Talk:La Luz del Mundo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reference style

I will now begin working in my sandbox on the History. I would like everyone take note of the references in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. Notice how it is divided into three sections. Audacity has already started doing this here a few days ago. I wish to emulate the Jehovah's Witnesses citation style since it will help cut down the clutter created by citations. So I suggest and propose that we organize our references in the following way:

• Explanatory notes gives an explanation of a source that may not fit easily in the article itself.
• Citations provides the Author's name, year, and page of a source for a specific bit of content in the article.
• Sources provides the full citations of used sources

We'll have to do some trial and error before we get it right, but I think it is worth it. For example, when citing newspapers it may not always be best to use the reporter's name and some online sources may not have pages. Any comments?

P.S. I have some time right now, I'll be working in my sandbox with the history section. I'll set it up to demonstrate this. Fordx12 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no single "right" way to present the citations. If you like the JW article's manner, that is fine. One top-notch article with great refs is Douglas MacArthur. See WP:LAYOUT for some guidance. Also WP:CITESHORT which describes the technique of putting the details of a source in one place, and multiple footnotes share that one item. Some thoughts on the three sections named above:

• "Explanatory notes" are rather rare ... they just hold parenthetical notes (should not define sources or citations). See WP:EXPLNOTE.
• The JW article has a "Further reading" section: note that that section is for listing books/articles not used as citations. So any source used in the article should not appear there.
• Splitting the citations using WP:CITESHORT into "full detail" and "short cite" (as is done in Douglas MacArthur) is optional, but is used in many of the best articles. See, for instance pi.

--Noleander (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Estudios Sociologicos and other comments

I think most people can at least access JSTOR's search results, and having done that it indicates that two of the academic journal articles about this topic which are most relevant to this topic are contained in the above named journal, but also that JSTOR itself does not archive them. The articles are "Ciudadanos de La Luz. Una mirada sobre el auge de la Iglesia La Luz del Mundo" by Paula Biglieri, Estudios Sociológicos, Vol. 18, No. 53 (May - Aug., 2000), pp. 403-428 and "Religión y política en los barrios populares de Guadalajara," by Guillermo de la Peña and Renée de la Torre, Estudios Sociológicos, Vol. 8, No. 24 (Sep. - Dec., 1990), pp. 571-602.

I also find that there seems to have been some other events which might even have sufficient coverage for maybe separate articles, but which probably don't have enough content to necessarily merit such. Two reviews of a book on the LLDM might be the sole exception there. I'm going to try to find other material on other databanks as well. John Carter (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which events are you referring to? The two academic journal articles you mentioned can be found here:[1][2] Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The one event that sticks in my mind is a bus crash which killed 5 people (I think?) and was noted in several newspapers well beyond the "local" range, so it possibly qualifies as notable, but I am far from sure that it actually is important enough to merit its own article, or honestly any significant coverage other than maybe a Bus crashes in Mexico article or something similar. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I have read of a few car/bus crashes involving pilgrims going to their religious festivities in Guadalajara. There was one this August if I remember correctly. I have also read of several such accidents involving other Christian denominations, such as the one that happened just a few days ago in El Salvador.[3] Perhaps there is enough to make a an article Traffic accidents involving Christian pilgrims, or perhaps a section devoted to it on this page; I don't know. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable events

John Carter has mentioned an event which seems to merit inclusion in the article here: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Estudios_Sociologicos_and_other_comments I would also like to bring attention to other events which are not included in the article:

• Political connections

Erdely launched a new campaign against the LdM to explain why the accusations he spearheaded were never proven true. He accused the church of having strong political connections to Mexico's ruling party, the PRI. I think Erdely and Arguelle's quote can be included here.

• Torre de la fe

The LdM has erected a monument in Silao Guanajuato near the Cerro del Cubilete, and held a missionary gathering there at the same time the pope visited the Cristo Rey statue. This angered Catholics and led to some confrontations.

• Change in street direction

The direction of a street near Hermosa Provincia was reversed. This angered Catholic neighbors and also led to some confrontations.

• Modifications to religious law

The LdM has recently been very vocal against modifications to Artículo 24 regarding religious freedom, claiming the changes threaten the separation of church and state.

• Traffic accidents

This was proposed by John Carter. There have been a few such accidents of LdM members attending their annual celebration. However, if we include this, I think it would also be reasonable to include something LdM celebrations, the Santa Cena.

These are all off the top of my head, so I might be wrong about some of these. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns regarding latest addition to Controversy section

I am concerned about the nature of that last addition to the controversy section (Controversy in the United States), primarily since it was written by either Fordx12 and or Ajaxfiore (I have not checked who did it, but I'm almost certain it was one of you guys) and you guys are adamant about removing the controversy section. So which is it, are you for or against the controversy section? Are you guys really acting in good faith? I hope we could clarify what's going on. Best RidjalA (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I introduced that section.

Please read the Assume Good Faith guidelines, it is one of the fundamental principles on Wikipedia WP:AGF. I feel that you are making unbased accusations against me (and Fordx12), and I kindly ask you to stop. Unlike you ("pro-controversy"), I do not take a side in this issue. I do believe it needs to be integrated into the rest of the article, though.

The new section has sufficient relevance and notability to remain (more than the Silver Wolf Ranch matter). Also, there are three sources supporting it and it clearly constitutes a controversy due to the concerned residents. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a history, so forgive me for having a hard time assuming good faith.

It's been pretty well established that the controversy section is a space provided for topics that are related to the church that are notable but at the same time too delicate to mix with the more general history of the article. I do believe that the info you introduced would be better suited if it were moved into the discrimination section since it has more to do with the government denial of a public good (i.e. issuance of a permit) and is less about über sensitive issues involving implications (however true or false) of suicide, rape, and private wealth, or similar taboo topics that have been published.

I propose that the "Controversy in the United States" subsection be moved from the controversy section and into the discrimination section. Best, RidjalA (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This was an actual controversy, unlike the Silver Wolf Ranch matter. The article states that "La Luz del Mundo then sued the city for denying it use of its own building for services and for allegedly violating its civil rights", which is supported by the sources. However, none of the sources explicitly state that the church has been discriminated. By the way, Bensman article says "But until the ranch actually lets the public in, it seems likely to keep the local fires of suspicion and gossip stoked, with no specific cause, just as when the family first bought the land." And the LA Times article says "It's hardly surprising that La Luz del Mundo would suspect it's being persecuted. Mexico's Catholic Church, which counts about 85% of the population as members, has reacted with hostility to the rapid growth in recent years of evangelical churches, which it calls "sects." Membership in the small churches grew more than 50%, to 3.5 million, from 1980 to 1990, according to the latest available official figures. "Sects, like flies, need to be gotten rid of," was the analysis of Girolamo Prigione, the Vatican's former envoy to Mexico."" Therefore, we should probably move the whole controversy section into the discrimination section. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Two months ago, we went through discussion to determine whether or not the Silver Wolf issue was a controversial topic or not, and we even went as far to help us establish whether or not any portion of the Silver Wolf Ranch issue should warrant mention. After discussion, a senior editor via 3O stated here that "it does seem that there's a genuine controversy over the Church's accumulation of private wealth". This outside perspective helped clear up whether the Silver Wolf Ranch controversy was in fact a controversy.

For the "Controversy in the United States" section though, sources don't generally need to explicitly state that the church was subjected to discrimination for that subsection to be categorized under the 'discrimination' section. Rather, it's the context of the source that helps us establish where its data belongs. And I'm sorry, but I don't think that the controversy section and discrimination section should be merged: the discrimination section is not only less relevant for the subtopics in the controversy section, but it is also in horrific condition and needs a major overhaul like Fordx12 did with the History section (it's too wordy and not concise, loaded with weasel words and exaggerations like stating "Members of the church are treated badly" and making it seem as though a newspaper reported an "assault", when in fact the report was about some other toned-down topic and in passing quoted a woman who said she was shoved by a Catholic woman on the bus), and merging these sections will only further exacerbate its problems.

Further, I remain unconvinced that the "Controversy in the United States" subsection belongs in the Controversy section and not in the Discrimination section. This subsection deals more with the denial of a public service (a building permit) rather than some controversial topic that the church is trying to keep a tight lid on. Best, RidjalA (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That would most likely be original research. Why do you selectively take some info while ignoring the rest? No source mentions that the Silver Wolf Ranch is controversial, however LA Times states that "Now the controversy is spilling across the border. La Luz del Mundo is trying to open a church in Ontario, its 39th in Southern California. But some residents, expressing fear about Joaquin and the church's practices, are fighting its petition for a city permit."

Please stop taking words out of context, the 3O request was regarding the wording of the section as you can see here, specifically Fordx12 wanted to remove unsourced content you had introduced and refused to allow it to be removed. Anaxial made further clarifications here. Another user clarified things here. Everyone except you was fine with the Silver Wolf Ranch being under criticism as you can see here. Have you read the definitions of Controversy and Criticism Your only argument so far has been "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" which is not a valid argument. Bensman article states that church money goes into the nonprofit, and the private ranch is funded by businesses such a travel agency. Even if "the zoo is utilized for tax evasion purposes" as you have said, that would still only be a criticism as there has never been a "prolonged public dispute or debate" regarding it. All of this has previously been discussed, yet you somehow chose to ignore it.

I have not looked at the Discrimination section and therefore cannot say anything about it. Also, I never proposed merging them, I was simply following your logic. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• State of Discrimination SectionRidjalA, this is what I have noticed about Wikipedia articles. New articles and sections start as a mess. Wikipedia is about collaboration, that is incremental improvements and additions. I have yet to see any policy or guideline that demands perfection or near perfection when it comes to adding new sections/articles/content. One editor introduces content, another introduces sources, another copy edits, another reorganizes and so on until perfection is met. If you feel that something is not perfect, simply voicing it yet not assisting its cleanup or making specific requests is not helpful at all, and personally, could potentially discourage other editors from contributing.
• Silver Wolf Ranch The Third opinion was regarding specific wording that an editor (RidjalA) added which was not supported by the cited source. RidjalA was of the opinion that the wording was to remain. I was of the opinion that it was not to remain. 3O editor (let's not color their persona with frivolous unofficial adjectives)was of the opinion that the wording ought to not remain and added that they saw the issue of accumilation of private wealth. However, according to the 30 article, they are just that, a third opinion. If they can't resolve an issue, then other methods must be sought. I am thinking about opening this up to an RfC on content because the issue does not seem to be settled.
• Controversy In The United States Subsection Before Ajaxfiore added this section I was thinking about adding the content into the discrimination section. However, this can fit both sections.
• Controversy Section The RfC is still open. As of this edit, only two editors out of seven are in favor of keeping the section. One seems to be in favor of integration if the headings can be preserved (how exactly isn't clear). Consensus would seem to suggest that integration should be done. I'll try to publicize the RfC more, but I really don't see why we shouldn't move to integrate the section since most editors who have commented are for it.
• RidjalA You said something which is a bit disconcerting, You said "rather than some controversial topic that the church is trying to keep a tight lid on." This is a POV if I ever saw one. Are you already assuming that the accusations are true? After my first edit in the section to balance it, you said that balancing the section was not needed since it served as an "Antithesis" to the article as a whole and thus reverted the edit [4]. However over time, an analysis of wiki policy discovered that you were mislead. So what is the encyclopedic purpose of that section for this article when Wiki guidelines advise against such sections (On NPOV issues) and the RfC seems to be agreeing with them? I say and ask this because something isn't a controversy if an accusation is true but the accused are trying to "Keep a tight lid on" it. A controversy requires no actual guilt, but something that causes a scandal this includes vicious attacks against an innocent entity that gets publicized thus damages said entity's image, legal cases that are the result out of confrontation between two parties, etc... Fordx12 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for your comment, Fordx12. First and foremost, I want to say that the most reliable insight and consensus that we can receive is from distinguished outside users who are not associated with this article nor our discussions. We never established a sound consensus for the removal of the Controversy section. Funny that it was stated as "only 2 out of 7 said no". Why not say "4 out of 7 said yes"? Also, the single truly independent user that had no prior association to this page voted no, so that says a lot too. Point being that no solid consensus was ever established.

Further, so that we are clear, the 3O in question was a response to Fordx12 wanting to get rid of the entire silver wolf section. In fact the user stated here

"Deletion of the content will make the subsection unreadable and thus the only reasonable action to take is to delete the section"

in which case a senior editor (user page here) responded in our 3O by stating

I disagree that that makes the rest of the section/paragraph useless, because it does seem that there's a genuine controversy over the Church's accumulation of private wealth."

I'm still not clear about what issue is unsettled, other than Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore attempting to adamantly delete the Silver Wolf section for the past few months now (along with the rest of the controversy section). WP:LUC might be suited for you guys, which states:

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences [LUC]

If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually.

Fordx12 has been most honest and bless him/her for their honesty in stating whether or not they believed Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God, and hence writing as a member of the church (I do feel WP:LOC applies here to help explain why content from the Controversy section keeps reemerging). As I've stated in the past, I respect your faith and in no way would I seek to question it. Ajaxfiore has yet to make clear whether or not they are a member of the church and/or if they believe Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God. We should make clear whom WP:LOC applies to to quell any hard feelings.

In response to my 'keeping a tight lid' comment, I apologize. I was giving an example of the difference between a topic which is suited for Discrimination vs Controversy. No harm intended. Many blessings RidjalA (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you simply going to keep making accusations? My religious beliefs or lack of thereof are irrelevant. I think your anti-LLDM agenda is more relevant, and you should look into policies. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're employing the old familiar lawyer tactic of dodging the questions and changing the spotlight on me (I don't have an agenda in fact I'm helping restore the entire LLDM page in much the same way I helped Fordx12, and I'm hoping to clarify whether or not you belong to the church, it's that simple). I am looking into one policy in fact, The Law of Unintended Consequences WP:LUC,that may apply. It's not a difficult question to answer. Just a simple yes or no: Are you affiliated with La Luz del Mundo? Do you believe Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God?

God bless, RidjalA (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the header? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the La Luz del Mundo article." As I said, my religious beliefs or lack of thereof are irrelevant.

By the way, I don't think you understand the meaning of consensus. Consensus is achieved by editors who have contributed to the page, not by outsiders. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ask a 3rd time: Do you believe that Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God, and are you affiliated with La Luz del Mundo?

We should know where each editor is coming from when we establish consensus. Many blessings to youRidjalA (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

History Section Re-organization

As discussed before, I have prepared a reorganized version of the history section. I have not included the information from the controversy section and will not do so until the RfC is resolved (I would appreciate if someone else were to do it if the consensus is to integrate the controversy section). I use both Dormady's book and his dissertation, Fortuny's 1995 paper, de la Torre's book, a LLDM associated book, and a paper from 1973 by Greenway who did his research before that year. The citation is in the model that I wish to replicate for the entire Article. Please comment. If there are no objections, I will delete the current history section and replace it with the one I have prepared. You can see the proposed section here User:Fordx12/sandbox. Fordx12 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good: Nice prose, ample in-line citations. Looks fairly neutral and objective, but that is without looking at the sources. My only suggestion is this: The Controversy section should be eliminated and merged into History section (see RfC above). It would be great if you could take the 4 controversy sections and improve them and put them into the History section contained in your Sandbox, so others can see what the final product would look like. Seeing those two sections merged may help overcome some of the objections to that move/merge proposal. --Noleander (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems good, but don't forget the acute accents on the Spanish names.Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ajaxfiore I'm not very good at accent marks. Most of the time I include one is because I was able to copy and paste it. I'll work on that once the material is placed in the article.

Noleander I have done so. The version without the controversy sections is here User:Fordx12/sandbox while the version with the controversy sections is here User:Fordx12/sandbox2. I included the sections within the "timeline" of events and transfered their sources there. They were consolidated and divided into two groups. A first subsection detailing the events of 1997, and the related events that transpired afterwords are in the "Aftermath" subsection. I also added a few counterpoints to Erdely's quote regarding the church an its alleged political affiliations. The style I attempted to keep was "Point and counter point." I left a small paragraph at the end where some more information on recent history may be added. I don't know how to add the Silver Wolf ranch section since it isn't exactly a historical event. I could add how there were concerns of safety and that the police reported that those at the ranch were "Good citizens." I could also add that SJF's family purchased that ranch and have been working with the US government to care for abused and neglected animals...but I am not sure exactly how to add the "accusations" of accumulation of private wealth in a way that would make sense without providing an analysis of the source (Which if I am not mistaken, it would be Original Research). I am open to suggestions for that.

My question is if it would be okay to go ahead an replace the History section with one of these two versions? Are there any concerns about the content? I have not added any new sources that have not been used yet other than about three newspapers, a magazine, and the Greenway source. Fordx12 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I can help out with accent marks when I get the chance. I do have a concern, though. The phrase

Critics Jorge Erdely and Lourdes Argüelles said that "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades."

Is somewhat out of place. I'll explain this and other things in a new section on this talk page. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@Fordx12, great work, this is much better than what we currently have primarily because it gets straight to the point and doesn't sound like we're reading a long narrative.

We should keep it as is and replace the current version. With time, editors will improve it for any slight imperfections like adding missing accents and such, but I don't foresee that we will have any major issues at the moment.

As for the controversy section, I don't know if it is going to work primarily because of what I've been concerned with this entire time, which is how to best present that information without it appearing like some messy conglomeration. It is more readable when the data is sub-categorized the way it is now. BTW the Silver Wolf Ranch and accumulation of private wealth is not original research, in fact if we were to ignore the elephant in the room and only use that article to point out that LLDM people are "good people" would be leaning towards WP:SYNTHESIS, because that is not the scope of the article. The article is about the founder's accumulation of private wealth, and I don't believe that it would be out of context if we summarize it as such. Many blessings. RidjalA (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Silver Wolf Ranch certainly started out as original research as you can see here. The article is not about the accumulation of wealth of the founder, in fact it has nothing to do with the founder. Bensman article is about the mysterious ranch itself, as the source says: "But now the curtain can be thrown back from The Silver Wolf Ranch. The San Antonio Express-News was given limited access to parts of the property and to those who speak for its long-hermetic owners."

You still seem to believe that Joaquin Flores was "operating the zoo for his exclusive entertainment and personal wealth of his family" and that there is a "high possibility that the zoo is utilized for tax evasion purposes."

By the way, no one is trying to ignore the elephant in the room, and trying to only use the article to point out that LLDM are good people. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Ajaxfiore, this entire article started it off as original research, but we've certainly come a long way, haven't we?

And so that there isn't any further confusion, that elephant's name is "Divine Retreat", and it offers the following excerpt (which you left out) after the 'curtain was thrown back and San Antonio Express News given limited access':

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

I don't understand why we're still beating around the bush, Ajaxfiore. Does the article also not clearly specify that the founder was whom the property was purchased for in the first place? Anyway, lets just please move on, we have much bigger things to work on. Many blessings to you, RidjalA (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. The history section has been revamped to Fordx12's version. If there's any objections, please let me know. RidjalA (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had waited for Fordx12 to say he was finished with his version. In fact it would have been logical for Fordx12 to replace the previous version with his, yet you boldly went ahead and did it.

I don't understand why you keep "beating around the bush", the founder died in 1964, the ranch was purchased in 1998 (I think). Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Ajaxfiore, I don't know where to go with your last comment. I'll admit I chuckled a bit though because I still don't know where you're coming from in regards to me beating around the bush. That's especially funny since that was exactly what I told you just a few hours ago today when you kept ignoring the elephant in the room in the Silver Wolf Ranch article (btw, I meant to say the leader, not the founder whom the property was purchased for but you've read the article so I think you know what I meant). Anyhow all funny stuff aside, for the record I wasn't being bold. I was making a change that was reflective of the general consensus. In fact, Fordx12 in their last comment above asked if it was okay if the current history was replaced with one of the user's two sandbox versions. Seeing that no one objected (you certainly didn't, and even pointed out to Fordx12 not to forget accents), I went ahead and made that change. I did not use the sandbox version with the controversy section due to it being the more incomplete beta of the two sandbox versions.

If there's any necessary further fixes, they should now be done on the article's history page. I've pointed out already that I don't foresee any major changes happening at this point. Have a blessedly wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

LLDM members victims of discrimination and violence?

The introduction on this article states that LLDM members have been victims of discrimination and violence, which I assumed was because of a widespread string of assaults for their faith and practices. But the "discrimination and violence" mentioned on the intro was actually related to an isolated incident a few months ago at the peak of some growing tensions between Guadalajara locals and lldm. The quarreling was over the change in direction of a street near the headquarters of the church in Guadalajara. The source states that the authorities hypothesized that the aggressors were outsiders who were hired by neighbors or "manipulators", but doesn't state the extent of their purpose (in fact, the source leaves the reader feeling uncertain as to whether this was an act of discrimination or intolerance, or if it was some other type of brazen attack)

Sin embargo, aunó, las agresiones verbales que recibieron, aunque no las difundió, harían pensar lo contrario: “Ahí sí serían actos de intolerancia, quizá las expresiones de ellos es de... no puedo decir si sea correcto la intolerancia o simplemente una discriminación”.

Which translates roughly to

However, the verbal aggressions that they received, although he did not disclose what they were, would make one believe the contrary (regarding tolerance): "Here, they would be acts of intolerance, perhaps their expressions are one of... I can not say if it's correct to call it intolerance or simply discrimination" [interview of an official]

Also, it mentions the LLDM incident with the locals

Tensión en aumento

El 13 de febrero, cuando vecinos de la colonia Hermosa Provincia se manifestaron a favor del cambio de sentido de las vialidades, Rafael García Íñiguez, su líder, advirtió un incremento en la tensión que se estaba generando entre los habitantes del sitio por este conflicto.

This translates to

Tension on the rise.

On February 13, when residents of the Hermosa Provincia colony demonstrated in favor of changing the direction of roads, Rafael García Íñiguez, their leader, warned an increase in the tension that was generated between the inhabitants of the site by this conflict.

Thus I feel that the incident lacks notability to warrant special mention as an inherent and general characteristic of LLDM on the introduction. Comments? Suggestion? RidjalA (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on revision of Controversy section, 12/5/12

I revised the controversy section, and it once again stirred Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore into action against my contributions (as usual). SO, I wanted to talk about it here to clarify our differing POV's with civility and in good faith.

1. "El Occidental" is referred to in Erdely and Arguelles as Guadalajara's leading newspaper. Thus, to determine if El Occidental was or was not a leading newspaper in 1942 might be irrelevant and beyond the scope of the LLDM article page, so I'm strictly sticking to what our sources have published.
2. Further, I'm confused as to what source you used to replace the founder's "exploitation of underage women" to "committing immoralities with young women"? The source that I used (Erdely and Arguelles) stated it clearly as the former.
3. The following addition by Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore which talks about an interview with Samuel Joaquin veers waaaay off on a tangent (i.e. starts off with SJF declaring how he does not intervene in politics, and goes off about how lldm members vote, and ends with voter fraud in mexico.... uhm hello were we not talking about human rights violations here?). This is what I'm talking about and how we currently have it on the article page:

In an interview, Joaquin Flores said that the he does not intervene in politics and members of the church are not used to support any individual. He said that members are taught that a fundamental right of a human being is the freedom to choose who to vote for. Several scholars have said that LDM members vote pragmatically for a variety of local political parties including the PAN, PRI, FDN, and PRD depending on which state they live in and also, according to Dormady and Fortuny, in an attempt to find defense from persecution (the Church is considered apolitical in the US). Dormady says that Sara Pozos Bravo discovered that "PRI voter fraud created the illusion of total LDM support for the party just as it had done with all of Mexico."

This should be steered back into focus and paraphrased to reflect a response to the subtopic in question, being primarily that of accusations of sexual abuse and how political connections offered impunity. Perhaps it should just state the first sentence. Regardless, that SJF does not intervene in politics remains questionable since the Timelines Database website here states the following:

1985: In Mexico Samuel Joaquin Flores succeeded in getting his Light of the World evangelical church affiliated with the National Confederation of Popular Organizations, an umbrella body for PRI-linked political groups.

4. The controversy synopsis should summarize the topics being discussed and should read as such:

La Luz del Mundo has been the subject of various controversies, including allegations of the church's potential for mass suicide, rape accusations against the leader, and the accumulation of private wealth.

and not

La Luz del Mundo has been the subject of various accusations and criticism, including allegations of the church's potential for mass suicide, rape accusations against the leader, and the accumulation of private wealth.

I explained myself here why the leading subject header should be "Controversy" and not "Criticism" and one admin intermediated and stated that my reasoning made sense here, and went ahead and changed the header back to "Controversy" here. Thus its synopsis should also be reflective of that.

Best, RidjalA (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Why do you insist on regurgitating Erdely's lies? If it is irrelevant whether El Occidental is Guadalajara's leading newspaper, then it should not be included. There is already an article for El Occidental.
2. My source is El Occidental itself which supersedes Erdely's false claims.
3. I did not add that part; I merely added links to the PRI, PAN, and PRD. I also suggested Fordx12 to make a new section dedicated to the topic: User_talk:Fordx12#The_Luz_del_Mundo_and_Politics. I do not think the Timelines Database website is a reliable source. Furthermore, Fordx12's additions correctly use attribution, so I do not understand why you say it is questionable.
4. So we are to simply disregard all the other editors and 3O because an admin said something made sense? The admin was not even solving a dispute. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. When and how did the community establish that Erdely's publishings were lies?

Re: 4. There was no dispute that I could think of. The only issue that was raised was here when the lead to this article contained a line which stated something to the effect of "LLDM has been the subject of various controversies since the days of the founder". That has since been corrected,and I think we might be mixing up this issue with the one I have with the synopsis to the Controversy section. My issue is that the synopsis should be reflective of the title and content of its section so that it properly and neutrally introduce the proceeding subsections. Blessings, RidjalA (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

RE - Wait, I'm confused. When and how did the community establish that Erdely's publishings were lies?

I never said the community established Erdely's publications were lies. I never even said that. I said that you insist on regurgitating Erdely's lies. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Controversies section be merged into the History section?

Should the contents of the Controversy section be merged into the History section? This RfC is not addressing the material within the Controversy section (which, for the purposes of this RfC we can presume is valid); this RfC is merely asking about the section headers. --Noleander (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - The WP:NPOV policy requires that articles be written in such a way as to not to stress negative (or positive) information too heavily. Although some articles on religion do include sections (even entire articles) on "Criticism" or "Controversies", such sections are warranted only when the controversies are heavily documented and are a topic unto themselves. No source has yet been presented which surveys/summarizes/analyzes all the so-called "controversies" of the LLDM church; instead, they are a disjointed set of scandals. The Controversies section title by itself, written in the encyclopedia's voice, violates the POV policy because it tells readers that the church is riddled with controversy. The detailed text within the Controversies section may be valid; but since the scandals are just a handful of historical events, that material should be moved into the existing History section. --Noleander (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No - The WP:NPOV policy can still be respected without removing the controversy section altogether by incorporating both positive and negative assessments of each independent event within the controversy section. Noting that other religions (Jehova Witness [5], Scientology [6]) also have their respective controversy sections, I'm not convinced that LLDM should do away with theirs. Furthermore, I feel that disintegrating and reincorporating the 'controversy' section into another section may compromise the quality and aesthetics of the page. The best approach is to leave the controversy section intact, just like other religions are doing. RidjalA (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If I may also add, I don't know that the existence of a publication consolidating all of these controversies should be a necessary condition for the existence of a controversy section (do the other religions have one?), especially since La Luz del Mundo is a relatively obscure and little known religion. Nonetheless there is one book by Erdely and Arguelles that focuses primarily on the specter of controversy surrounding the church.RidjalA (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - The controversy section has, for a long time, been a magnet for individuals with strong anti and pro La Luz del Mundo feelings. The former have frequently added unsourced, malicious rumors about the church, while the latter have frequently blanked the controversy section (but left the rest of the page nearly intact). The source RidjalA provides have been extensively discussed in this talk page. Neutral editors concluded that the journal Revista Academica did in fact meet minimum WP:RS requirements (despite several issues with it), but also concluded that it should be used with attribution. The source focuses exclusively on the controversy surrounding the church, but provides a very narrow, biased, one-sided point of view, based exclusively on the testimony of former, disgruntled members. The book itself (To Live and Die in The Light of the World POLIGAMY, POLITICS AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING INSIDE LA LUZ DEL MUNDO: MEXICO'S MOST SECRETIVE RELIGIOUS SECT) appears to have never been published, and the only place it exists (at least 2 chapters of it) is the website provided by RidjalA. I have looked extensively in all the academic databases available to me, and have not been able to find this book or any of its chapters. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, although the "Controversy" section could be better structured (the "Mass suicide" header is misleading). I disagree that the three issues raised allege that the church is "riddled with controversy". As the Catholic Church is aware, sexual-abuse accusations are notoriously difficult to prove. As for the ranch—well, religious leaders have long lived lavishly. These issues are distinct from the founding of the church, and avoid undue weight by the section's placement at the end of the article. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes- Wiki policy does state that it is ideal to incorperate such information in the rest of the article. The "controversies" of the church are isolated. By that I mean that, for example, the fraudulent accusations of planning mass suicide only happened in 1997, in 1997/1998 there were accusations of rape that resulted from the earlier accusations. After that, such accusations stopped and seem to be forgotten by the Mexican media. The Silver Wolf ranch issue is rather tame and seems more like criticism. The Schism of 1942 involved accusations that originated from a newly formed rival church, and did not pass on. While Dormady says that rumors of sexual abuse existed for decades, he seems to brush it off as just that, rumors. These are historical events, not current or recent controversies (If one is to define "recent" as in the last five to ten years). Fordx12 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - I can and do see the validity of separate "controversies" section in some cases. However, the mass suicide accusations were, as Ford says above, quickly dismissed, sexual abuse allegations are pretty much par for the course for not only religions but also politicians and public figures in general, and not to my eyes that much more pronounced than the standard allegations of this type. The Schism is clearly more relevant to "History" than "Controversy," Religious leaders being accused of living lavishly are also fairly standard allegations. Based on all that, I have to say that these subjects are basically run-of-the-mill for lots of groups and individuals, and that while they are notable they are also, apparently, poorly founded in most cases. If they received much broader coverage than they have, and/or related to statements of the group which were later proven false, or related to substantiated allegations of dubiously legal activity, like is the case with Scientology and a few other groups, maybe they might merit a separate section as per WP:WEIGHT. But I do not believe that to be the case here. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep subsection headers under history section - Relevant essay here: Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section. It seems to me that there is no especially strong community-wide consensus regarding these sections. Arguments from both sides are mentioned in the essay. So we're pretty much on our own to find WP:CONSENSUS. Noleander has a fair point that these are not so much criticisms as a series of scandals, with the latter more related to events than opinions. I don't think the point regarding the troll-magnetism of criticism sections is worthy of our consideration here. Watchlists and vigilance are the solution in that case, not obfuscation.

Overall, it's a question of utility vs NPOV. I think we can keep both by moving the subsections for each scandal into the history section, and keep their subsection headers. Not a very bold and sweeping change perhaps, but merging everything into a gigantic block of unreadable text is just about the worst thing we could do, and the section does kind of look like a dumping ground for every negative thing anyone has to say about the denomination. Hope that helps. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I believe there are WP:UNDUE issues in the controversy section and merging it with history could help address that. Andrew (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think it matters much. Even if merged into the history section some of the subsections in the current controversy section seem to warrant a similar subsection if merged into the history section. The guideline states that it is usually a bad idea to have separate criticism sections, but sometimes particular critiques are so notable that they do require a full paragraph or more of treatment, it seems to me that this is the case with some of the issues here (I would say the secual harrasment accusations, but probably not the Ranch or the suicide potential discussion which is mostly spurious). Another way to handle the issue would be to have a section on "public image" which would include both the scandals, the discrimination and the critiques.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that most have opted towards changing or removing the controversy section. I am currently in favor of merging the discrimination and controversy sections into a "Public Image" section as Maunus suggested. I agree with him that the ranch subsection is "spurious" and I also agree with issues regarding undue weight that John Carter has expressed. It seems that the community input is highly in favor of some real change. I am making a new section here about the possibility of undue weight regarding the subsection on Silver Wolf Ranch. Fordx12 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Undue Weight in the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection

The section lead for the controversy section reads that the church has been criticized for accumulation of private wealth, however those exact words are missing from the source used for the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection. Furthermore, the source for the section in question doesn't clearly come out with any real criticism beyond that which is already mentioned else where in the article. The source is a Blog based on the writer's newspaper article, however the article itself is not being used, just the writer's blog. The writer is a simple journalist for a local paper. This makes the story local, not particularly notable. WP:WEIGHT is an issue here. This one small source with very little to offer that is not present elsewhere is providing information on the same level as other scholarly sources that have loads of information to offer. Comments? Fordx12 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The blog is clearly a draft of the newspaper article. There are some differences between the blog and the final article, e.g. the phrase "built in part on the labor and tithings of his fanatically devoted minions" is missing from the final article. The article has a sensationalist tone. I agree that undue weight is given to this section, it's not even a controversy. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Exact words aren't really necessary to repeat, if it is a more concise phrasing or more or less accurate. The blog might be either the earlier draft of the article, maybe a later draft (depending on the date - one would have to check), or, maybe, the unedited version of the printed article, which might have been shortened for any number of reasons. I don't agree that a local source necessarily makes it a local story, because the LA and NY Times are definitely used in lots of articles because they might be a bit more comprehensive than national sources, but I do agree that the tone of the article, and the minor weight given this matter in the article as is, do raise some WEIGHT concerns, and think that there probably is good cause to at least remove that statement from the beginning of the section. John Carter (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the church was criticized for the accumulation of private wealth. The section lead states that the director's family purchased a "lavish private zoo-themed family retreat for their father's enjoyment", and I quoted the article so that there's no misunderstanding what we're talking about. The author even goes on to mention how Samuel keeps his collection of automobiles in a private lot. Unless the source is about something unrelated to Samuel's lavish living, then I don't see how there could exist a serious weight issue. So for the nth+1 time (feels like we're doing induction here), Silver Wolf Ranch should not be deleted. Blessings. RidjalA (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. I got confused since Ajax started off talking about the lead to the Controversy section but not the Silver Wolf subsection itself, then Ford moved on to talk about the Silver Wolf section. Anyway, I rewrote the lead to conform more to the scope of the Silver Wolf section. Hope that works.RidjalA (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The automobiles are "the family's private collection", not Joaquín Flores'. Anyway, there is a clear undue weight issue here. AFAIK there's nothing wrong with being wealthy, and Joaquín Flores lives a modest life in Guadalajara (according to other sources). The only scrutiny here is RidjalA's theory that Joaquín Flores secretly purchased the ranch to use it for tax evasion purposes. I have placed the section under a new section, Scrutiny, since everyone agrees it is not a controversy. RidjalA admitted this in his last edit. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

LPDS hermano. I disagree that it should be in a new section. It's not proper to have a section called "Scrutiny"; it looks horrendous to split it as such. Silver Wolf Ranch controversy is based on the fact that SJF is the beneficiary of these lavish automobiles and property/ies. He does not live modestly either: in a reference that John Carter pointed out, it states,

- 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.'" (From The Millenial New World by Frank Graziano)

Therefore, Samuel accumulates private wealth and lives lavishly. We can glance at his suits too, they're high-end Italian suits he wears paid for by his poor (figuratively and literally) followers' offerings. Anyhow, the fact that this is supposed to be a non-profit organization makes it all the more controversial since obviously someone's pocketing the profits instead of properly distributing all of the wealth like Jesus would have done. DTB RidjalA (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who do not know, "LPDS" is a common used by members of LDM to great each other (Based on the spanish version of "Peace of the Lord.") "Hermano" means brother. "DTB" is akin to "Goodbeye" (Spanish for "God Bless You"). Either RidjalA is a member of LDM or he is insinuating that Ajaxfiore is a member of LDM (Something that Ajaxfiore has not stated). Personally, I find RidjalA's use of religious greetings in such a fashion to be highly insulting Fordx12 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Frank Graziano uses a source from 1973, which clearly states that some of the info is taken from neighbors. Who is this Samuel Aaron anyway? Ibarra and Lanzyner also mention this in their thesis, and dismiss these as unfounded rumors (they were allowed into the Joaquín residence). Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please aslo note that RidjalA has posted something that may go against BLP rules in this talk page by insinuating that Joaquin Flores is taking advantage of his "Poor followers." Fordx12 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeez. Ford don't lose your head over it. That's no different than Ajax respectfully appending pbuh to Prophet Muhammad while conversing with his Muslim friends. I'm acknowledging you in Christian terms, and LLDM is not the only religion to use LPDS (La paz del Señor) or DTB (Dios te Bendiga/God bless you). Especially not "brother". Not offensive, right Ajax? And I did not publish that SJF is taking advantage of his poor followers. So chill out guys. I look forward to another edit war with Ajaxfiore (seems he keeps removing my edits). You guys really do hate me. Totally not very Christian. God bless (DTB) RidjalA (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please RidjalA stopping attacking editors or you will be reported. Your comment using LLDM greetings were directed at me, and you had a clear sarcastic tone. I do not look forward to an edit war with you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think that the way that I greet the lldm lobby is an attack, then you're mistaken. So relax. On the contrary, what's more indicative of an attack is the way in which you and Fordx12 incessantly look for ways to report me whenever you guys become frustrated with the fact that you cannot rid info from controversy section. I'm sorry but if you can't stand the heat, then you guys need to get out of the kitchen. And your edit patterns Ajaxfiore (erasing content in the article and reverting me when I try to recover that data) are very blatant acts of edit warring. Not cool. Regardless, I hope you two find it in your hearts to seek peace within yourselves. Dios te bendiga (DTB)/God bless you (GBY).RidjalA (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Overhauling the Discrimination section for undo weight and notability

This section reads too much like a person's vent rather than an academic/research based finding. There needs to exist some finding or published work that states that there is an epidemic of religious intolerance, which is what I thought the section was about. Instead, it's just a montage of 1 or 2 cases of people being roughed up; one of those instances had nothing to do with religious intolerance. In fact, it was rather about a growing resentment over the change in direction of a popular street in Guadalajara, it just so happened that LLDM followers were the largest conglomerate of vocal supporters for that change: it was their support for a change in direction rather than religious intolerance that made locals pretty upset. Also, it states that "members of the church are treated badly in Guadalajara, Mexico especially when it comes to the women. Oftentimes female members of the church are portrayed as oppressed and ignorant women regardless of the increasing number of women in the church who are obtaining and already have achieved professional carriers and higher education." That sounds more like someone's frustrated rant/vent rather than an encyclopaedic entry, and unless there's several reliable sources that can back up these claims, I believe we might have to overhaul/delete/condense a good deal of it to filter out anything that is original research, not notable, and/or adding too much weight to the entries. Best, RidjalA (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All protestants are discriminated against in Mexico. Just read this book to [7] to get a glimpse of the history. Read Dormady's book about the LDM's early struggles. Read Several news paper articles related to "La Torre de la Fe" and watch this video about religious discrimination that appeared on a TV program in Mexico that deals with discrimination (Its subject is how LDM is a victim of said discrimination and uses the whole road change controversy as an example of said discrimination) [8]. Read the LA Times article cited here, it also references the discrimination. Read some of Fortuney's writings, she mentions in more than one paper the antagonism that LDM members (Especially women) face in Guadalajara. Read the following links

http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=301372 and compare with http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=301372 Read http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/estados/84011.html http://www.oem.com.mx/eloccidental/notas/n2047635.htm Here's an article about someone calling for "Social Lynching" of the church, before the attacks that left members hospitalized as mentioned and sourced in the section http://www.lajornadajalisco.com.mx/2012/02/10/el-correo-ilustrado-15/

And in what way is it not an encyclopedic entry? Because it deals with LDM in a none-negative light? Of course much much work can be done with that section as is the case with two thirds of the article, but that's what wikipedia is about, a work in progress. And there is no undue weight since a prominent scholar on the subject is the one making these claims as well as different news articles. That is not the case with the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection when one obscure journalist is used as (currently) its sole source. Fordx12 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on reverting of content in Controversy Section

The lldm lobby has not been very receptive of the full version of this article, and its content has repeatedly been replaced with "better" alternatives (in a minute I'll explain why they're not "better"). Given that my edits to restore and incorporate all POV's in this article are increasingly reverted by Ajaxfiore and Fordx12, I'm going to explain here what is wrong with their version (it's actually quite a simple error). Hopefully it will ease misunderstandings, and open discussion if necessary.

The problem is one-fold: exclusion of data.

For instance, Ajaxfiore/Fordx12 took this line:

"Meanwhile, authorities said that because of the victims' distrust of the Mexican legal system they were not being fully cooperative"

and replaced it with this:

"Meanwhile, authorities said that the dissidents were not being fully cooperative"

Here's what the source states:

"Authorities are investigating the attack and several others that have been reported. But judicial authorities say the victims haven't been fully cooperative.

For their part, the former members are suspicious of the legal system, complaining that it favors the politically influential church." (LA Times)}

The problem with their version is that

1. it leaves out that the source refers to them in this line as "victims" and not "dissidents", and
2. it leaves out that the victims were being uncooperative because of their distrust of the legal system in Mexico.

In another part of the article Ajaxfiore/Fordx12 had for the nth-time removed a quotation from Erdely and Argüelles which stated:

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

And replaced it with:

"Dissidents were suspicious of the Mexican legal system arguing that it favors the politically influential church"

Ajaxfiore reasoned that this was a "better" alternative to Erdely and Argüelles ' quotation (whether it constitutes a "better" alternative is totally subjective, and I disagree with Ajaxfiore's logic on this one) One admin (Audacity) had kindly suggested for us to use both sources instead, which I concur with, and changed the article so that it reads:

"Dissidents and critics Jorge Erdely and Lourdes Argüelles were suspicious of the Mexican legal system, arguing that it favored the church"

The problem here is that although the intention was to use both sources, this version makes use of only one source with the exception of having Erdely and Argüelles' names attached to it. I suggest that if we are to use both sources, then we should in fact use both sources so that it reads as such (this is the current version):

"Dissidents were suspicious of the Mexican legal system arguing that "it favors the politically influential church"; critics Dr. Jorge Erdely and Dr. Lourdes Arguelles say that "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades."

So the problem in all these cases is simple; the problem is that they exclude of valuable data from sources. I have already fixed this problem, and if there's any disagreement please discuss it with the community here. Peace be with you, brothers/sisters. RidjalA (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@RidjalA First of all, please provide proof that I did any such thing beyond my one sole edit regarding your little disagreement with Ajaxfiore. This diff is my one sole act [9] I reverted to the edit that John Carter left here [10] in his edit summary he said "Why not cite both?" I don't recall Audacity ever saying anything on this matter, could you provide me with a diff? Other than that, I have done nothing else. My edit was an attempt to stop your constant reversions. I thought you agreed to the "Edit-revert-discuss" method, see the following diff [11]. You boldly edited, Ajaxfiore reverted you, yet you did not discuss. Infact, you reverted a reversion...more than once. You continue to lump me with Ajaxfiore even though I have asked you to stop. What will it take for you to stop that? Fordx12 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fordx12, that edit was done by Audacity (who is also an admin). RidjalA please stop pairing me with Fordx12 and calling us "the lldm lobbby", this is a violation of Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy. You have received several warnings in your talk page, and the next time you will be reported.

The source does not say that "Meanwhile, authorities said that because of the victims' distrust of the Mexican legal system they were not being fully cooperative", so inserting this into the article would be not be correct. The LA Times says "But judicial authorities say the victims haven't been fully cooperative. For their part, the former members are suspicious of the legal system, complaining that it favors the politically influential church." This is completely different from what you are trying to introduce. The dissidents could have had other reasons, the source does not say "because" or even implies it.

The source may claim that an individual committed a crime, but according to Wikipedia BLP policies "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty", therefore any "victims" become "alleged victims"; in this case "dissidents" is fine.

The admin said "why not cite both?", please seek clarification if you want. There is no need to include Erdely's diatribe against the LLDM. The quote "Dissidents were suspicious of the Mexican legal system arguing that it favors the politically influential church" is equivalent to Erdely's accusations, therefore including Erdely's is redundant and unnecessarily. Furthermore, titles such as Dr. are unnecessary per MOS. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User AjaxFiore altering information with citations not

The user AjaxFiore is editing sections putting citations that do not reflect a true investigation with prove that the rape accusation were made up, all the links and editions made by the user are based on speculations, which for the church to do, the user is altering completely the spanish version and English version in order to favor the church, by giving the readers notions of defamation against the church WikiNuevo (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest editing

Given the wealth and influence of La Luz del Mundo, I'm concerned that we may be experiencing a campaign of edits by a few passive-aggressive and overly-sympathetic editors, hence compromising the quality of this article per WP:COI (I'm particularly concerned about users Ajaxfiore and Fordx12, and notices will be sent out to them).

I will not rule out that these editors are being compensated somehow (spiritually and/or financially) by higher-ranking associates of LLDM, nor will I rule out the possibility of bribery of outside editors.

I would therefore suggest that from this point forward, any possibly contentious changes made to this article by these users (or anyone who appears suspect) be explained on the talk page in advance and given ample time for discussion before proceeding with their contributions (this includes removal of content in the Controversy section). Repeated failure to do so will likely result in being implicated in the Conflict of Interest noticeboard (note that this applies to the Spanish version here, as some editors here are also involved in that version of the article; I will also translate this notice and post it there).

Please do not take this notice lightly. In the best of interests, RidjalA (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In absence of concrete evidence this kind of accusation is useless and in conflict with the policy against personal attacks. If you have evidence take it to the COI notice board, if not take your insinuations elsewhere. Posting this is an obvious attempt at intimidating the other parties in a discussion in which you are in the minority. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:COI, the COI noticeboard "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." It should be noted that the entire "Discrimination" section here is a direct consequence of what I'm talking about (this section improperly synthesizes sources, like insinuating that a woman was the victim of an "assault" when in fact she was pushed by another woman on the bus; that's just an outright exaggeration, and I doubt warrants notable mention on the article). Also, Ajaxfiore has been repeatedly deleting the same information here and I've implored for the user to discuss contentious changes in the talk page, and to date has ignored my requests. Note that this user is stirring quite a ruckus in the Spanish version of LLDM here. And I don't have a problem making concessions if I were ever the minority viewpoint, I'm just not comfortable with editors with apparent conflicts of interests tipping the scales when we establish a consensus. Best, RidjalA (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveling unfounded accusations against fellow editors is not the way to use the talkpage. If you are not comfortable with your fellow editors the solution is for you to stop editing where they do - not for you to insinuate they have conflicts of interest without a shred of evidence to support the accusation. I think it would be becoming for you to apologize, but at the very least I can tell you that if you keep leveling unsupported accusations, I will report you for personal attacks at ANI.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be best if I stated the evidence that I have, since maybe that's what's confusing us. That way we can ascertain the existence (or nonexistence) of a conflict of interest, and how we may all proceed from here.RidjalA (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1. To date, Ajaxfiore has refused to answer if he/she believes that Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God, and if he/she is affiliated with La Luz del Mundo. In fact I asked the user three times, and my questions were repeatedly sidestepped; unless this specific editor has something to hide, I don't see a problem with answering these two simple questions.
2. Fordx12 has in the past declared their affiliation with LLDM and has deleted content from the Controversy section without discussing it in advance to conform with WP:COI for potential conflict of interest editors (in all fairness, this user's edits have lately been more constructive to the page, primarily related to the History section).
3. Ajaxfiore has gone to great lengths to try and remove content like so (I've stated for Ajaxfiore to utilize the talk page, which the user never did) from a book from Jorge Erdely and Lourdes Arguelles that studies religious sects and their unfavorable plights, including alleged human rights abuses by LLDM. Here, in this RfC Ajaxfiore repeatedly rejects users' opinions who don't find anything questionable about this source. To date, Ajaxfiore has continued to remove content from this book both in the English and Spanish versions of this article using a multitude of reasons (for the record, the book's findings are backed up by LA Times), which further raises a flag of possible conflicts of interests.
4. Both these users have a vetted interest in getting me reprimanded for obstructing their progress in deleting content from the Controversy section; they even jointly issued an extensive (and exhaustive) Request for User Conduct against me here (one admin in response stated in the RfC's talk page that this RfC was an overreaction).

I don't know where to go from here, but I certainly would not want to discourage these editors from contributing to this article. I do however have legitimate concerns over the nature and the intent of some of their contributions, especially when these users are overly sympathetic towards this sect, yet they proceed to make "Bold" controversial edits.

I've implored for these users to utilize the Talk page and to declare any possibly contentious edits in advance like I've done so myself here, but these users refuse to do so, and unless they have something to not want to discuss with the community, then I don't see why they shouldn't be utilizing the talk page to discuss contentious edits with foresight. It is because of this that I reserve convictions of COI taking place. So the simple solution is: discuss in advance. Unfortunately, that is not happening and we're left with few other options. If you have a better approach, please let me know. In the best of interests, RidjalA (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No editor owes any other editor answers about personal beliefs or faith. Beliefs and faiths never constitute a conflict of interest, which the policy WP:COI states very clearly. Biased editing is something else entirely, and something that can be handled through several wikipedia channels (I would suggest the POV noticeboard). Now, there is nothing that suggests to me that these editors have a stronger positive bias than your own quite apparent negative bias towards lldm. You are absolutely right that the talk page is for discussing contentious edits, it is NOT for speculating about beliefs and motivations of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Maunus is right in every one of the points he makes above. WP:COI specifically relates to individuals promoting their personal beliefs or opinions, not those of groups to which they belong. FWIW, I would myself, as a rather staunch Catholic, would also refuse to answer the question whether Flores is an Apostle of God, because I think the latter term is potentially much broader than some might think, and I myself don't know enough about the subject to say anything one way or another. I also personally think that perhaps Buddha, Muhammed, Gandhi, Bahuallah, and others might also qualify as "Apostles of God" in some way, given the frankly vague nature of that term. That would not reasonably be used as either a basis for a claim of POV or COI against me. I would remind all editors involved that the article talk page is primarily to discuss the article itself, not other editors. Other venues exist for such comments. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@RidjalA: I concur with Maunus and JohnCarter. Look at it this way: Just assume that all "pro LLDM" editors are affiliated with the church; assume that they do want to see "pro LLDM" material added to the article. So what? All editors have their own biases: there is no WP rule against Manchester United fans editing the Manchester United article. It becomes a problem only when the behavior of the editors is crossing the line. Have the editors introduced material without sources? Have they misrepresented sources? Have they maliciously deleted material? Those are the kinds of specific behaviors that are problems. My advice is just to ignore the personal beliefs/interest of other editors and focus like a laser beam on the content & sources of the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm taking close note of all your comments and advice. I'll stick to working like a laser beam, in spite of the pro lldm floodlights. Cheers RidjalA (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@RidjalA I am grateful for others who have clarified WP:COI. The Catholic Church, for example, is a massive organization with wealth that LLDM could only dream of and whose power is rivaled by none in many nations (Like Mexico), yet I would consider it highly unlikely that they'd pay or otherwise entice editors (Catholic or none-Catholic) to edit on Wikipedia. I have always striven to make sure that my edits had some sort of wiki policy to back them up. I even stated to you before what I want to do with this article, and I have been doing so (Expanding the History, and beliefs sections etc...). I have asked you before to please stop attacking me, I hope this is the last time. Fordx12 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this matter has already been settled, and I appreciate the comments by other editors. However, I think it's necessary to clarify some things in case this ever comes up again.

1. I do not believe the quality of the article has been compromised by Fordx12 and me. Here is a comparison of the article as it was before Fordx12 and I became involved and as it is now[12]. Note: I am not attributing all of this to Fordx12 and me, as many editors have also contributed.
2. I am not being compensated spiritually and/or financially or otherwise bribed for editing this article.
3. I also contribute to the Spanish wiki, and have contributed to the Spanish version of this article. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, considering RidjalA has also contributed to it[13].
4. I have not stirred a ruckus in the Spanish version of this article. I made my first edits in the beginning of November and asked the main contributor to the article to revise my edits[14] which he did. The article was later nominated for deletion, and it remained but some editors raised certain issues with the article[15]. I then addressed these specific issues, but unfortunately an antivandalism editor perceived one of edits as vandalism. After a few reverts and discussion[16] my edit remained but another editor reverted it, but then reverted his reversion[17] so that my edit was upheld. You can ask the main contributor to the Spanish wiki to verify this: User_talk:Abajo_estaba_el_pez. Note that I have also contributed to other articles[18] in the Spanish wiki.
5. Regarding the phrase "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades." It was being discussed when RidjalA reintroduced it[19], I had also already proposed to replace it with a quote from the LA Times due to issues mentioned here[20]. This problem has now been solved by Audacity[21].
6. Regarding the Rfc on Erdely's book, in which I "repeatedly [rejected] users' opinions who don't find anything questionable about this source," RidjalA's accusations are false. I admit I was rude to one editor, Jonund. However, I think this has also already been solved[22].
7. I believe I have properly utilized the talk page for any "possibly contentious edits".
8. As for the question "Do you believe Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God?", I have said it is irrelevant. As John Carter has said the "term is potentially much broader than some might think"; it's not a simple yes or no question. Either answer is not favorable to me. Both answers imply that I believe in the Christian God, which may or may not be true. If I had said yes, RidjalA and perhaps other editors could try to use this against me; if I had said no, other editors might have also used this against me. There's no easy way to answer this question, whatever I say will end up being used against me. Going back to what John Carter said, I have noticed outsiders address Joaquin Flores as apostle, and I have also noticed other Christian groups use the term as synonymous to minister. Furthermore, answering this question might have opened the door to editors inquiring more about my personal life, which I like to keep separate from WP. I'm willing to admit that I am a big believer in religious freedom, and when speaking with lldm members I "prepend" Apostle to Samuel Joaquin Flores in the same way I append pbuh to Prophet Muhammad when conversing with Muslims. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Having just noticed this comment, I have to acknowledge that you show more sensitivity on this subject than I do regarding Muslims, and I've worked closely with Muslims in the past. Honestly, that last statement, insensitive as I am, never occurred to me to do so. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As for point #5, the issue was not solved since the line only states what one source states while ignoring the other (i.e. explains distrust of Mexico system (first source), but doesn't explain impunity of the church (source 2)). Audacity correctly suggested that we implement both sources, and I am following his logic by re-introducing data from the second source.RidjalA (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?

(redacted)

Comments

• It seems straightforward that Erdely is not an expert or authority regarding Luz del Mundo. It seems equally straightforward that his opinion regarding Luz del Mundo is not notable, and that the specific source is not notable as it is neither published nor has it received mention in other sources. In short do not use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Responding to the RFC. Per WP:SOURCES a source is considered published if it has been "made available to the public in some form", which, being on a web-page, this clearly has been. So it isn't "unpublished" in the sense used by WP. Not being able to read Spanish, I'm very reluctant to comment on the broader issue of the source's reliability (for example, whether it's self-published or not). Anaxial (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend using a machine translation service such as Google Translate for the Spanish-language links. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely a questionable source. The ICM and academic sections are particularly disconcerting. My opinion is that we should not use it for such a contentious claim. Perhaps there will be others we can use. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the information provided above, I would also be disinclined to use this source, especially for contentious claims.TheBlueCanoe 06:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the information provided, this is a source which would probably best be used only regarding the opinion of Erdely himself, to the extent that that opinion might be notable or relevant, such as, for instance, a biography article on him or articles on his works. But there does not seem to be at this time any good reason to believe that he is sufficiently notable enough or reliable enough for any more than the most basic mention in this article, and probably would best be not mentioned at all, pending discovery of other sources or other material on the matter. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the above, I don't see reasons why the material by Erdely on a website would constitute a reliable source on this topic. According to Google Scholar Erdely seems in fact to have published something, but not in journals, rather websites and the odd conference. Therefore, his views don't seem to be reliable in their own right. The book section on the website doesn't seem to have gone through editorial control of a reliable organization. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Aside from what everyone else has mentioned, I would also like to point out that this source in question is used to make contentious claims about a living person. This source is questionable WP:QS, appears to be self published WP:SPS which would violate BLP policy WP:BLPSPS, and according to WP:BLPSOURCES if this source is questionable (Which it is) it should not be used to provide content about living persons. Self published sources, as noted in WP:BLPSOURCES must be done by individuals in relevant fields. The source does not meet that criteria either. Fordx12 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• I should point out that this is the second or third time that this exact same rfc has been issued by Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 after the first ones failed to sway opinions. In fact, I should point out that if you follow the link I provided, Ajaxfiore takes some flak from me and other users for his repeated attempts at discrediting this source. This discussion has been past closed and from what I recall, Erdely's publications were deemed acceptable. To be safe, I would encourage that we use reliable secondary sources. For this case, the L.A. Times independently reiterates the existence of widespread sexual abuse that Erdely reported (in case you haven't followed the news, the L.A. Times has proved exceptional at uncovering cases of large scale sexual abuse, including The Boys Scouts of America and most recently the Catholic clergy).

So that there is no confusion, the book is also found in libraries like UC Berkeley does here. So for the nth time, Erdely's publications are reliable and substantiated by reliable sources. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA please be honest when posting comments. The link you provided is for an RfC on Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones where Erdely worked as an "editor". In that RfC editors concluded that the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones meets minimum WP:RS requirements, "but should perhaps be used with attribution". I have requested input from the editors involved in that RfC. Furthermore I have used the Los Angeles Times as the main source for that section, but you deliberately replace the Los Angeles Times with Erdely's false claims despite pending discussions. I must also point out that the Los Angeles Times does not support Erdely's claims and even says the following: "He is Jorge Erdely, the former pastor of a small church and head of an anti-cult group that has single-mindedly attacked La Luz del Mundo." Erdely contradicts Los Angeles Times by saying that Padilla claimed to have been drugged and raped, while the Los Angeles Times reported that Padilla accused the church leader of "forcing him to have sex when he was a teenager." Erdely does this with several other sources, takes sources out of context, and makes outright false attributions to sources. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I must also point out that the fact that a book (which by the way is not the book in question) is held at a library does not make it a reliable source. Ajaxfiore (talk)

Response to Ajaxfiore: "Ridjal please be honest when posting comments."

Please refrain from making such a rampant accusation against me. I would hate for you to get blocked from editing (last time you were blocked you weren't even warned).

"I must also point out that the fact that a book (which by the way is not the book in question) is held at a library does not make it a reliable source."

Not to be pretentious or anything, but that's a pretty pseudo-academic thing to say. I'd expect to hear something like that out of Big Brother, or Our Ford. We might have different notions for what we deem "reliable" in this case. From my POV you guys (fordx12 and ajaxfiore) are bent on launching a smear campaign against Erdely and against the victims of sexual abuse (read the section on Moises Padilla in this article and how the church responded to his stabbing), and your guys' exhaustive research on debasing Erdely seems eery and obsessive, and makes me suspicious that you guys are working with and for LLDM. That's my POV. Salutations. RidjalA (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the "Book" in the library is not the book in question here. It's the first volume of Revista Academica...acording to google anyway. RidjalA as for your issues with the content, please see my suggestion on your talk page.Fordx12 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insight, Fordx12. I've replied to you on my page.

Ajaxfiore, I forgot to respond to something else you wrote:

"Erdely contradicts Los Angeles Times by saying that Padilla claimed to have been drugged and raped, while the Los Angeles Times reported that Padilla accused the church leader of "forcing him to have sex when he was a teenager."

That is not a contradiction; it's supplementary. One source states that there was foul play (L.A. Times), the other expands on it (Erdely). For it to be contradictory there would need to exist solid counter-evidence to his first statement of having been raped (say if in Erdely he stated he was raped but in the L.A. Times he stated that there was never any wrong-doing). Point being, Erdely is still a reliable supplementary source, and the following line from Erdely stays: "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades." Best, RidjalA (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"forced" means it was "obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power", which is what all the reliable sources imply. Erdely however states that he was drugged and therefore there was no need to use force. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We might need to tweak the logic a bit there, Ajax; it's slightly faulty. For instance, if Padilla was drugged during the abuse then that doesn't automatically imply that Samuel Joaquin's abuse was not coerced (that's where the logic fails), in fact there's no source that states that the abuse was not coerced (one says he was raped, the other it was "forced sex").

Certainly we can make an infinitude of assumptions (albeit unproven) about what transpired after the drugs: it might have made the abuse more tolerable for the victim (perhaps even enjoyable?), we can assume that the drugs made him put up less of a fight, or even assume that the drugs made him want to sing Dr. Greenthumb. Without a source, we really don't know.

I'll close by saying that Padilla being drugged and forced into sexual relations are not two mutually exclusive ideas. Thus we should include that Padilla was drugged and forced to have sex as a minor, which if we're going by the sources, is the most correct thing to do. The stories don't contradict each other: they supplement each other. If any minor discrepancy should arise between our sources, then we should include what both sources are saying, as opposed to quarreling between ourselves over who's got it right. Saludos RidjalA (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)