Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Relevance vs Editorializing vs Facts

On this part, I was initially worried (and still am worried) that it was tangential, if not irrelevant, given that we're talking about LLDM church, not the Catholic church. I'm okay if we make a one or two sentence mention about how the Catholic church in this section relates to LLDM church, but I'm worried that anything beyond that can create a slippery slope (how much information on the Catholic church is too much information? How much do we omit?) Which is precisely what happened after I tried to add more important information in the interest of adding more complete context.

I've reverted this last part given that this is factual information that is included in the source, and does not constitute editorializing. (you can use google translate to verify that the information comes directly from the source)

I hope this reversion represents a reasonable way for us to compromise (i.e. my preference is to minimize information from the Catholic church to avoid the page sounding tangential and dismissive of the topic at hand, but others may prefer that mention of the Catholic church not be omited).

Thanks so much! I'm open to discussing this further, and if necessary, getting additional opinions from the community. -RA — Preceding unsigned comment added by RidjalAbdullah (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That part (originally added here by BadHombres) is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. The second source cited ([1]) doesn't even mention this article's subject at all. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi HaeB. Thanks for bringing WP:SYNTH to my attention. My use of NYT as a source was just for that one sentence "Only Mexico City newspaper La Jornada and small Mexico City television station Canal 40 reported on the Maciel sex abuse scandal in Mexico where most of his victims were from and where he enjoyed the support of the Mexican elite." As the sentence has nothing to do with this article's subject, I didn't think I was violating WP:SYNTH. The Spanish source says something similar, but I chose to use NYT for that sentence only for English speakers. If it's in violation of Wikipedia policies I don't object to rewording to ensure compliance. As for whether this part is relevant, I believe it is because both religious leaders were accused of similar crimes, at the same time, in the same country. Reliable sources have written juxtaposing the two. BadHombres (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey HaeB and BadHombres. So can we agree that its safe to remove the line "Only Mexico City newspaper La Jornada and small Mexico City television station Canal 40 reported on the Maciel sex abuse scandal in Mexico where most of his victims were from and where he enjoyed the support of the Mexican elite" on grounds that the source makes no mention of LLDM church (which is what this page is all about)? The remaining second half of the paragraph is still not my favorite, and frankly neither is a large portion of that section. (the sub-header is "Sexual Abuse Accusations" not "Sexual Abuse Discussions from the Academic Community", therefore the threshold for including all detailed points of view is very low given the original purpose of this section. Any thoughts, feedback? RidjalAbdullah (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I've updated the source to address WP:SYNTH concerns. The section needs some work, but I believe some outside POVs are necessary, otherwise the section becomes a game of he said, she said. BadHombres (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, although there will be lots of disagreeing, I'm hoping we could find some common ground so that we could work together in improving the Controversy section. A safe way to go about that is to try modeling that section after similar sections, such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby pages (and other similar pages), which set the precedent for what the LLDM controversy section should look like. For example, to date, the abuse allegations section in the Bill Cosby page contains about 25 sentences that support the claim that Cosby committed a crime and 7 sentences that dismiss the accusations (mostly from Cosby and his spokesman); for Weinstein there are 14 sentences and 1 sentence, respectively. In comparison, with the exception of the latest developments, the LLDM controversy section contains about 10 sentences affirming accusations, but 14 do not affirm accusations. It's quite obvious then that content that dismisses allegations of abuse is drowning out the claims of abuse. This can be quite problematic because by the same standards, should it also be okay to "balance" (or drown out?) the sections on Beliefs and Practices by adding secondary and tertiary opposing religious viewpoints, and hence dismissing the beliefs of LLDM adherents?

Lastly, this whole section that I tried removing (but got reverted) can be really confusing to readers if we do not remove it. For example, how does the suggestion that the Catholic church initially got off easy from abuse allegations vis-a-vis allegations in LLDM help readers to better understand the two main arguments i.e. that the abuse accusations are true vs that the accusations are not true? It is for these reasons that I'll be removing that section again. Moving forward, and as I mentioned, I'd like to clean up the controversy section so that it's more in line with what other concise controversy sections look like. Please reply with any feedback, concerns, questions, or thoughts. Thanks! RidjalAbdullah (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for working on improving the controversy section and have worked toward that in my edits. As far as precedent setting articles, I do not think such a thing exists in Wikipedia. If anything this article is a Good Article (probably needs to be reassessed) and would be the one setting the precedent. The case in this article is far different from the others. Harvey Weinstein was arrested and Bill Cosby was found guilty, whereas no formal charges were brought against Samuel Joaquín Flores. Also, Cosby and Weinstein have dedicated articles dealing with their sexual abuse accusations; they're hardly concise as you seem to believe.

I object to your characterization that there are only "two main arguments i.e. that the abuse accusations are true vs that the accusations are not true." The case was complex and adding some background information helps the reader. I think there's value in presenting well-sourced similar accusations against another Mexican religious leader made at the same time, in the same country, but originally had different outcomes. BadHombres (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of Quotes

My edit removing the "megalomaniac" quote was reverted. The word is found in the source cited, but the source cited does not directly attribute it as a quote to Fortuny. It may very well be the author summarizing Fortuny's description of Joaquin in one word. I'm worried about using quotes to introduce non-neutral, loaded language. I think the quote is unnecessary. It's sufficient to quote Fortuny saying she believes the accusations. BadHombres (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. You're right, the source does not quote Fortuny directly, and yes it could be that the author is simply summarizing Fortuny's description in one word. I've removed the quotation marks to reflect that, so hopefully that takes care of it. Keep up the good work!RidjalAbdullah (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I still find the use of megalomaniac troubling; it's not in the spirit of WP:NPOV and it's frankly unnecessary. The guy might have been a megalomaniac, but it's not Wikipedia's job to provide ready-packaged insults. Readers can form their own opinions about a man claiming to be the only path to God. BadHombres (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you mean by "the spirit of WP:NPOV"? From what I understand in WP:NPOV under WP:WIKIVOICE, it states that "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity" (italicized for emphasis). I included that Fortuny described Joaquin as a megalomaniac because she mentions that she believed the abuse allegations to be true, but if we omit that she described Joaquin as a megalomaniac, then we lose clarity as to why she believed the allegations to be true. Furthermore, as far as its usage goes, the word "megalomaniac" is less an insult than it is a psychological disorder. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTEPOV "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice." You're calling someone a megalomaniac without having a quote. Your statement that Fortuny believes the accusations are true because Joaquin is a megalomaniac is unsupported by the source. The source says

"Still, when I asked Fortuny whether she believed that Samuel was guilty of sexual abuse, she did not hestitate. “I am sure these allegations are true,” she said. (Our conversation took place before it was clear that Samuel was dying). Fortuny, who has met Samuel, describes him as a megalomaniac; at once a charismatic leader and a scandal-tainted liability. “He’s the strength of the church, but at the same time he’s the weakness of the church,” she said."

The word megalomaniac is found in a completely different sentence and no implication is made that it's the reason why Fortuny finds the accusations credible. Your wording doesn't add clarity; if anything it misleads the reader to something unsupported by the source. Moreover, if megalomaniac is a psychological disorder as you say, the use of it in this article is even more troubling. I don't think you can label someone a megalomaniac without a medical diagnosis, which does not exist in this case. BadHombres (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue of consistency and balance in terms of representing the views and opinions of third parties commenting on La Luz. If 'megalomaniac' is an NPOV issue, then so are the claims of "persecution by obscure interests" and "dirty war". Quite frankly I don't think any of these charged opinions serve this article - I would recommend editing it down to the following:

Anthropologist and longtime researcher of La Luz Del Mundo, Patricia Fortuny, mentioned that "I am sure these [sexual abuse] allegations are true". Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro criticized that the accusations were first brought before the mass media, and thought it was very likely that the accusations were an attempt to give the church a bad image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edits Without Summary and Use of Acronyms

User SebastianDrawsStuff has made several changes to the article without providing edit summaries, including wholesale deletion of sourced material[2]. It's hard to parse through all these edits without understanding the reasoning for them. A lot of the edits seem to be to change La Luz del Mundo to LLDM, which to my knowledge is used informally inside the organization. I looked at several English and Spanish language sources (particularly news media) and did not find many using the acronym. I did find other acronyms beyond LLDM though, such as LDM, LLMC[3], and TLOTW[4]. With that in mind, this article should not use acronyms. BadHombres (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not indiscriminately revert edits

BadHomres, I hate to sound like I’m reprimanding you or anything but you basically reverted ALL of my contributions to the “controversy” section. Everything I wrote on this page so far is in the sources, no original research, including the mention of “mega cities” (in fact “mega city” is in the title of one of the sources). And as far as BLP go, what part of its policy are you citing? As far as I know, BLP states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion“. If you Google Naason Joaquin Garcia's name you’ll find the internet replete with news about accusations of child rape, and two dozen other crimes.

I’d really like to avoid an edit war, and I really want to collaborate with you. If there’s something we can definitely agree on is that we want to improve the page. I’m happy to chat anytime on this page to iron out any kinks.

Respectfully, RidjalAbdullah (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC))

I'm all for improving the page, but your single-minded focus on the controversy section certainly makes it feel like you have an agenda against the church. Looking at your previous accounts I see you've been around since 2010, involved in multiple disputes on this page, and even got banned for sockpuppetry.[5] While the church and its leader Naasón Joaquín García may be controversial, it is not Wikipedia's policy to catalogue every single criticism and controversy as you seem intent on doing. Regardless of accusations and court trials, Joaquín is a living person who has not been convicted of crime, and as such we need to abide by Wikipedia's BLP policies.

Please don't misuse sources. It feels like you deliberately introduce quotes from sources to give a negative spin to the page. I don't know what's the obsession with labeling these developing projects mega-cities based on a sensationalist headline (it is not used anywhere else in the source). It's unnecessarily misleading. 272 is not a mega-city by any sense of the word, especially not a stone throw away from Atlanta or seven minutes away from El Salvador's international airport. BadHombres (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence you've tried to introduce twice.[6][7] The first time it was unsourced, the second time it was poorly sourced. You've tried to push this claim that the California AG "states that the church has "brainwashed" families." This is not supported by the AG's press conference[8] (skip to 24:30) in which the AG's verbatim words are "some people will probably call this a case of brainwashing." BadHombres (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)