Talk:La Luz del Mundo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposal to add new sections and reorganize old sections

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Recent Events

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)

Your edit history [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Possible sources

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)

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)

Going forward with this article

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)

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)

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)

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)

I should state the purpose of my account to avoid being called an SPA. I first opened my account in hopes of addressing early talk issues mentioned in LLDM's talk page, primarily of LLDM page "being a joke" as one user stated here back in 2008. So I did a little bit of work on the Controversy section, and because of life, I never got around to contributing to other articles and my account went inactive for quite some time. And that was that.

Fast forward two years and my page gets bombarded with messages, primarily from Fordx12 (look at the history on my talk page here). Some of these messages were decreeing that I am conducting myself inappropriately (really??). All this love is grounds for harassment, and I've warned Fordx12 that his actions are going to get him banned.

I should point out that we should be aware that this page will be subject to vandalism, and that it will manifest itself in its various blatant and discreet forms.

I say this because the official LLDM page recently wrote in huge bold letters

"Apostolic Letter" here which entails a message by the leader:

"On my behalf, there is much desire to see you again and hear about your faith and militancy" (militancy??)

So the fact that this page is now in shambles should come to no surprise.

I also find it suspicious that Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 opened their accounts in the same month (Jan 2012), they both share the same views (and establish a fake consensus, primarily leaning towards the exclusion of content in the Controversy section), and their edits are identical (all on the subject of LLDM). So I think it's pretty clear who the SPA's are in here (and possibly sockpuppets/tag-team).RidjalA (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC).

I will go on a limb and state that this diff should serve as a guide to the restoration of the controversy section (except for the section titled "Status of Samuel Joaquin in the group"). In this diff, one can compare how the controversy section's been significantly obscured by long paragraphs of insignificant information. Best, RidjalA (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not want to comment here, but seeing as I keep getting mentioned I shall respond. But first, RidjalA, don't engage in making such far fetched assumptions. Analogies of war are very common in Christian groups, I just passed by a church where the pastor was screaming: "We are at war! We are at war!" RidjalA, previously you stated that "I know it's not going to end since their followers are tens of thousands of people strong," but only one LLDM member has been working on this page, I assume out of his own volition.

As for my account, I was previously editing wikipedia under my real name, but then decided I wanted to go incognito, and thus Ajaxfiore came to be. This was the first page I looked at under my new name, read it, and removed one unsourced sentence. Then I left and started working by translating some articles from English to Spanish. I spent my summer learning about La Luz del Mundo, and began editing here again. Perhaps I share the same views with Fordx12, perhaps I don't, I don't know. However I feel the moral obligation to ensure wikipedia is not used as a means to promote religious intolerance. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

At first I started typing a chronology of my edits on RidjalA's page, but I doubt that will help. All I can say is that I opened an account here on Wiki because of the "Status of Joaquin in the Group" section. I edited the talk page asking about it. I edited the subsection lead of the controversy section to include other views on the church for the sake of neutrality. I made intermediate edits, wikipedia can be overwhelming for some people, I am one of those. It is hard work learning the ropes. Bottom line is that these are personal attacks, RidjalA and RobertRosen, and I ask you to stop. Fordx12 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add that before I started posting on RidjalA's talkpage, We had plenty of discussion already here and both of us have been editing the article. My first post was actually an apology. I don't see how that can be seen as harassment. If you, RidjalA, don't want to talk to me or consider my opinions just say so and I wont post on your talkpage. Fordx12 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK everybody, enough with the sockpuppetry allegations. If you have good reason to think someone is using sockpuppets, take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations - this isn't the venue. Unless and until sockpuppetry is proven by an investigation, assume good faith, and let's talk about the content of the article rather than about each others' characters. Λυδαcιτγ 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Audacity, RidjalA had already initiated a sockpuppet investigation here which was closed due to lack of evidence. I have also asked RobertRosen to go through wikipedia processes to validate his accusations, here. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Garma Navarro

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The problem is this sentence

In 2004 the church was accused on Mexican television of sexual abuse against female members.

The TV accusations were made in 1997 at the same time as the Padilla incident, but the sentence states that it happened in 2004. Garma Navarro reports that the TV accusations were made in 1997 in his 1999 article (translated in 2004), so I don't understand why we need to use 2004. Also, the paragraph is merely restating what has been said in the Mass Suicide section. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing happened in 2004 in regards to a controversy. After reading both sources...why not just switch the sources and correct the date on the paragraph in question? That's what I propose. Cite Gonzalez's paper and correct that date (turn 2004 into 1997). Fordx12 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected it to state 1997, since that is what the source reports. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I might have to change it so that it gives no date at all, only because upon reintroducing content from Erdely and Arguelles that date will already be mentioned in a previous paragraph. RidjalA (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Extensive use of non-English, SPS, Primary etc sources for POV pushing by SPAs

A) There is an ongoing WP:DRN where all the concerned editors have had their say and concerns frequent reversions to this article - specifically concerning if the changes I made deleting approx. 45,000 bytes over about 16 separate edits with justified edit summaries and after talk is justified.

B) While the WP:DRN was live, I was deliberately tag teamed by Gwickwire and Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 in a completely unacceptable manner to get all the deleted material placed back in. The final revert by Ajaxfiore says a) My edits were unjustified b) had redlinks c) there was no talk. ALL 3 of these claims are blatantly UNTRUE.

C) In the circumstances I require an uninvolved editor to immediately restore the page to the status I left it in. Neutral outside editors are not being allowed to edit this page by the vested page SPA interests. I also require that no further editing or modifications be done on this page till the WP:DRN is concluded.

D) I further require that all non-English sources are brought COMPLETELY to WP:NOENG requirements within the next 24 hours by whoever inserted the text. This means full English translation from a reliable English secondary source or by a Wikipedia translator. I am formally challenging and disputing all non English sources as dubious, and give clear notice that I shall be removing all dubious text thereafter. A maintenance tag has been added to this page for this purpose.

E) I observe that there are many self published, questionable and online sources which are being used promotionally and in a NPOV manner. I am challenging these and shall remove them after a decent period (say 48 hours) without further discussion. The appropriate tag(s) have been placed on the page.

F) I also observe the extensive use of primary sources in the article. These are deprecated and liable to be instantly removed without discussion. RobertRosen (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

D) Tell me which sources you'd like me to search for support, and what to look for, and I will search them for you. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted me GENERALLY, I am also CHALLENGING ALL sources cited GENERALLY ! You cannot "cherry-pick" WP procedures to suit yourself. RobertRosen (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NOENG policy says you may challenge it, and we are required to provide an English Translation if requested. I am providing translations if requested. You must request exactly what you want to be found in an article. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NOENG policy does NOT say I may challenge it. It does say that "WHEN there is a dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.". I have already placed the DISPUTE tag for this ENTIRE article which necessarily implies ALL sources cited. Kindly note that other than the 3 SPAS everyone else seems to be having problems understanding the sources. This is the ENGLISH wikipedia. However, since WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF require me to respond to you fairly, you may kindly provide English translations of all text for all the non-English sources which were restored by you in OUR dispute ie. contained in those 43,000+ bytes. RobertRosen (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Tell me what facts you are challenging that are supported by a non-english source. Not every word in the article is supported by a non-english source. Tell me which ones you'd like to start by challenging, and I'll look into it for you. I'm offering my services as someone who knows Spanish to be able to translate if you want, but if you don't take them it's not my problem. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of PhD dissertation on La Luz del Mundo?

(This was on WP:RSN but removed placing here: do not remove)

As one of the primary contributors to La Luz del Mundo (which is currently undergoing a major overhaul), I have a question:

1. Can a PhD dissertation be used to provide substantially large amounts of information to a wikipedia article?

The reason I ask is because this dissertation written by Jason H. Dormady is referenced way too many times (in my opinion) in La Luz del Mundo (by doing a search for "Dormady" on that page, one can see it is referenced at least 16 times). I don't think that the issue is whether or not a PhD dissertation is WP:RS; rather I'm wondering if this dissertation holds much weight to be afforded such an elaborate presentation on the La Luz del Mundo article. Most of the history section of this article found here references this dissertation.

All comments are greatly appreciated! Regards, RidjalA (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it is published with peer-review in a respectable source, it could be used as a RS. Certain disciplines prefer books to journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of times it is used is not in and of itself a problem. It may be indicative of a problem, though, but that will have to be decided on other criteria than mere number. Are there any specific statements sourced to the dissertation that seem problematic? Or any concrete reasons to believe that the dissertation is unreliable? As for weight, that's really a question for WP:NPOVN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I do feel that it's become problematic, especially since La Luz del Mundo was recently tagged for NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:COATRACK, and a few other issues. I think this dissertation might be contributing to that problem.

This might be somewhat of a weight/NPOV issue, too. One concrete example that I think shows this is in the way it is used to dismiss an excerpt from a book Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México, which was co-authored by an Emerita professor. The book's excerpt states:

"The earliest recorded reference of sex abuse by leaders of LLDM dates from 1942. In that year, Guadalajara’s leading newspaper, El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main sect enclave were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM. According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors."[2]

That excerpt was paraphrased in the Controversy section, and was followed by this quotation from Dormady's PhD dissertation:

"Rumors around Catholics(??) that LDM abuses its young women sexually have abounded for decades. Ibarra and Lancyner [sic] found no incidence of such in their 1972 research, though the church narrative does carry a story of abuse carried out by one of its members.(pg 157)

Would we not need a more authoritative or specialized source than a religious history dissertation to make counter-clauses vis-a-vis the book in question? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. RidjalA (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll cut you off here and say that whether the book is co-authored or not by a retired professor does not mean that it is reliable or that it should be assigned as much weight as a doctoral dissertation. If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, probably not. I took a quick look at the article talk page, and notice that there were concerns about the other co-author of the book, the one you failed to mention (just as you failed to mention him on the talk page). Please be forthcoming and transparent with all relevant information. Please don't play games. Anyway, this seems more like a case for WP:POVN than here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus and I am also uncomfortable with RidjalA's positioning of the situation. History2007 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not tell anyone, but the way those dissertation defenses work is that the smart students pick their committee members in a way that the problems are minimized. There may be other faculty members in the same department that would have failed the student. The committee may not be imposed but student selected. In many cases some committee members do not even read the whole dissertation, but have generally made their mind up about the student as "scholar or hopeless" in the past 3 years, as they have observed him/her. So a PhD thesis is generally interesting to read, but if it does not get published as a book, etc. by a good publishers, I would not totally rely on it. But in this case, he may have good pointers to follow. But a number of items used in the article based on the thesis are non-controversial, and could hence be used for sure. Overall, his thesis looks good to use for those basic assertions, regardless of how many are used. History2007 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding article's POV

Seeing as we have a tag about the section headings, they need to be dealt with. An editor on my talk page raised a few concerns after being asked about the article's POV. The first of them is the title of the subsections of the History section. They'll need to be changed. She suggested just leaving the persons' name and removing the titles. I agree with this, do you?

Another concern is this:

the beliefs and practices are described in a tone of "this is true" rather than "this is what the church preaches".

They need to be rewarded to fit the "This is what the church preaches" category. I didn't notice it myself. Taking out some of the details in the history section was her opinion, however I disagree with that seeing as other religion articles have extensive history sections such as Two by Twos, [[]], Jehovah's Witnesses, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to name a few. Fordx12 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I could see where the admin is coming from. The issue is that the stark difference between the LLDM History and those of other religions is that the other religions don't cite the same source exhaustively, whereas LLDM History is almost entirely backed up by a single dissertation (Dormady). I don't think that a dissertation (nor any single source) holds substantial weight for providing the basis for the entirety of LLDM's history, nor for ANY page's history for that matter. So it should be trimmed.

That's not to say that a dissertation is not WP:RS. It would be fair to mention some of its findings, and that it be known that the findings come from a dissertation. Conversely, I also agree with RoberRosen's removal of most of the history's content (save for anything deemed too important to leave out). Comments? RidjalA (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't RobertRosen delete the entire History section? I don't think she was an admin, btw. Anywho, as RidjalA said, comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, that user's POV was stated here. It's by MelanieN, a veteran editor. Best, RidjalA (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fordx12 didn't you plan on restructuring the History section? That seemed like a good idea. I agree with the proposed changes to the beliefs and practices, and with removing of the tiles. Anyway, I think the main thing now is to archive this talk page, it's a bit difficult to navigate. I don't see a problem with using the same source as long as it's reliable. But if more sources are needed, John Carter has offered some here and here. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I already sent him an email requesting some of the sources. Yes, perhaps reorganizing it would be better. I could work on it in my sandbox over the next few days. I'll attempt to use more sources. Thanks RidjalA for linking MelanieN's comment, I have requested further input from her. I may be filing a notice in source reliability noticeboard for any sources I wish to use as well, just letting you guys know. More comments please. Fordx12 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the archiving, could we hold off until all of this (dispute resolution, proposed changes to LLDM) is sorted out? Some of the past discussions, including 3O's, are still being linked to issues which are still relevant. Let me know. RidjalA (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

With regard to my comments: Fordx12 asked me to expand on my comment that the article is "way too long". I was not expressing an opinion about the "all from a single source" controversy; I didn't analyze the sources. I just thought there was too much detail in the "history" section, and way, WAY too much detail in the "Worship" section. Those three paragraphs should probably be reduced to one. IMO a Wikipedia article should not get specific about when the services are and how long they last and how many people attend each service; in fact I have deleted detailed service information from other church articles as promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Since Fordx12, and I, and the person who added the tag all agree that the subsection titles are inappropriate - who is it that is arguing to keep them the way they are? Can we just go ahead and remove the hagiography and leave their names? Normally I would just go ahead and do it, but I gather there has been a lot of disagreement about this article and I don't want to get out ahead of the consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, so go ahead and do it. Ajaxfiore (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't object, either. RidjalA (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Done! --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear MelanieN. What kind of "FAKE CONSENSUS" is this ? How can the 4 of you gang up and take decisions like this in the space of 2 hours - and especially when all of you seem to be in the same/similar time zone ? Kindly undo what you have done and allow ALL Most Interested Persons/Editors to be involved. This means waiting 24 hours to allow all editors to participate. Please also read my new sub-section below. RobertRosen (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have undone my change of the section headings since you objected. Please explain why you think "Servant of God and Apostle of Jesus Christ" should be included in these two section headings. And there's no need to shout. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Per discussion with User:RobertRosen at his Civility|talk page, he does NOT appear to be saying that he thinks the phrase "Servant of God and Apostle of Jesus Christ" should be included in the section titles; his objection appears to be more along the lines that the entire history section should be deleted. Pending a decision on that issue, I will go ahead and remove the hagiographic description from the section titles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that it might not be until Friday or Saturday that the e-mails go out. There are quite a few databanks to go through, and probably some duplication of content, and I want to ensure that the stuff sent out actually does have some sort of useful content. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter. MelanieN, Would you suggest having a spin off page like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_practices#Worship that would deal with more details? That was the "inspiration" behind that subsection. We could keep everything to a paragraph in the beliefs section and reserve details for a subpage. Fordx12 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No. I would leave out the details. They don't belong here IMO. Describing the overall worship practices for a worldwide church is one thing. But giving the exact details about the services of individual congregations is TMI. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, it's about a worldwide church. I may have gone overboard by mentioning both Hermosa Provincia churches. I was confused. Okay so is the consensus, so far, the following:

1. Change the subsection titles already done
2. Remove details about individual church service schedules
3. Reword the belief and practices section so that it emphasizes that this is what the church preaches and not treat it as fact.
4. Rework the History section to include more sources (Waiting on John Carter for that) And recite Dormady's dissertation with his book for reliability purposes.

Is that something we can all agree too? Fordx12 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. Possible sources for the history section could be Patricia Fortuny, Jason Dormady, Renee de la Torre, Paula Bigliari, Luis Rodolfo Moran Quiroz, among others. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@Fordx12, I agree. Although, can we add one more thing to that list? As with #2

5. Remove details in Women in La Luz del Mundo that come off as TMI

(one sentence states something about bathing suits(??), and there's more info in there about specific religious practices/rituals). I don't think that addressing the concerns on this list would suffice to settle all the issues with this page. There's still much more work to do IMO, but it's a good start. RidjalA (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment about bathing suits is to demonstrate how the belief/practice works. Lest someone goes off with the impression that LLDM women are expected to dress with long skirts regardless of the activity or situation they are in. For that one comment, we could substitute this phrase:

"However, there are exceptions to this rule depending on the situation"

Other than that, I am not prepared to opine on any edits done with that subsection. I would like to hear what others have to say about that subsection. After all, a beliefs and practices section is to explain beliefs and practices (rituals etc...) seeing as some churches have entire articles devoted to that. Eventually I would like to trim the detail down on the section as a whole and have more details in a subpage. Just an FYI to everyone, I will be doing research to edit Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, as well as one or two other subjects, so I can't devote as much of my normal wiki time to consider all details in one setting. It couldn't hurt to take baby steps. Fordx12 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

PhD dissertation as anthithesis to book?

I have two questions:

1. Can a PhD dissertation be used to provide substantially large amounts of information to a wikipedia article, and
2. can a PhD dissertation's domain be substantiated to provide counter clauses vis-a-vis the POV's presented by a book which is co-authored by two people, one of which is an Emerita professor?

The reason I ask is because a dissertation written by Jason H. Dormady is referenced way too many times (in my opinion) in La Luz del Mundo (by doing a search for "Dormady" on that page, one can see it is referenced at least 16 times). Furthermore, the co-authored book in question (Revista Academica) presents arguments which are incessantly downplayed by this dissertation. I don't feel that the issue is whether or not a PhD dissertation is WP:RS; rather I'm wondering if a dissertation holds much weight to be afforded such an elaborate presentation on the La Luz del Mundo article and as the primary antithesis to the Revista Academica book. Am I the only one who's got a gut feeling that something's a little off here?

All comments are appreciated (I'll probably open this up via Rfc) RidjalA (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that it is also coauthored by Jorge Erdely, a very shady individual. Anyway, can you please elaborate on what you have written? Are you implying Dormady is "incessantly downplaying" Revista Academica in his dissertation, or his dissertation is being used here to downplay Revista Academica? Please provide evidence as well. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA, Since I have recently borrowed the book that is published by a university that Dormady wrote, his information will be sourced through the book. I recommend that any interested party borrow the book from their library. Many Univeristies have the book as well as several public libraries, at least in my current nation. I have no comment right now about Revista Academica. Fordx12 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'll be introducing the following passage from Revista Academica to "Schism of 1942" (the title of it will be changed back to "Allegations of Founder's exploitation of underage women"):

(Revista Academica): "The earliest recorded reference of sex abuse by leaders of LLDM dates from 1942. In that year, Guadalajara’s leading newspaper, El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main sect enclave were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors."

However, Dormady's PhD dissertation is used to counter the previous passage with this:

"Rumors around Catholics that LDM abuses its young women sexually have abounded for decades. Ibarra and Lancyner [sic] found no incidence of such in their 1972 research, though the church narrative does carry a story of abuse carried out by one of its members.(pg 157)

My concerns:

1. So that we are clear, Revista Academica is not talking about catholic rumors, but about published reports.
2. Secondly, the italicized part in the dissertation sounds vague (which member? Samuel Joaquin? His father? A general member?).

Comments?RidjalA (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The member is a woman by the name Teresa Larios. I'll have to go back and find out where she is mentioned. I doubt a church narrative would say Samuel Joaquin or his father...after all it is a narrative made by the church that Dormady referenced.

The main point of that quote is that 1972 research found nothing regarding sexual exploitation of any woman of any age. It is a counter to RA's premise that these things have been happening for awhile, just as Catholics rumor. In "El Amor al Censor en La Luz del Mundo" [3] these claims are attributed to a biased reporter (On pages 241-242). We could include both those sources if you wish. "El Amor al Censorl..." doesn't contain information about exploitation of underage women by the founder though and neither does Dormady's Dissertation. However Dormady mentions "young women" and the source mentions that these claims were made by the reporter, not directly by the dissedent members. Dormady says that these claims were made by others who sympathized with the Buen Pastor church (The group leaving the church).

The question is, how are we going to write that up in the section? Those are all the view points that I can find at this moment. And I do believe we can agree to add all viewpoints. I would like to also ask if we could add sentence from the book that the Church published to include their point of view as well. Any comments? Fordx12 (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give a draft or some points which you seek to include from those sources? Maybe we can use that instead of the dissertation.

I really don't think that the dissertation is specialized enough to provide counter arguments to Erdely and Arguelles' book Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México. Now if Dormady's dissertation was a focused study on LLDM's abuses, then I would not at all have a problem with using some of his work as a comparison to Erdely's book. But his dissertation was a religious history thesis. RidjalA (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As stated on WP:RSN, I think this dissertation can not just be ignored at will, and except for highly controversial items, it is ok to use, as many times as necessary. History2007 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding RidjalA's request for a draft, it is quoted below. I have added the RA text RidjalA wanted in this draft, plus the claims of two different scholars (No dissertation) and the claim from a book written by LLDM in the 90's that Dormady cites in his dissertation. As mentioned in RfC on content regarding Revista Academica, RA's claims are attributed. I added the information to concisely explain the schism to provide context. Also, FYI, RidjalA you asked about that other member, she is mentioned in page 153 in Dormady's book. However I still have too look for that mention in the LLDM book. I also removed the words "sect enclave" for POV issues. Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be used to call a church congregation a "sect enclave" as that would bias the reader into thinking that wikipedia has decided that LLDM is a cult. While RA makes that claim, the rest of the academic community in Mexico, and the two American historians (Wyatt and Dormady) the American Anthropologist (Nutini) cited in this wiki, refer to it as a church.

According to Jorge Erdely and Dr. Lourdes Arguelles, the earliest recorded reference of sex abuse by leaders of LLDM dates from 1942. In that year, Guadalajara’s leading newspaper, El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main congregation were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors.(cite RA) Historian Jason H Dormady states that during 1942 there was a schism in which various members of the church left LLDM to form their own church known as El Buen Pastor church.(cite Dormady's book) He also says that, "Rumors around Catholics that LDM abuses its young women sexually have abounded for decades. Ibarra and Lancyner [sic] found no incidence of such in their 1972 research," and that individuals sympathetic to the Buen Pastor church wrote in El Occidental various accusations of impropriety. Some of their accusation were geared towards attempting to close down a temple that LLDM used with government permission.(Cite Dormady's book again) According to Fernando M. Gonzalez, one of the reporters who reported the alleged abuse in the newspaper was biased on the side of El Buen Pastor church.(Cite Fernando page 241) The church claims that this group divided from the main church as a result of greedy pastors and levied accusations without proof to authenticate their departure. (Cite LLDM book)

That is what I am proposing to add in place of the current content. As for the name of the subsection, perhaps we should keep the names short. I propose "Early Accusations of Abuse" to reflect the content more accurately. Comments and such? Fordx12 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fordx12, I found a possible solution to our ills. We could perhaps include all the fine details as reference subtext. Here's a good example, I was just surfing around wiki articles and found this on Salman Rushdie's page: look at reference 15. Let me know what you think.

As for title, we may have to open it for discussion via RFC since I disagree. Best, RidjalA (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the general article or this specific subsection? Do you have a better example than a C-Class article? I ask because I have no idea what wiki policy would be on doing that or exactly what you plan to do. As for the first Draft I provided, is there anything in it that you object to? As for the subject title, I think once the subsection is edited and placed in the article, we can worry about it. Fordx12 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not over-inform!

We're all currently trying to improve this page, so please be mindful of WP:ROC and WP:COATRACK in the process. Avoid including anything that may be deemed TMI (that's what references are for after all, for further reading). So please limit future revisions to include only the content that is too important to be left out. Thanks. RidjalA (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As states by another user and myself on WP:RSN, RidjalA's positioning of the situation is discomforting. Reading WP:GAME may be in order. I do not think the dissertation material can be thrown away with the bathwater here. RidjalA, may, or may not have a connection to that organization... History2007 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, History2007. Please hear me out. We (the editors in LLDM, and all other interested parties) are trying very very hard to help the article move forward as one admin stated in here earlier. This page needs a lot of help in fixing it, and I'm requesting input from various sources. If my request for inquiry from outside sources came off as a bad faith move which would position this situation in a discomforting way, then know that that was not at all my intention. I've ensured to maintain my most sincere good faith (another user Fordx12 has also been receiving plenty of outside assistance on his page, and it's been constructive to this page). Please contact me any time.RidjalA (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, you posted on the noticeboard asking for opinions. I gave an opinion. I have no interest in this page as such and can not be bothered to be involved any more. You asked for opinions, I gave mine and I stand by it but that is all. I am done with this page. History2007 (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that you deleted my comments from the noticeboard! Great! That shows something. Do not remove it again, or you will be blocked. I have also placed above here. If you ask for opinions, you get "opinions", not necessarily agreements. I am done here, unless you remove my comments again. History2007 (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA is seeking to move forward as I am and others. I think we can all appreciate that. However I do have one question. What does WP:COATRACK and WP:ROC have to do with this matter concerning amount of details regarding the church's history and beliefs etc? COATRACK deals with sneaking unrelated content into an article and ROC deals with general articles such as topics like "Internet" and advises that one ought to seek more info from relevant wikiprojects. So should we ask about this to other religion wiki editors? We could open a discussion in the Wikiproject Religion talk page. In other words, I do not understand. Fordx12 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fordx12, thanks for your question.I know, it gets confusing. I hope this helps to clear how ROC and COATRACK apply to LLDM:

WP:ROC:

Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject

WP:COATRACK: (this is an example of coatracking)

The Flea:

"The wolf, or Canis lupus is a mammal with fur. In this fur, there are many fleas. The flea is an insect of the order Siphonaptera which is wingless insect with mouthparts adapted for piercing skin and sucking blood. Fleas are external parasites, living by hematophagy off the blood of mammals (including wolves and humans) and birds... (ad nauseum about all the different kinds of fleas there are in the world)"

This sort of case begins with facts about one main topic (perhaps a specific type of flea), then launches into more sub-topics (still dealing with fleas, but on a much broader scale) about which the writer has prepared way too much information, and may make occasional tangential reconnections (hopefully) to the original main topic (that specific type of flea) in an attempt to hide the coatracking. The "Flea" may be something correct but misplaced as in this example, or nationalistic propaganda, or simply irrelevant trivia about which nobody but the writer cares about.

Best, RidjalA (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it still seems a bit vague. However if you plan on using that to request limited details you have one little problem. WP:COATRACK and WP:ROC are not policies or guidelines. In fact, based on the intepritation I see here of those essays, GA class articles (and Featured articles for that matter) would be in violation of those two essays, if they were policies/guidelines. These concerns were voiced in the opposition to turn it into a guidline, as well as concerns of abuse, in COATRACK's and ROC's talk page. Fordx12 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA can you provide specific examples of this in the page? Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Names and other stylistic/cleanup issues

Why is the founder referred to in many places as "Aarón Joaquín"? Per MOS he should be called by his last name, Joaquín González. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

He used to be called only by his first name, Aarón, in the article. I added Joaquín, but then forgot to clean up. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fixed it, I think. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions

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)

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

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

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 [4] was written as a response to this source [5] 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 [6], 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)

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

(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)

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)

Fordx12, thanks for your input. So (a) is done; (b) I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it would be a good idea, only because as it is we're trying to cut down on content that appears to over-inform us about the church; (c) pending; (d)I'll see what I could find on Dormady, too.

To answer your question about 'the accumulation of private wealth' being controversial and not just a critique, it is because the church is supposed to be non-profit. Hope that helps. (btw, no hard feelings, please comment on my page any time). RidjalA (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this at the moment. I am just acknowledging your comment and your concerns. Fordx12 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA, once again, that is criticism. Please read the definition of controversy.

Very well, moving on. Per (d) I will be inserting the following passage to "Founder's alleged exploitation of underage women":

In 1942, the founder of La Luz Del Mundo and several other high-ranking church leaders were accused of sexually exploiting underage women. Eusebio was later sued by the mother of Guadalupe Avelar, a minor who claimed to have been impregnated by Eusebio. To settle the discord, Eusebio registered himself as the father of her son Abel Joaquín Avelar.

Best, RidjalA (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why have you included the word "several" there? Revista Academica does simply says "According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors." Also, imperative that you use this with attribution, as Erdely does not cite any legal documents and is simply relying on the testimony of Avelar and her son. Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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 [7])

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)

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)

Hmm. That's not a bad idea. That way we could include all the different numbers from various sources. It could read something like

The church is reported having anywhere between 7 million members, 5 million, to significantly less than 5 million {Fortuny source}{LLDM source}{RA source)

This is just a draft, so we could take it from there. I'll agree with you for now, but we'll leave this discussion open for a little bit longer. Best, RidjalA (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. We'll work on the draft. However, at this point we may need a better organized format on this talk page. It is feeling cluttered. You (or me or bob the helper who may wish to join us) could start the first draft, then the rest can propose any changes or alternate versions. Or someone else could start the draft. It shouldn't be too hard. As mentioned before, my Wiki time is now divided, but I will try to do as much as I can here. Fordx12 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, the infobox should say "uncertain", "unknown", or "undetermined". Revista Academica never says the international numbers are less than 5 million, it explicitly refers to the numbers in Mexico, please do not extrapolate from sources. See here. Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

For the record, I'd like to mention this explanation for the use of "LDM." [8] 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)

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

Sounds good, thanks. RidjalA (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@Ajaxfiore, so that there is no confusion as to whether it was only one girl (Guadalupe Avelar) accusing the founder of abuse, this is a quote from Erdely and Arguelles:

El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main sect enclave were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM [9]

RidjalA (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Controversies?

The WP:NPOV policy discourages editors from focusing on negative material unless sources specifically focus on it. A couple of ways the article could be improved is: (1) merge the Controversies section with the History section: the merged section should be a simple, chronological story of the history of the church: including negative and positive events. Editors should not segregate the events based on their own perceptions. (2) Emphasis like "La Luz del Mundo church has been the subject of various controversies since the days of its founder" needs very strong sourcing. What reliable source says that? What is the source's exact words? Is the source biased? Without sources for that statement, it must be removed (not to say the detailed text in the body has to be removed). --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The merge had already been proposed [10], but RidjalA has described himself as pro-controversy [11] and wants to restore the controversy to this, except for the section titled "Status of Samuel Joaquin in the group".[12]. His rationale is that the controversy section exists to "allow a space for an anti-thesis" [13]. But hopefully he wants to comply with wiki policy. I will be bold and make some changes now, hopefully these are not reverted. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have cut and pasted the schism of 1942 into the history section, will now try to better integrate it. Any help is appreciated. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@Ajaxfiore, these edits to the controversy section might be contentious. It would be an exemplary display of good faith to propose your changes here in the discussion. I've done so as well, so that we may all provide extensive discussion and input while avoiding another round of avoidable quarrels.

@Noleander, the controversy section is referenced by primary and secondary sources to avoid the possibility of bias. I don't know that it would be the most aesthetic thing to do if we were to merge the controversy section with another section (as it is the other sections are already pretty lengthy). The church should merit its own controversy section (there are several noteworthy controversies that deserve mention), especially because both parties are afforded their respective opinions within each subtopic in the controversy section. Its subtopics should be in this order (events dating from most recent):

• Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy (talks about accumulation of private wealth, and how the church is supposed to be non-profit; church responds that they are not profiting from church offerings)
• Rape Accusations (accusations against church leader of abuse, this one's particularly sensitive, but LA Times is used as a secondary source to avoid NPOV issues; church responds that none of these accusations were ever proven true etc)
• Mass Suicide (talks about how the church was in the spotlight following Heaven's Gate massacre; article states how the church's potential for mass suicide is unfounded and is the result of hysteria)
• Accusation of founder's exploitation of underage women (talks about how founder was accused of having affairs with younger women; church responds that these were lies crafted by dissenters trying to gain members for their newly-formed church)

The controversy section provides a NPOV by ensuring that both negative and positive views are expressed.

You are right about the second concern. I do feel that the problem might lie with how the sentence presents the controversy as having existed since early in the founder's days. None of the sources that I have read ever stated it that way. Controversy has existed in the church in the way that it was reiterated by an LA Times report:

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.[14]

Another journalist that also states something to that effect is Todd Bensman, where in regard to Silver Wolf Ranch he states:

The property, it turns out, is the private playground of a Mexican family that has grown immensely wealthy and politically powerful while ruling as a dynasty over the controversial religious denomination known as Iglesia La Luz del Mundo, or The Light of the World Church. [15]

.

So indeed, the church is viewed as a controversial religion. I do feel that the main introduction should include something like "La Luz del Mundo has also been the subject of various controversies" to avoid sounding super specific, but general enough to acknowledge the existence of past controversy. This is my take, let me know what you think.RidjalA (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence "La Luz del Mundo church has been the subject of various controversies since the days of its founder" is putting too much emphasis on the controversies, without justification from sources. Every organization has some controversies or scandals. They should be documented in the body of the article. But to emphasize the word "controversies" in the lead cannot be done without excellent sources stating something like "La Luz del Mundo church has been the subject of various controversies since the days of its founder". If you cannot find a source that says something like that, the sentence must be removed from the lead. It could, perhaps, be replaced by an unbaised summary of a couple of the scandals, but the terminology must be very neutral. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge Controversies into History section

The merger seems like a good path to take: it avoids unnecessary emphasis on the negative connotations of "controversies". The only way a dedicated "controversies" section could exist is if there is a secondary source that lists all the controversies; summarizes them in a cohesive manner. That is, the controversies themselves are topic of study & analysis. Based on the sources I've seen, there are no such sources. Since these incidents are relatively independent, they are simply historical incidents that should be individually documented, chronologically in the History section. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you first of all for participating in this page and assisting all of us in editing it. You have been very helpful. I do believe that Ajaxfiore mentioned that I have proposed this merger before. As soon as real life permits, I will attempt to rewrite the History Section. I'll include the controversial subjects in that section as well, if there are no objections. I will present the first draft here in the talk page (Or is their another way I can do that without actually editing the article itself?) for input. Anyone is free to do this themselves be it editing the article or making their own draft (that means that I won't throw a temper or something if someone does that). As the editor that is responsible for the section lead, my intent was to summarize each section of the article, just saying that. My first draft may take time though, seeing as I want to also edit other pages (and am researching so that I can do so). Any thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Concerns? Objections?

PS: Could we get every section that before Audacity's section where he asked us to "Move forward" archived? Fordx12 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I added a auto-archiving bot instruction to the top of this talk page. Within a week or two, the bot should archive the older sections. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, I really do think that we should open this up to RfC before merging sections. Note that other religions (Jehova Witness [16], Scientology [17]) have their respective controversy sections too, and each controversy subtopic is treated as an independent event (keep in mind that for Jehova Witness and Scientologists, their controversies are part of their history too, but relegated to their own respective sections). Furthermore, this will not settle any future discord, as the controversial topics will still be included into the History page somehow, and the quarreling will still continue as to how to present it in the most neutral way. So in essence, all we're doing is removing the controversy section.

I really disagree with your assessment, and feel we need a larger consensus; from my POV the best way to achieve NPOV for both sides while not compromising quality is by leaving the controversy section intact just like other religions do, and by incorporating both positive and negative assessments of each independent event.

If this were a small change we're making, I'd make concessions. But I have pretty strong convictions about this one. In best faith, RidjalA (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out Noleander, best RidjalA (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bold editing

Hi everyone, I noticed the following:

RidjalA made a good faith edit here [18]. Ajaxfiore decided that the edit was not inline with what Wikipedia is all about and reverted on good faith here [19]. RidjalA reverted the reversion (I noticed that this is what has caused our issues in the past, reverting reversions) here [20]. RidjalA based his reversion on the belief that it is best to talk about an edit rather than reverting it. That is a very good approach. I just want to point out what Wikipedia guidelines say about editing and reversions. WP:BOLD

Basically, an editor decides to make a bold edit (encouraged in Wikipedia). Another editor decides that that edit ought to be reverted for whatever good faith reason, so he or she reverts it. That is also encouraged as per WP:BOLD (Linked in previous paragraph). Now the Bold editor ought to challenge the reversion via the talk page. Once consensus is reached, the reverted edit can be dealt with by either restoring it or making a new edit. I have interpreted the lack of response over a period of time to be consensus (based on discussion in the guideline's talk page). We could agree to do Bold editing, or to just discuss before reverting (If the edit didn't violate any policies such as copyright violations or BLP or other serious things that require immediate responses). What do you all think? Obviously this wouldn't invovle all type of edits. Copy Edits wouldn't fall under this, nor would correcting a factual error (Like correcting a date or amount). Fordx12 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A good approach is to follow the bold-revert-discuss process (WP:BRD), in which editor A makes a change; editor B reverts, then a discussion ensues. The article remains in the original state (before A's first edit) during the discussion. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I meant to link that instead of BOLD. Fordx12 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The bold-revert-discuss approach will definitely spare us some warring in the future. Thanks for the insight. RidjalA (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources ufrom Questia, and a few outsider comments

First, I guess my comments regarding possible article structure. From what I can see, this subject is probably most notable for its history, theology, criticism of it, and some controversies with which it has been involved, yes, including its status as a "cult". That being the case, I think it makes sense for the content to more or less reflect that, possibly with the sections in that order. Regarding "worship," that is certainly relevant, but in general we have a number of other extant articles relating to individual worship practices within Christianity, and, personally, I think it would probably make sense to only include in this article those worship practices which are "non-standard" or are not among those which one would tend to associate with standard (to the extent that there is such a thing as a "standard" in Christianity) Christian worship.

I went through the material available on the Questia databank regarding this topic. Unfortunately, it isn't much, but this is what I found.

From the book Cults, Religion and Violence by David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, the following material:

p. 49 - The image of provocatively violent cults is sustained not only by the invocation of dubious parallels with present and past groups but also by a steady flow of rumors and distorted reports. For example, in recent years there has been a succession of new items in which religious groups were reported to be planning mass suicide. These groups included the Chen Tao, a Taiwanese millennial group located in Garland, Texas, for a time; La Luz del

p. 50 - Mundo, an international Pentecostal group headquartered in Mexico; the Concerned Christians based in Denver, Colorado; the Isis Holistic Center, a German New Age organization; the Stella Maris Gnostic Church, based in Cartagena, Colombia; and the Dios con Nostros, a Pentecostal church in Lima, Peru.5 La Luz del Mundo, the Stella Maris Gnostics,6 and Dios con Nostros were victims of fraudulent reports by ideological enemies; the others were victims of the feigned fears of anticult spokespersons.7 In none of these cases was there any credible supporting evidence, but the initial press releases received much greater attention than the silence or retraction that followed.

From the book Elite Cultures: Anthropological Perspectives By Cris Shore, Stephen Nugent, the following quote

p. 47 - Catholic elite culture did penetrate the state through members of the elite who joined the 'revolutionary' camp without subscribing to militant secularist positions. Nevertheless, the Church possesses its own political extension in the shape of the PAN (and less reputably, in the past, the PDM). Salinas's removal of legal barriers to participation of the clergy in politics caused protest from those still wedded to the revolutionary tradition. Furthermore, one of the effects of the post-revolutionary state's struggles with the Church was its patronage of Protestant groups, such as the Luz del Mundo Church in Guadalajara. This was founded by a soldier and continued to enjoy close links with senior figures in the military as well as patronage from PRI governors, as a counterweight to the sometimes aggressive stance taken by Guadalajara's hierarchy against the national regime (González 1996).

From the Encyclopedia of Mexico: History, Society & Culture - Vol. 2, By: Michael S. Werner:

p. 1200 - A particularly successful religious initiative was the Iglesia de la Luz del Mundo (Church of the Light of the World) in the outskirts of Guadalajara, which was founded by a migrant farmworker and former soldier with marked indigenous features, Eusebio González, in 1926. Adopting the name Aaron, González built a powerful Pentecostal movement that has continued growing to this day. The Iglesia de la Luz del Mundo has become a transnational religion, winning converts throughout Latin America, the United States, and even Europe and Africa. The church has developed into a typical messianic movement centered on the person of Aaron, who died in 1986 and was succeeded by his son Samuel.

From the 1950s on, Aaron found ample space for his new religion in the outskirts of Guadalajara, the "beautiful province" where the streets were baptized with place-names

From The Millenial New World by Frank Graziano, a few quotes:

p. 67 - The Luz del Mundo (Light of the World) sect, which began in Guadalajara, Mexico, during the Cristero Rebellion of the late 1920s, is particularly vehement in its enforcement of dissociation. A wall separates the community from the exterior world, and extramural outings are monitored by ministers to prevent "contamination with sin." 64

p. 82 - In the Luz del Mundo colony in Guadalajara, "there is peace, security, and unity among the people and the social vices so common in Mexican cities are practically non-existent." 194

p. 222 - Samuel Aaron, the "anointed one" who succeeded his father as leader of Mexico's Luz del Mundo movement, was more ambitious in his accumulations, taking frequent trips abroad and often returning with a new automobile. On one occasion "he made his entrance into the colony riding in a large white convertible, and all the people turned out to greet him waving palm branches and shouting, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" 155

It ain't much, and I am the first to acknowledge that, but it is pretty much everything I was able to find on Questia. From my own personal experience around here, for whatever that might be worth, I think that the Encyclopedia of Mexico quote is probably one of the more reliable ones, as encyclopedias in general tend to try to be as neutral, objective, and comprehensive as possible, and the quote from the book apparently co-authored by J. Gordon Melton is also probably extremely good, depending on exactly how much input he had in the content. Melton is an extremely highly respected academic in the United States. Sometimes, his opinions can be a little strange, but I don't think I can remember having ever seen anyone particularly challenge him based on the quality of his research or his overall neutrality. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for those sources. I actually have access to all these and was completely unaware of it. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter, I appreciate your perspective. We will definitely make use of these excerpts. Best, RidjalA (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If a source refers to LLDM as a "sect", is it best to not quote it as such?

Recently, I used a quotation from Erdely and Arguelles' book which includes an excerpt that refers to LLDM as a sect. But it was reverted.

I would agree with the assessment of John Carter (talk · contribs) in his opening remarks that from his POV among other things La Luz del Mundo is notable for some controversies, including its status as a "cult". It isn't a stretch to thus use a quotation where authors refer to the church as a "sect" (in fact, I think using "sect" avoids any negative connotations that's implied if we were to use "cults" instead).

I also see where your concerns are coming from Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs), primarily that using certain quotations may be a NPOV issue(i.e. quoting an author that stated something like "So and so is an evil monster" and such absurdities) while avoiding scrutiny simply because it is a quotation. I really don't think the author was making harmful nor derogatory claims by referring to LLDM as a sect. Merely, the author implies that LLDM is a nontraditional group (i.e. a unique Christian group with unique religious beliefs that are unconventional, like the belief that SJF is an Apostle of God, adhering to strict dress codes, yearly "Holy Supper" convention in Guadalajara to celebrate the birth of SJF, etc) is what the author was implying. Not that LLDM is comprised of some evil monsters or some other preposterous idiocy.

For the time being, I have reintroduced the sentence and replaced "sect" with "La Luz del Mundo", but I'd like to hear what anyone's got to say about the inclusion of "sect" in this article so that we may continue moving forward. Best, RidjalA (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A compromise solution may be this: When using the encyclopedia's voice, only refer to LLDM as a church. But, if quoting an authority, the quote may use whatever term the authority uses. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which explains why it is important to not use the encyclopedia's voice for charged terms. Furthermore, editors cannot cherry-pick quotes from sources to prove a point. In general, all sources should be paraphrased ... and quotes used very sparingly. The WP:NPOV policy prohibits editors from including a quote because it contains some specific wording that an editor wants to present to the reader. The word "sect" is not too POV, since it just means one denomination of Christianity. The word "cult" on the other hand, should not be in the article without some strong sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The source was originally written in Spanish where it says "Secta" which is synonymous with "cult." The intention of the source is to call the church a cult, not one denomination of Christianity. Hints the use of words like "adept" and "sect enclave." I would like to know the specific reason for including the quote. What information does the editor wish pass by including that quote? Perhaps knowing would help. Fordx12 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander (talk · contribs) I think your assessment is right on point. Clarifying between the use of the encyclopedic voice and authority voice will be especially helpful for future reference.

@Fordx12 (talk · contribs) thanks for your question. The quote simply summarizes why no formal investigations into the aforementioned abuses were ever fully examined. It just so happens that these authors mention "sect" in passing. As far as its translation goes, I should say that if the authors had intended to translate "secta" to "cult" they would have done it (which they did not). Furthermore, we should be mindful that an excerpt provided by John Carter also refers to LLDM as a sect (see The Millenial New World by Frank Graziano). So I wanted to discuss this issue in advance. Best, RidjalA (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to paraphrase the whole sentence. For Erdely, sect=cult, just read his books. By the way, several investigations were carried out, and everything was fully examined. Even the National Commission of Human Rights was brought in to look into the accusations. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs), I'm assuming you take Erdely to be biased; therefore we should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV:

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution.

So no, I don't think it should be paraphrased. I hope this helps. Best, RidjalA (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it helps if sources are provided with what you're saying so that our discussion doesn't turn into some hypothetical snowball.

Fully examined includes presenting formal charges against the accused, and not just limited to looking into accusations. RidjalA (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Side Comment I think it would be best to place it in an existing paragraph. It's current placement looks rather odd. Also, just to clarify something, the "Holy Supper" convention is not a celebration of SJF's birthday. Fordx12 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Right, Holy Supper and SJF's birthday are celebrated separately. Best, RidjalA (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA I am much too busy to go hunting for sources. However, I still cannot understand why you want to include this sentence. If you want to include something similar it would be better to include something like "For their part, the former members are suspicious of the legal system, complaining that it favors the politically influential church." from the LA Times. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)