affiliation in its census. Here I present another discrepancy: LLDM has not claimed explosive growth over the last decade, while according to INEGI the church nearly tripled in size from 2000 to 2010 in Mexico. Again, the wikis of other churches use official church numbers. You have clearly shown your religious intolerance. Regarding the honorary degree that is pretty much irrelevant, assuming it is fake, Samuel Joaquin could have likely been a victim. Dr. Maya Angelou has been heavily criticized for appending Dr to her name, but it seems Joaquin Flores does not append Dr to his name (http://lldmjn.org/web/publicaciones/4828). Samuel Joaquin Flores has received other awards and at least one more doctorate as stated elsewhere in this talk page. I have found no evidence of delusions of grandeur of LLDM leaders, that's just opinion. I find it interesting how you accused me of slandering Erdely when I provided evidence that his degrees are a sham from unaccredited institutions. Fordx12 I think you can remove the membership numbers now, as I will continue to abstain from making edits to the page. And RidjalA, please stop blatantly accusing people without evidence. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some context to the information in the rape accusations section from the LA times. That should suffice the need for an introduction to the section.

As for the church numbers, RidjalA I asked a simple question, what sources say that the church has less than 1 million members? The leading expert on LDM, Patricia Fortuny, says that the church is 7 million strong. That's a number I have not seen in any church website and it is absent in the latest version of the hymn book which always used to contain church membership. See this source on page 15 first column first full paragraph found here [5] There is a link to a PDF file that downloads, that is her paper. Who am I to believe here? As for the descrempacies in the church numbers of Mexico and the Mexican census, I already posted that information in the demographics section along with US state department statements (one of which you unceremoniously deleted) state that it is not unusual for membership numbers of a church to be different to that of the Mexican census. I also included the estimate that an anthropologist came up with in 2000, and the opinion of another expert that says that membership numbers given by the church are at least plausible. Experts in this case seem to disagree with you and your invisible experts. As for the doctorate, only one nation (and not the most stable one at that) has launched unofficial concerns which really doesn't affect SJF as Ajaxfiore mentioned.

As for me editing the infobox, why don't we just compromise and use Fortuny's numbers instead of the church's numbers and the numbers of the invisible outside sources that RidjalA talks about? Fordx12 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this edit [6] done ignoring past discussion, and the readition of content deleted for copyright issues without significantly rewording it here [7] and not properly citing the source, RidjalA has demostrated his/her desire to not cooperate. I tried to do this through cooperation. I tried to wait for a reference on user conduct (which is finished and will be linked to RidjalA's talkpage), I tried to come up with a compromise and even edited the section in question to include information from LA times on Padilla. However collaboration does not seem to be RidjalA's goal. As RidjalA stated above, his/her goal is to keep the church leadership "on check." Fordx12 (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe official church statistics should be included. According to this [8] LLDM has a Ministry of Statistics which I suppose keeps track of the number of baptized members. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with the use of quotations, particularly in the Controversy section. I fear the quotations are not used in accordance to wiki policies, and are instead being used to bypass certain policies. Certainly, using quotations solves copyright problems, as these are allowed under fair use. Until recently a great deal of the controversy section was a mirror image of Revista Academica (a highly biased, unreliable source in my opinion). Quotations are being used to insert bias to the article, and this must be avoided according to Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines

Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can
be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject,
and should be avoided.

I now cite examples of such quotes:

lavish private zoo-themed family retreat for their father's enjoyment

has been taking his vacations at [this] lavish ranch... built in part on the labor and tithings of his fanatically devoted minions.

Notice the use of pejorative words "lavish," "fanatically devoted minions"

several Latin American anthroplogists and pscyhologists,

This one has been discussed elsewhere, so I'll just restate it here: This sentence seeks to make the article "readable enough to impart wrong or biased information, but confusing enough to prevent readers from questioning the reliability or factuality of the article." The sentence makes it seen as though several anthropologist and psychologist from all of Latin America interviewed Padilla. However, the obscure source cited, the archives of the DIAR, states two Mexican anthropologists, Laura Collin and Masferrer. The whole sentence is dressed with authority, but with no substantial basis.

the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the 
impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades.

This sentence uses the contentious label "sect," see WP:LABEL. It also implies several accusations against LLDM.

Unquoted

 In one woman's case who claims she was raped and abused, authorities were suspiciously reluctant to investigate, and the file 
of the case eventually went missing.

This one was unquoted but taken nearly verbatim from Revista Academica. I recently removed "suspiciously" from the sentence.

Please note that quotations are to be used when quoting "biased statements of opinion" or when "using a unique phrase or term created by a given author." Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem if quotes are being used in violation of Wikipedia guidelines to circumvent the neutrality policy. Some of the quotes you give above do seem like clear violations, like calling people fanatical minions. Just totally unnecessary. If there's some valuable information there, then just paraphrase and present the information in a neutral way.TheBlueCanoe 21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These quotations are not being used to replace or expand on content contained in any of the general information sections. This is why the controversy section exists in the first place; to allow a space for an anti-thesis (accusations of wrongdoing, etc) , and because of that, I don't feel that quoting the sources in their entirety should be treated as being out of place. Furthermore, if we look at the whole picture, one can see that ample rebuttals are offered to the aforementioned quotations, thus establishing neutral ground. Cheers(RidjalA (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had reintroduced the quotation "has been taking his vacations at this lavish ranch... built in part on the labor and tithings of his [fanatically devoted minions]" but replaced the content in brackets with "adherents", to settle this. I don't understand why this was removed by ajaxfiore again. Discussion? BTW, you reverted me 4 times in a span of a few minutes. Not cool.RidjalA (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a said: Redundant as it has already been said "for their father's enjoyment," also "donations from the faithful go into the nonprofit and do not benefit the family." Additionally, I have looked at the original article on LexisNexis and the quote does not exist. I'm assuming the quote was added by Bensman on his blog, which is not reviewed before being published. Given that the source is the article published on The San Antonio Express-News, not Bensman rendition of it on his blog, the quote is not present in the source. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The final section in this article says "According to Gordon Melton and David Bromley the church La Luz del Mundo became subject to fraudulent accusations of planning acts of violence or mass suicide against its members as a result of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide." So, just to be clear, there was no plan for mass suicide or violence, and this was just a false accusation. Is that right? If so, then I suggest someone need to edit the first paragraph under criticism clarifying that these were unsubstantiated or false accusations.TheBlueCanoe 20:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, thanks for noticing. I'll try to do that over the weekend, but if another editor is available, be my guest. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that it is necessary to delete content on the basis that Revista Academica is not a valid source. In fact, this book can be found in university libraries, just like Berkeley does here. I should also point out that the co-author Lourdes Arguelles received her PhD at NYU and is Emeritus Professor at Claremont Graduate University. You could see her official profile here. I hope that this should suffice to clarify its validity. RidjalA (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Academica has been extensively discussed in this talk page. It has been concluded that it is not a reliable source. I'm sure you can see that, but insist on using it for all the anti LLDM things you write to keep the leaders "on check." There is no need to use this source when we have reliable sources to support the Criticism section. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mien Kampf can be found in plenty of universities including Harvard and Yale, that doesn't make it a book of truths. The reason why it would require deletion is because of BLP issues. If it is not a valid source, then its accusations against SJF become a serious legal liability for Wikipedia as a website/organization. More can still be added into the Criticism/Controversy sections without it. I suggest, RidjalA, that you do some research to find more information from reliable and valid sources. You may wish to amplify more from Dormady's source. The book the church published even contains a bit more info about the 1942 schism. If you can find statements from El Buen Pastor church they could be added to the Criticism section. De la Torre might have a few things you can add. Fortuny does record a controversy that predates Jorge Erdely. And if you wish, you can voice Erdely's claims that the Church fabricated accusations against him (though expect said addition to also include more background information with Erdely's dealings with the church). My point is, that you do not need to rely on a bad source to maintain those two sections. Fordx12 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been concluded that Revista Academica is unreliable. In fact, the L.A. Times backs up their claims that there exists valid accusations of sexual abuse in La Luz Del Mundo here. I don't feel that your claims of comparing it to Mien Kampf are justified (I doubt Hitler's book was co-authored by a professor and peer reviewed). I'm presenting links with supporting evidence in favor of Revista Academica's credibility, and it is for these reasons that I don't agree that deleting content based off of claims against revista academica is justifiable. Cheers RidjalA (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that Revista Academica (RA) is not a reliable source. There are substantial differences between what LA Times reports and what Revista Academica claims. The fact that the LA Times reports accusations of sexual abuse, does not mean the LA Times is backing up their claims. The LA Times presents the story from an objective, neutral point of view, while Revista Academica presents the story from a highly subjective, anti LLDM point of view. Given that LA Times reports this, there is no need to introduce RA. Ample evidence has been provided that Revista Academica is not reliable, all of which I doubt you have read. Revista Academica is certainly not peer reviewed by the a wider academic community, and I doubt there was even some significant peer reviewing within RA itself. RA clearly states "El contenido de los artículos publicados en la Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, es responsabilidad exclusiva de sus respectivos autores y no refleja necesariamente el criterio del Comité Editorial ni el de los demás colaboradores." It is not considered a reliable source by scholars who have written about LLDM. Even Elio Masferrer Kan, under whose shadow Erdely sought credibility, has tried to distance himself from Erdely. But Erdely's days of pretending to be an academic are over, he is currently hiding in New York City, because the Mexican government is after him. I have found something short for you to read here. Anyway, wiki policies and common sense state that Revista Academica is not a reliable source. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, it's merely Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore (pro-lldm) vs me (pro-controversy). Consensus is always reached through an independent third opinion. Common sense? We must have a different sense of what constitutes 'common sense', because as I've mentioned, Revista Academica was co-authored by a credible Emeritus Professor and the book itself is found in university archives (as I showed in my previous comment).

All that aside, I'd like to propose a solution. I think that the way for us to proceed is to include RA data along with anti-RA data on lldm wiki. That way, I get to show the points that RA presents, and you too get to offer your counter arguments to RA. My goal is to be fair to both sides. Would you agree to this? RidjalA (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that explanation of consensus? I don't know about other wikies, but According to WP:CONACHIEVE third opinions and dispute resolution are treated more like the end result of the failure to reach consensus in the English wikipedia. Independent third opinions are not needed for consensus, as per cited policy. Your compromise isn't really a compromise, it's going back to the status quo, unless you mean that my proposed subsection on Jorge Erdely ought to be added to the article including Ajaxfiore's government document, and RA writers must be used to attribute their claims (The name of the source can't be used for attribution). That is a compromise I am willing to live with. We can revise this again if RfC determines that RA is not realities. What do you think? Fordx12 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I am "pro religious tolerance." That aside, RidjalA, Argüelles is known for her work on Cuban refugees and for her work on feminism and homosexuality. However, when it comes to LLDM, she clearly has a personal grudge against the denomination as I briefly showed here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Rape_accusations. As shown here [9] Argüelles joined Revista Academica before the release of Tomo IV on September 2002. Which means your argument is invalid for the previous 3 tomes, the first one being about LLDM. Notice how her only articles on the subject have been co-authored with Erdely. See [10] [11] [12]. One finds Erdely's stamp on all of these, i.e. I suspect most of the content was written by Erdely, not Argüelles. Argüelles might have simply translated what Erdely wrote. As I stated earlier, Argüelles' credentials do not make her a scholar of unquestionable academic integrity. Even if it were so, the articles in question were co-authored by a fugitive. I have scoured the internet looking for the book "To Live and Die in The Light of the World," (where the articles are found) edited by Argüelles, but it seems to be non existent. How is it that you found it in university archives?

That being said, I oppose the use of this unreliable source. Fordx12 perhaps you could make an article for Erdely or Las Casitas del Sur incident, which can then be linked to the LLDM article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RidjalA it seems to me that you want to preserve the section on Guadalupe Avelar, even if it means using an unreliable source. However, there is no need to use Revista Academica when Dormady provides an account of the events of 1942. Recently I found a reliable source that mentions Guadalupe Avelar here. RidjalA are you ok with these two reliable sources instead of Revista Academica? Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted "criticism" back to "controversy" on the subject header to be more in line with religious pages citing similar issues.

Whereas "critique" or "criticism" should be more fitting for subjective issues involving doctrines or practices like those in the Seventh Day Adventists page here, the subject header "controversy" is more fitting for other more objective issues, such as those surrounding Catholics ("Sexual Abuse Controversy" here) and Scientology ("Controversies" including physical abuse and fraud here). Thus I feel that because the issues surrounding lldm involve both sexual abuse and fraud, it should not be out of line for the header to read "controversy".

If our ultimate goal is for the improvement of lldm's wiki page, then there should be no better guide than for us to model this page after the pages of more well-known religions. Cheers. RidjalA (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Catholic priests have been found guilty of sexual abusing children; the Church of Scientology has also been found guilty of some of the charges against it. However, LLDM and its leaders have not been found guilty of anything. I have also discussed how the Silver Wolf Ranch does not constitute Controversy and therefore does not belong under a controversy section.[13] A criticism section encompasses all the points discussed and is therefore an appropriate title. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current setup is acceptable from my point of view. With the Silver Wolf ranch and the past criticisms recorded by Dormady fitting into the "critism" section. I think the controversy section can stay since the objectionable source has been removed. The difference between a "controversy" and a "critism" is the amount of attention a subject is given and how scandalous it is. The accusations of rape due fit the bill for a "controversy" however I disagree with RidjalA that the difference has to do with the content being subjective v.s. objective. Both can be equally subjective such as the accusations of having the potential for mass suicide. They turned out to be bogus (based on subjective opinions), however they were a controversy. Dormady seems pretty objective, yet his information fits in the criticism category. Having both sections works just fine in my book.

I have been using the articles of the LDS church (Mormons), the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses as models for this article. RidjalA, do you agree in including the Jehovah's Witnesses as a model? My rationalization for it is due to some parallels that I believe exist between LLDM and the three named churches. Fordx12 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must explain my rationale for placing the Schism of 1942 under the criticism section. It was not a "state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view," i.e. not a controversy. This was an internal conflict that was reported in a struggling, virtually unknown newspaper of time. According to what I have read in the Occidental, on November 1942, 250 members deserted La Luz del Mundo to form El Buen Pastor. These dissidents appeared to be discontent with having to pay 5 pesos monthly, and not being allowed to go to parties, use ties, drink alcohol, and profess polygamy. These dissidents accused Joaquin Gonzalez of having impregnated Guadalupe Avelar and of teaching members to shun those who challenged the church. They tried to get the temple shutdown but did not succeed. However the reporter is not objective at all, and clearly sides with the dissidents. According to Dormady, the church responded that the dissidents were only using this as a pretext for leaving LLDM. From my own research, it appears LLDM also responded by accusing the dissidents of wanting to keep the tithe money, and in response El Buen Pastor abolished the practice of tithing.

Anyway, even if we take into account Erdely (i.e. Revista Academica) there is still no evidence of controversy. Erdely simply restated some things from 1942 and added some things of his own. But LLDM seems to have simply ignored Erdely's accusations on the matter, supposedly because Guadalupe Avelar denied everything and returned to the church asking forgiveness. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really important for me to voice my two concerns. The first one being that I don't know if this is being done intentionally or not, but outside third opinions are being ignored (primarily this one and this one ]). Also, I really don't think it's necessary to split the controversy section into two distinct sections as "criticism" and "controversy". This will confuse readers, and if our overall objective is to make lldm an excellent page, then we should avoid splitting the controversy section as such.

Ajaxfiore: For the record, an outside person offered their third opinion and stated "it does seem that there's a genuine controversy over the Church's accumulation of private wealth" here. So the Silver Wolf Ranch controversy belongs in the controversy section, not some place else.

Also, for the recent addition of "Schism of 1942", I think that the title should be brought back as "Accusations of founder's exploitation of underage women", as another independent Third Opinion stated here I don't see why this article was moved out of the controversy section either, since it discusses accusations of the founder having impregnated a minor.

Also, the aftermath of one victim of sexual abuse (Moises Padilla being kidnapped and stabbed 57 times), warrants for it further to be called "controversy", and not just simply call it a "critique" or some thing else. So it is these accusations of sexual abuse along with the violent retribution against the victims (the objective) which I again reiterate as being controversial, and not just issues involving lldm faith or doctrine (the subjective).

Fordx12: I don't agree that the current setup is an acceptable form. As I stated, splitting the controversy section might confuse readers. I think that using as many other popular and credible pages as models for this page is important, including but not limited to Jehova's Witnesses. Though where disagreements may arise, we should use as many wiki pages as references to guide us and always utilize outside third opinions. But for the meantime, I feel that the most recent revisions need to reflect the opinions of outside admins and users, and should be changed. Best, RidjalA (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Compromise

Wiki policy here [14] states that GA class articles can serve as models. Here is an explanation of different classes [15]. The articles you proposed as a model that have a "controversy" section are not "Good Articles." Seventh Day Adventists article was marked as GA but has been downgraded to B-class. The Catholic Controversy section is rated "C-class," the Scientology article is also rated "C-class." LLDM article is also rated "C-class." Guess what the other C-class articles have in common with LLDM? A controversy section. However, the articles that lack such a section such as LDS Mormon church and the Seventh Day Adventist articles are B-class articles (still not good enough, but really close since they were higher quality articles). The Jehovah's Witnesses article is a GA class and thus suitable as a model. You can see the class designation in their talk pages.

We should refrain from using C-class and lower articles as models, and be cautious about B-class articles. GA, and Featured class articles can serve as good models. Jehovah's Witnesses is my model (With some input from LDS and Seventh Day Adventist articles). This is why I have added the organizational change to the beliefs and practices sections and amplified the history section.

As for the naming of the section or whether or not the sections should be one, I honestly don't see what the issue is. How is this current setup confusing? Why should it be criticism or controversy? Wiki policy states that Controversy sections ought to be avoided and can constitute as POV forking. Read WP:CRITS and the advise about religious articles is to label it "criticism, read [16]. The same policy article provides that the ideal is to avoide these sections all together [17]. The accusations of abuse during the 1940's can easily be integrated into the history section, as well as the mass suicide subsection. Silver Wolf Ranch can also be included in the history section. The accusations of rape section might also fit in the history section. The suggested format for religious articles is a "criticism" section.

I want this page to be a B-class page. It can be done with a Controversy section. However I doubt that the article will ever be a GA class article with such a named section. All Wiki articles should gravitate to GA class to increase Wikipedia's image and reliability. We should not be content with the LLDM article or any article getting stuck in C-class.

As for the third opinion issues, allow me to address them. I don't see how they have any bearing on this current situation. No admin has even made a related opinion (they seem to be ignoring this article).

This issue [18] had to do with whether or not to omit the phrase "allegations" or "accusations." RidjalA was against adding either phrase. I was for it. The third opinion came on "my side" it has little to do with subsequent edits. If you want to, I can go ahead and ask the user via the talk page to elaborate what his or her third opinion was. In fact, I might just do that. I doubt they'll agree to elaborate, but who knows.

As for this one [19] The third opinion dealt with content that you, RidjalA, wanted to keep in yet I felt that it was unsourced and a result of source synthesis. The third opinion agreed with me on that matter. The disagreement between me and the third opinion was the removal of the information about the Silver Wolf ranch, which I ended up supporting the third opinion. At that time there was no "criticism" section so obviously the third opinion cannot be limiting. Shall we also ask them to elaborate?

However, I do offer a compromise. Merge both sections and call it "Controversy and Criticism" section and allow readers the chance to decide if each topic is a criticism or a controversy. Later on more editors willing to opine on the matter can cause it to change. I'm afraid that this discussion doesn't qualify for a third opinion since we are now three editors discussing it. An RfC on content or a notice board can be used, would you prefer that? Fordx12 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating the content of the Criticism and Controversy sections into the main article seems like an onerous task. If you are willing to do it, be my guest. Until then, I believe the current setup should remain; I believe most people know the difference between controversy and criticism. Ajaxfiore (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to clarify my opinion with regard to the controversy and/or criticism section. Since the information in question is neither positive nor at all proven, that seems the best section to put it in. As to what the section should be called, I think that's less important. The claim is obviously a criticism (it's not positive) and it seems to be controversial as well (given that you're debating it), so either section title would be appropriate, to my mind. I don't see that one stands out above the other. Obviously, we must avoid implying that the accusations have been proven, because they haven't, but I don't see that the word "controversy" necessarily implies "true" or "likely to be true". Anaxial (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the third opinion editors if the current setup ignores their third opinion. Anaxial has just clarified his/her opinion. The name is inconsequential to them and their opinion (I agree, which is why I made my proposal). The other editor whose opinion was mentioned responded on my talk page [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fordx12&diff=522238958&oldid=521996702] The editor stated that the current setup is okay on his/her part. So it seems that RidjalA's concerns have been answered. We are not ignoring their third opinions. My proposal still stands though. Perhaps I should just be bold WP:BOLD and make the edit? Fordx12 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously stated, I am using the GA class article Jehovah's Witnesses as a model with input from B Class articles, that used to be of higher quality, Seventh-day Adventist Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is another GA class article, Churches of Christ. Upon reviewing those articles and the guidelines for a B-Class article mention that there should be enough info to satisfy a class A article. In other words, amplifying existing sections and perhaps adding more sections/subsections and reorganizing sections. Eventually, if a section gets "too big" it may be summarized and spun off to another page. My hope is to create a series of articles much like those for Jehovah's Witnesses and and the LDS church. Fordx12 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now I propose to reorganize the following

History Section- The History section is currently divided by the two church leaders. I propose that we reorganize it by either dates or "expansion" phases. The first subsection will deal with Aaron Joaquin Gonzalez's origins to his arrival to Guadalajara called "Background," second subsection can deal with the Church's history in Guadalajara up until before the purchase of La Hermosa Provincia and be called "Initial growth," third subsection could then deal with the church's history up until the first Apostle's death though I am not sure what to call it, and the last section can be about the church's expansion up until the late 1990's called "Expansion." Covering the last ten to fifteen years of history can be the final subsection called "Recent History." I also wish to amplify information and increase it. Therefore perhaps a spin off wiki article could be created.

Beliefs and Practices Section- Some of the subsections will be amplified as well. My goal is for them to appear like the subsections of the Jehovah's Witnesses article. I will be adding more subsections described below.Fordx12 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now I propose to add the following

A publishing section/subsection The Seventh Day Adventist Church article contains a subsection called "publishing" I wish to add this either as an independent section in the LLDM article or as a subsection in the Beliefs and Practices section.

Beliefs and Practices Section- I wish to add the following two subsections. One on Holy Days and the other on Prayer services. However, I am not sure if the information on Prayer Services should just be added into the "Worship" subsection.

A Social Services/Community Service section/subsection- I would like to add information about the services the church provides as well as the aid it has provided in response to disasters. I base this off of the spin off article Jehovah's Witnesses practices's section on "Humanitarian efforts" and the Seventh-day Adventist Church's "Adventist Mission" section.

Architecture section- I plan to also amplify this section in the hopes of creating a spin off page later down the road. I will start by adding information on the "Torre de La Fe." There is also some controversy/cirticism surrounding this in Mexican newspapers if anyone wishes to add it to the wiki as well. Part of it has been added into the "Discrimination" section.

Any thoughts on these propositions? I will start working on these by first adding information to the existing subsections in the "Belief and Practices" section. After that I will add the "Holy Day" subsection and then amplify the History section, perhaps clean up the SJF subsection and then amplify it and amplify the other subsection. Fordx12 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Moving the architecture section to its own article seems like a good idea. But perhaps you should wait until all the current disputes are solved. When this happens, this talk page (which has gotten very big) can be archived, and a new one can be made to discuss any issues that may arise along the way. The references are cluttered, I think it is necessary to employ Shortened Footnotes. See WP:CITESHORT. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done (shortened footnotes). Λυδαcιτγ 05:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Λυδαcιτγ. --- Ajaxfiore (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events have caused me to lose my faith in wikipedia. I will now cease all further edits to this page, and perhaps wikipedia altogether, until my name is cleared.

Regarding recent changes made by RobertRosen, I think some of those edits need to be reverted. I believe the editor has engaged in disruptive editing and has removed more than half of the article (43553 bytes from 75365 bytes). I doubt this editor has as much knowledge as the 3 editors previously editing this article. An article about LLDM is not complete without the following sections:

1. History
2. Schism of 1942
3. Mass Suicide
4. Architecture

All these are intrinsic to LLDM, we cannot simply disregard LLDM's history, 250 members deserting the church, the mass suicide accusations that led to other accusations, and the architecture imbued with symbolism.

For the schism of 1942 I have provided the following source elsewhere on this talk page here. The architecture section can be its own separate article.

Regarding not being able to use Dormady's doctoral thesis, he also published a book called Primitive Revolution, although the book omits some parts of LLDM history and government relationships that his thesis details.

I am not happy with the lead as the editor classified the church as controversial. The controversy was left behind in the last century, now the press only reports about LLDM's events and alleged discrimination. Should we then change it to "a discriminated church"? Certainly not. The editor has blatantly ignored the "intellectuals and academics who demanded a climate of tolerance for religious minorities." Also there was no controversy in 2004, Garma Navarro is referring to the events of 1997, although it seems it happened in 2004 as he says "this year".

The editor has changed the membership info to "700,000 Mexico Census". I am not sure how he got this, but I am sure we all disagree. I think the infobox asks for total members, which could be 7 million, 5 million, or unknown.

I would deal with this, but as I said: "I quit" (at least temporarily). Also RobertRosen would not be fine with me editing the page as I am not a "genuine editor". I can still be contacted through my talkpage, although it might take some time for me to respond. Goodbye. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history [20] has you quacking like a SPA duck (so swim away). However, let me address your accusations for the record. There was no schism in 1942. The only reference cited (Jason Domady) does not make the claim. Instead this WP:NOR sub-section was used as WP:COAT to level allegations of sexual harassment. There were no Mass Suicides in this Church, once again it was WP:NOR and speculative. There is nothing notable in this Church's architecture. Where are the sources ? There are 2 sources cited for the 700,000 membership figure of the Govt census in the "Demography" sub-section. (Please read WP:NOT RobertRosen (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My FINAL 3O is that the 2 editors Fordx12 and RidJalA OR any other editor should now edit this page in consultation without disruptive editing or using multiple accounts. Adios (To God) RobertRosen (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ouch! That hurt. The schism of 1942 is reported by Dormady in Primitive Revolution, Renee de la Torre in Los hijos de la luz, and Fernando M. Gonzalez in El amor al censor en La Luz del Mundo. The accusations of mass suicide permeated Mexican media for a few months, perhaps even eclipsing the federal elections of that year. As for "There is nothing notable in this Church's architecture", that is highly subjective, however it is an intrinsic part of LLDM's beliefs. I spent my whole summer researching this church after I found the Spanish version of this article, yet all of that seemed pointless.Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. RobertRosen. You are saying that leveling accusations of sexual harassment in relation to the year 1942 should not be included in this wiki article? RidjalA...what have you to say about that? Do you agree? Fordx12 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page 1200 of Encyclopedia of Mexico: History, Society & Culture - Vol. 2 By: Michael S. Werner, which is also available on the Questia databank, contains some substantial information on the subject, and it may well be that it contains information not yet referenced in the article. Highbeam Research has additional articles, although I think at least some of them might be only of local interest and irrelevant to this main article. If anyone wanted any of them, though, they are free to drop me an e-mail and I can forward to them what I can.

Also, a google books search of the name here seems to indicate several other sources. I note Gordon Melton's "Encyclopedia of Protestantism" among them. Some of these sources probably qualify as RS, and might merit inclusion, as well. I regret to say I don't speak Spanish myself, so I don't know which times the term is used in some other way, but there seem to be numerous sources there which could be used. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many of those encyclopedias on google search have information already cited to papers written by Spanish scholars cited on this article, and some are direct contradictions. I am indeed interested in the sources you found. Thank you for your offer. Fordx12 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of improving La Luz del Mundo while at the same time avoiding another long dispute and edit war with Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, I'm notifying the community in advance of the revisions I anticipate to make so that they are reviewed by independent opinions (Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, you're still more than welcomed to comment, the same for anyone else). If there are any irreconcilable objections, then we'll open it up for discussion through Rfc. RidjalA (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes (feel free to edit each or any section with your comments):

(made into sections by Λυδαcιτγ 05:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Controversial content

I don't think that LLDM Wiki looks like the balanced page it once was now that its overall content has doubled in size in the past few weeks using such few sources, while content in the controversy section continues to be removed at an even faster rate (courtesy of Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore) and replaced with 'counter' arguments (I'll explain in a minute why they are not counter arguments). The following are the proposed changes specific to the controversy section:

(a)Changing "Controversy and Criticism" header back to "Controversy"

-This section discusses controversies (accusations), not criticism (criticism deals primarily with issues that are faith-based, like critiques of religious practices, or criticisms of ceremonies and such)

(b)Removing 'counter' arguments in Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy

-I don't agree that this source [21] was written as a response to this source [22] Doing so is an argumentum ad lapidem and pushes a position which did not originate from the source. It would have to state something to the effect of"LLDM has been accused of accumulating private wealth, but in fact it is not true because of such reasons". The article is an informative piece (i.e. not persuasive) and never went as far to establish that type of position, and doing so would be a WP:SYNTHESIS issue.

(c)Reintroducing deleted content that was cited from Revista Academica

-Now that it has been further established that Revista Academica is a valid source [23], its sourced information will be reintroduced.

(d)Reintroducing "Allegions of founder's exploitation of underage women"

-this entire subsection was backed up by Revista Academica, and should not have been removed, its focus altered, nor its title changed to "Schism of 1942".

-the 'counter' arguments found in "Schism of 1942" are backed up by a PhD dissertation (Dormady), which like most dissertations, did not go through the proper channels for commercial publishing. Thus the info cited by this source should not be deemed acceptable.

(e)Reintroducing synopsis of Controversy section (don't know why this was removed in the first place) so that it reads:

La Luz del Mundo has been the subject of various accusations, including the accumulation of private wealth, rape accusations by its current leader, and exploitation of underage women by the group's founder

RidjalA (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Makes sense, done. Λυδαcιτγ 05:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The Synopsis had was removed when the section was divided. When I merged the sections, I failed to re-include it.

(b) We could divide both sources. One will provide information about the Ranch, not mention of accusation or defenses, and be attributed to the source you wish to remove in text. Then the next paragraph will provide the controversy claim with its counter arguments. Any comments on this?

(d) The dissertation was published into a university published book. I will be reciting it as soon as I am done commenting on this talk page.

Question, isn't the accusation of accumulation of private wealth a criticism? Fordx12 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE reciting Dormady's content takes longer than I anticipated. A few areas still require recitation. I will handle that later. Right now I think I need to move on to other things. If any of you have the book, please feel free to recite it. If not, I'll continue to do so my self soon. Fordx12 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Membership numbers

One source states:

The leaders have claimed for years to have a worldwide membership of five millions, three million of those in Mexico. This number has been repeated uncritically by media and a few scholars but in 1997 professor of anthropology Elio Masferrer concluded, based on ethnographic studies and government documents, that membership in Mexico could not be above 250,000 adherents. (Revista Academica [24])

I propose for the 'Members' in the info box to state "5 million according to the church{reference}, but significantly less per outside sources {references}" or something like that RidjalA (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a counter proposistion. Patricia Fortuny, as cited in the infobox, gives the number at 7 million. Its not a number found on any of LLDM's websites that I have read myself. So I have to assume that those are based on her research, since she doesn't cite the source of that number. The Church claims 5 million with 1.5 million in Mexico in the year 2000 (as stated and sourced in the Demography section). I think it would be best to delete the membership stat in the infobox and allow readers to choose for themselves based on information in the demography section. The reason here is that Anthropologist Patricia Fortuny is considered the leading expert of LLDM as per http://www.osea-cite.org/about/people.php#patricia Wikipedia should not make the decision of what is the official or actual number of adherents to any church. Fordx12 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The LDM" vs "LLDM"

All mentions of "the LDM" should be changed back to "LLDM". Even if a reference or two has it as "the LDM", that is not the most popularly accepted acronym, and it is certainly not the most well-known acronym of the two.

To show how unreliable "The LDM" is in comparison to "LLDM", do a quick Google/Bing search for both acronyms. Here were my results:

Query results for "LLDM" using Google:

1)Wikipedia La Luz Del Mundo

2)LLDMusa.org (La Luz Del Mundo's official site)

3)TheTruthAboutLLDM.blogspot.com (a site which compares La Luz del Mundo teachings to biblical sciptures)

4)lldm.org (another official La Luz del Mundo page)

5)Website selling Android apps for La Luz del Mundo church hymns (available for $9.99)

Now let's compare how this matches up to "The LDM"

Query results for "The LDM", again using Google:

1)www.LiteraryDeathMatch.com (?)

2)www.LorenzoDeMedici.it (a site offering foreign language courses)

3)www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/ldm (software program, Local Data Manager)

4)another Literary Death Match website (??)

5) www.TheLDMteam.com (Real estate firm, Laura Denise Milkowski... definitely not La Luz del Mundo)

I think it's better for us to accept the use of "LLDM" as the more popularly used and accepted acronym of the two. Prior to Wikipedia, I bet many of the wiki volunteers knew hardly a thing about this church, but changing its acronym to a lesser known one will further obscure this church's potential for future readers.

If all else fails to convince you, then just look at the title of the church's page: it reads La Luz del Mundo. If it makes everyone happy, we could incorporate at the beginning something like

La Luz del Mundo(abbreviated LLDM, or sometimes The LDM)

But for the entirety of the article, I think it should read LLDM. Just not The LDM RidjalA (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your idea. State that it is known as LLDM but sometimes referred to as LDM. The only place, last time I checked, that the Article had LDM is within Dormady's quotes. You can't change that. Does anyone object? Fordx12 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'd like to mention this explanation for the use of "LDM." [25] I also failed to mention its use in the Church's hymn books and other publications like a study book for ministers. LLDM is just more popular, not more correct. But this doesn't change my opinion stated above agreeing to Ridjal's proposition. Fordx12 (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly made that change in the section lead. Fordx12 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short response by Ajaxfiore

It's difficult to move forward with the article when you keep attacking editors and trying to suppress my opinion as you did here. You have even threatened to ban editors, here. There is also a possibility that you or RobertRosen will unjustifiably delete large chunks of the article.

Regarding "The LDM" vs "LLDM", The LDM is technically correct, however I do not think it is necessary to abbreviate and we should use the full name, i.e. La Luz del Mundo.

Regarding Membership numbers, what you cited mentions membership numbers in Mexico. The church has never claimed 3 million adherents in Mexico by the way. It also seems unreasonable to state "per outside sources," when only one source is provided. International membership figures are approximately 5 million by the church, 7 million by Fortuny.

Regarding Controversial Content, Controversy is defined as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view." There was no such state of prolonged dispute in the case of Silver Wolf Ranch and the Schism of 1942 (i.e. Guadalupe Avelar). How will you reconcile these?

As for reintroducing Allegations of founder's exploitation of underage women. This is incorrect, as only Guadalupe Avelar accused the founder of sexual abuse. Ajaxfiore (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and do not have the power to block editors (i.e. you and Fordx12); it's your haphazard actions in censoring the controversy section that are going to get you guys banned. So chill.

Carrying on, we seem to disagree on everything (not surprising). I won't address your points. I will leave that to the discretion of the community, as I feel we won't get very far if it's just me and you (and Fordx12). Best, RidjalA (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, thanks for removing that long list of countries here. I was thinking it was beginning to sound something like this ;D RidjalA (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there's already a discussion related to this article at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but here's my take on the article. It looks like some of the edits made by RobertRosen (talk · contribs) were justified, such as this one; such a claim indeed needs a source. For the moment, I've placed a citation needed claim on that paragraph. Others, however, seem excessive, such as this removal. Whether or not there were mass suicides, there seems to have been a noteworthy media furor over the claim.

Going forward, I think we should start with the current version, which is prior to RobertRosen's edits. Any possibly contentious edits can then be explained in advance, as RidjalA (talk · contribs) has done in the section above. Let's also all remember to be civil and assume good faith. Λυδαcιτγ 06:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The approach of starting with the current article and then improving the page is simply not going to work. Let me explain why. Since April 2012 there has been massive blanking and anon edits to this page (The article was then around 18,000 bytes and tolerable). The socking was actually going on as far back as April 2011 - so there are/were long-term SPA interests on this page. Admin C.Fred and Ors did their best but when they dropped this page, 2 SPA editors Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore (please review their stats) have massively distorted this article in the past 3 months and not allowed the other editor Ridjala to edit. That is not to say that I believe that Ridjala is clean or unbiased either, I am observing a considerable amount of synchronicity between all of them which I am going to probe further in terms of "false flags" and misdirection. I am also observing the use of suspect open proxy IPs a few months back. As such it would be impossible for any single outside/neutral editor to work on this page - especially such a low priority article which is why the WIKISCUM keep getting away with this sort of thing. I reiterate that I DO NOT ASSUME GOOD FAITH on the part of these SPAs for reasons I have given. I have reached my 3RR limit so am resting. RobertRosen (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RobertRosen. Not that I am faulting RidjalA, I have no issue with the following, RidjalA has exclusively been editing this article. How come you are only calling me and another a SPA account? RidjalA and Ajaxfiore are welcomed editors on my part. Even though RidjalA comes off as hostile towards me, my attempts to reconcile have been met with hostility. Oh well, maybe he honestly thinks that I am a bad editor. I can't change others' minds or hearts. I have been working to add more to this article. Aside from our differences there has been little section blanking from outside parties until you showed up. I intend to work with all editors to revert section blanking. As I mentioned many times before I am attempting to branch out. FYI, I am really interested in editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles and I am currently doing research (finding secondary sources) to improve some of that groups articles. Please stop making bad faith assumptions as I am starting to feel hurt by them. Fordx12 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I suppose the latest Oct 28 2012 blankings were a figment of my imagination. How about 15.Mar.2012/ 21-23.march.2012 / 2.April-13.April.2012 requiring the page to be protected for 90 days. Oh its so convenient that you and Ajaxfiore were "sleeping" from Jan 2012 till you both woke up and started editing very similarly (did you know you have tools to detect this). On 20 July the protection tag is removed and the mischief starts again and the page expands with SPA editing from 18,000 bytes to 75,000 bytes. There is a long term pattern of creating short term SPA Good-Hand/Bad-Hand misdirectional accounts focusing on blanking/reinserting the same sections over and over again to systematically POV the article after fake conflict/artificial consensus. RobertRosen (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ajaxfiore points us to the original source for the claim that "According to anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro, the Mexican government was reluctant to take action in fear that this would open the door for sanctions against the Catholic clergy." Is this Garma Navarro's article? (If so we should indicate that it is in Spanish not English.) I took a quick look and (with my mediocre Spanish) couldn't find anything relating to the 2004 incident. If that's the case, we should move the sentence about Garma Navorro's conclusions to the relevant part of the article, and find a citation for the first part of the paragraph. Λυδαcιτγ 09:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a line on page 142 in the Spanish link that you provided which states:

Es claro que imponer las sanciones a este hombre y a su organizacion abriria tambien las puertas para la aplicacion de sanciones contra el clero catolico qye tuviera acusaciones semejantes.

, which translates to the quotation in question. I also recall having read that same quotation in English in James T. Richardson's book Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe. The women's accusations on television took place in 2004 (citation needed?), but this book was published in 2003, so I don't think that this book can be used as a response to the accusations of 2004. I too concur that the quotation should be reinserted elsewhere. I'll see if I can cite the source for that first portion of the paragraph. RidjalA (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait nm, the book was published in 2004. Anyhow, the Navarro source states that the church director was not necessarily accused by just women (nor publicly on television, that definitely needs a reference), but that a christian institute uncovered that several members were making accusations against him for allegedly committing severe acts of sexual "violaciones" (i.e. rape) against his underage female and male adherents. Don't know where we can go with that at this point. Let me know if you have any suggestions. RidjalA (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed Navarro's article. The article was translated into English as "The Legal Situation of Religious Minorities in Mexico:The Current situation, Problems, and Conflicts" (La situación legal de las minorías religiosas en México: balance actual, problemas y conflictos) and published in James T. Richardson's book Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe in 2004. Garma Navarro explicitly states that the events took place in 1997. My reason for deleting the whole paragraph was that Garma Navarro's article was being used a source for the whole paragraph, but instead of 1997 the paragraph says 2004. Since it relates to a living person, I went ahead and deleted it. I will now remove everything but Garma Navarro's conclusion, since the events of 1997 have already been mentioned. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridchardson's book is used as a source for the TV accusations. Would that mean that the date should then be changed to 1997? I haven't checked to see if someone did it already. Fordx12 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the TV accusations occurred around the same time as the Moises Padilla incident (1996-1997). I don't see why the date of the tv accusations should restate that they took place in 1997. If we are to use any date at all, it should be to state the date of the most recent publication (2004) to avoid unnecessary reiteration. RidjalA (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]