Jump to content

Talk:La Luz del Mundo/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

please check on user AjaxFiore

The user is editing competently the page, misleading the readers in order to promote a perspective of defamation against the church, He is putting irrelevant citations that give nothing more than speculations against the rape accusations, can I also put my name on the sections and write my speculations about the leaders without any reliable proof or investigation? he is also accusing me of vandalizing. which makesWikiNuevo (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) no sense at all

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who feels that way. I agree that the user is being unconstructive and uncooperative in the Spanish article. Maybe someone should look further into this, but I do know that this user was recently blocked. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Both WikiNuevo and I were blocked for violating WP:3RR in this article, something RidjalA frequently does (eg he did this just a few days ago[1][2][3][4]) but I have opted not to report him. In my defense, I had misunderstood Wiki policies and believed disruptive editing constituted vandalism, fortunately the admins have corrected me[5]. Furthermore, unlike WikiNuevo, I received no warning for violating 3RR[6] and was blocked 20 minutes after my last contribution to this article, meanwhile I was busy editing other articles as can be seen in my contributions[7].
RidjalA, you have been asked several times to stop attacking editors, yet you have done so here, in my talk page,[8] and in WikiNuevo's talk page[9]. This is your last warning, next time I will seek dispute resolution. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Hello,

It is incredibly difficult to summarize and link the months of dispute resolutions, RfC's, Third Editor Opinions, consensus building discussions, removal of text and headings that violated either WP:BLP or WP:NPOV and edits done by several other editors over the past several months concerning the controversy section. Even now there is an RFC on content regarding one source that was heavily used to cite the controversy section in the format that the new user WikiNuevo left it to (which resembles highly the format that existed months ago, he/she might as well copied and pasted it back). WikiNuevo's edit can be seen here in its latest incarnation [10].

Now the issue here is, for example, the content reads 2004 for TV based accusations, when sources say it is 1997/1998. It also includes new content from a none reliable source that seems to lack notability. It has removed several sources, and the content they support. Restored sections that consensus had removed (regarding the 1942 schism). Restored badly made subsection headings that violate neutrality rules, as discussed in the past on this talk page. Talking about neutrality, WikiNuevo removed virtually all the different POV's that exist concerning the church's "controversies." Content cited to secondary and primary sources, some of which are scholarly, has been deleted to favor a source that is currently being deemed unreliable and unusable by the RFC located above this section.

There is even a copyright issue with the first sentence of the "Rape Accusations" subsection in WikiNuevo's edit. It copies Erdely's source verbatim and cites it to an organization whose name appears to be that of a government agency, but if you read the RFC above, you'll see that it is in fact one of Erdely's groups, which begs it's reliability.

It is for these reasons, that WikiNuevo's edit can not be allowed. If he or she wishes to contribute, it is best for them to do so within wiki policy, and to realise that the "altered drastically and rewritten" (as he/she said in their first edit summary [11]) controversy section was drastically altered and rewritten because that is what happens over time to a wiki article. Sources are added, judged, removed. Content gets edited over time to add more information, points of views, and to correct any issues of reliability. Fordx12 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disseminating latest addition (needs special attention)

The following sentences from my POV need some attention so that they stay on-topic. The topic is Sexual Abuse Accusations Against the Leader. This latest addition goes off on a tangent as such: starts off responding to rape accusations, and goes off on a discussion about quarrels between church and christian group (among other random information that is weakly associated with the main topic):

The accusations against Joaquín Flores were never proven before a court.[141] According to anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro, the Mexican government opted not to take action because there was no legal basis for a sanction, and this would open the door for sanctions against the Catholic clergy.[135][141] However, Garma Navarro criticized the fact that the accusations were brought before the mass media instead of a judicial court, "because they [the media] cannot operate as an alternative judicial court, and their aim is to maintain and increase their audience."[141] According to Garma Navarro, it is very likely that the researchers involved were being manipulated by groups opposed to the church that sought to give the church a bad image.[141] Garma Navarro believes it is very likely that these accusations were made in a "desire for revenge by intolerant extremist groups."[142] He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader.[141]

Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco, said the controversy between La Luz del Mundo and Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México seemed like a religious war "that was very well exploited by the media in their fierce struggle for ratings."[143] According to Barranco, there were many doubts regarding the alleged sexual accusations and the academic character of Erdely's group.[144] Due to a lack of information and a rigorous treatment of the case, it was the media that judged the permissibility of the religious organization. This, according to Barranco, "creates a precedent that is downright dangerous, because the media are the least qualified to do it."[145]

Catholic prelate Girolamo Prigione demanded that truth be sought without making false accusations since "it is very easy to falsely accuse, slander, or defame", which Prigione believes is also a crime.[146]

According to journalist Gastón Pardo, the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.[147]

Save for the first three sentences, this entire section is unnecessarily verbose and should be scaled down to not only be less wordy, but more relevant. Otherwise, it's just a semi-coherent ramble and it should be removed. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that paragraph. It may be possible to make it more concise, but all the information seems relevant. It discusses how the accusations were never made in the actual legal system, just in the media, and what possible motives may be behind such actions which include rivalry, and persecution. These are different POV's about the accusations, and as a rule regarding neutrality and controversial content, all POV's from reliable sources must be presented.Fordx12 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

If an article contains non-neutral language, one does not place a copyediting tag on it. I have changed the tag accordingly. I haven't examined the article in depth, but the lead section itself reads like a press release for the church and needs to be completely rewritten. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a recent edit by an IP user. I attempted to revert, though his/her edits started to pose problems for that (Mostly 3RR rule related...the definition seems to be more fluid than I thought and didn't want to risk it). I have restored the article lead to it's previous incarnation. Fordx12 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the IP once,[12] but decided to stop lest RidjalA accuse me of article ownership and edit warring. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move page to La Luz del Mundo Church

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo → La Luz del Mundo Church – Relisted. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC). Requested by Ajaxfiore Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I moved the page from "La Luz del Mundo" to "La Luz del Mundo Church", but it was moved back due to lack of consensus. I believe the latter is a more descriptive title and it is the name used in the sources for the article (e.g. "Origins, Development and Perspectives of La Luz del Mundo Church" by Patricia Fortuny). I apologize for not starting a discussion but it seems that I am the only editor left. What do other editors think? Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  • English references vary with this. Just in the article I've found "La Luz del Mundo", "La Luz del Mundo Church", "Luz del Mundo", "Luz del Mundo Church" and "Light of the World Church". I'm neutral in either of them unless one of them is particularly have more uses. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Church of Scientology, as another example, refers to the religious organization whereas Scientology refers to the religion and its tenets. Similarly, Christian Science refers to the religion, whereas Church of Christ, Scientist refers to the organization. The tenets of the religion, based on my limited knowledge, seem similar enough to other churches that the religion itself may not yet be notable (or it may, in which case, create the article plz). And from a functional perspective, since practically the entire article is about the organization, the article is in fact about the organization, and should probably have Church (or Iglesia, perhaps) as part of the article title. If the tenets of the religion are notable enough, put a disclaimer at the top and refer to the article on the religion itself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
These examples each have two separate articles, one about the organisation, the other about its tenets, and church is used as part of the natural disambiguation of one from the other. But here, no disambiguation is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Use of Bible verses to explain beliefs

Ajaxfiore's recent deletion of some bible versus is the subject of this inquiry. While I do agree that there is a limit into how much an article like this should go into using versus from the bible to illustrate the Church's interpenetration of the bible, I think there is merit in including some examples. Any thoughts? The edit in question is this one [13]. Fordx12 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not find Revelations 12 in the cited source. I also removed a Bible verse in this edit justifying the lack of musical instruments; the source added here provides a different justification, that their hearts are the only instrument they need. I think Christian groups such as LLDM have a stockpile of Bible verses to explain and justify a single belief. By citing a single verse we are providing incomplete (if not misleading) information. Feel free to add the verses you find necessary or open an RfC for further input. I won't be around much. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

AbuRuud's edit

I deleted the clause "speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring" from the sentence "Journalist Gastón Pardo, speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring, said that the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander." This is for a couple of reasons:

1.) The source referenced is from 2005. The Casitas del Sur case happened in 2009. Clearly the source used cannot speak "after Erdely became implicated."

2.) The source doesn't speak to the human trafficking ring or Erdely being associated with the ring.

3.) Most importantly, Erdely was never implicated in the trafficking ring. This is the third page I've found where user Ajaxfiore has inserted such language. It's simply not true. To cut and paste from my talk page entry on the Jorge Erdely Graham BLP:

"The allegation that 'Erdely is wanted by the Mexican government charged with being the intellectual mastermind behind the Casitas del Sur child trafficking ring' is very, very poorly sourced and problematic. Sources 13-16 do not support the allegation at all. Neither source 12 nor 17 quote a member of the judiciary, police or attorney general in Mexico.

Someone was arrested as the mastermind of the child trafficking ring: Antonio Domingo Paniagua. News articles talking about Paniagua’s arrest mention Paniagua’s connection to Erdely (Paniagua was Erdely’s personal secretary), but do not talk about Erdely being the leader of the ring nor being an international fugitive, as one might expect. (http://www.elporvenir.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=500836, http://www.elmanana.com/diario/noticia/nacional/noticias/dictan_formal_prision_a_lider_de_casitas_del_sur/1167485) Why would they mention Erdely but not the most newsworthy piece of information relating to Erdely’s connection to the ring (i.e. he is wanted as the leader of the ring)? In fact, a news article from the same source from source 12 (El Universal) ran an interview with Erdely on the subject without any mention of a warrant (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/588070.html). Further, it makes no sense that INTERPOL would be involved in Paniagua’s case but not the alleged leader of the trafficking ring.

I have found absolutely no proof that Erdely is a wanted fugitive. Any assertion that he is wanted should be supported by multiple high-quality sources. wp:exceptional There are only two sources, and neither source is from the judiciary (who issue warrants) or police (who enforce the warrant). Even if he were a wanted man (which, again, the balance of evidence suggests he is not), there is also a strong argument that the information should not be included anyway. wp:blpcrime

--Snip-- 

AbuRuud (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)"

AbuRuud (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed in multiple pages, mainly at Talk:Jorge Erdely Graham and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jorge Erdely Graham. Just to clarify, the Casitas del Sur case began to surface in 2005, but it was not until 2009 when the government got involved. Ajax F¡oretalk 23:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN Case

There is currently a case at WP:DRN regarding content disputes in this article. I suggest all involved editors temporarily stop editing and help out with the discussion at DRN. Once we have a discussion at DRN and come to a consensus, we should resume editing the article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this case, but I believe that some follow-up is in order. I will watch the page myself for the next few days, because I am hopeful that the agreements we came to at WP:DRN, although not binding, will serve to temper the heated discussion that has often taken place here. It is my opinion that contentious edits, such as those to toe controversy section as we discussed at WP:DRN should for the moment be "proofed" on the talk page before going live.
Again, just to be clear, nothing about WP:DRN is binding or mandatory. I simply feel that I have an interest in following up to make sure that WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NPOV are adhered to. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for staying around, that is much appreciated. I don't know if this is what you meant back in the DRN, but I have attempted to reduce the amount of detail of the controversy section. I organized it into three parts. The first two parts are about the controversy which took place in the year 1997 (The "Controversy in Mexico" section) and overspilled into the USA ( The "Controversy in the United States" section). The last part was not lumped into the first due to the fact that it is a bit confusing, more on that later. So here it is, the first version of a shorter and more concise controversy section is found in this sandbox of mine User:Fordx12/sandbox.
A note to everyone, this is version one. I left out info about Padilla, the quote with the "fringe" theory of the church conspiring with the government and others to evade prosecution, and some background details about the controversy in the US. The reason why I left out the Padilla part is because I was not sure how to turn that into one or two sentences. Suggestions are welcomed. I did not add the quote with the fringe theory due to the RfC located above in this talk page, it is a fringe theory and unreliable. I left out the background to the US controversy mostly for space reasons. I am sure the last section can be shortened. Fordx12 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have made some initial suggestions. I have not gone through the entire passage. I feel like this needs some additional work to further reduce the number of words, but I also feel like it is a good start. Thanks for your work on this. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I also wonder, is there a reliable source that comments on the back and forth of the allegations and how things have progressed in the media, so that maybe that can be used for further reading, and the amount of detail it is necessary to include can be further reduced? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, the controversy died by 1998 when the media turned their attention elsewhere. The controversy is essentially ignored by the Mexican media afterward, they just make a passing reference to it. I have not been able to find anything regarding the dissidents or the organization they created, although some scholars of the time suggested that they would form their own congregation. Anthropologist Garma Navarro initially assumes the church leader is guilty but later changes his point of view and gives a good overview of how the controversy developed and how the authorities responded.
Having said that, I think the controversy section should have a different title since it was isolated to 1997-1998, and because some scholars saw this as religious intolerance, while the church viewed it as discrimination. But then the Silver Wolf section would be out of place and just floating around. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion is to try and make things succinct enough to be folded back into the main article, rather than stay in a controversy section. If this means, say, that the 1997-1998 controversy needs to be a separate controversy section, i think that's fine. The silver wolf ranch thing seems like it should wind up being small/focused enough to be put back into the main body of the article. having a broad "controversy" section practically invites bloat from WP:UNDUE and edit wars, so my feeling is it would be best to keep them contained historically, where possible. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest an intro that contains this information: "On March 27, 1997, one day after the bodies of the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate that had committed mass suicide were found, anticult activist Jorge Erdely accused La Luz del Mundo on national TV of being a "destructive sect" with the potential for mass suicide. This accusation unleashed a two year controversy in the Mexican media which later spilled into the US and involved members and supporters of LLDM who defended the integrity of the church, intellectuals and academics who demanded a climate of tolerance for religious minorities, and Erdely's ICM and church dissidents". Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You could even collapse that first sentence further, to something like "The day after the Heaven's Gate mass suicide was discovered, anti-cult activist Jorge Erdely appeared on -tv station- and accused LLDM of plotting similar activity"
I think that you are heading in the right direction. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, it should suffice to link to the Heaven's Gate article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I made a few changes. I am not entirely sure what you guys would want, so now would be the time to edit my sandbox yourselves directly. You can state your rational on this page, I guess. I for one am pleased by the way it looks now, however I agree with Usethecomandline that it ought to be integrated into the history section (So many users have said that, why hasn't it been done?) Fordx12 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The question is how it should be integrated. Should the title just be changed from Controversy to "Events of 1997/8", "Late 90s", etc.? Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just it, space. I mean, each subsection in the History section covers about ten years (more or less) worth of information into only one paragraph. The sections about the accusations against the Church and its leader covers only one year yet it is bigger than two history Subsections combined. How much detail do we really need to add?

A lot more happened in, for example, Aaron Joaquin's early ministry, yet it is not all included. Same thing with none-controversial events relating to Samuel Joaquin's ministry. Do we really need to detail each event of the controversy? Another issue is including all points of view. Contentious information must also include other points of view, and that is what inflates the size. Couldn't we just do something like this (Of course we'll have to place the citations at the right spots, but all the content is based on current sources that are used in the article): 

In 1997, in the wake of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, Jorge Erdely went on National TV in Mexico and accused the Church of having the
potential to commit mass suicide. These accusations were supported by his anti-cult organization "Instituto Cristiano Mexicano" and 
another NGO group led by Elizade, the "Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos." This led to a controversy where former 
members of the Church also claimed to have been sexually abused by Joaquin Flores. One member, Moses Padilla, was attacked by what he 
claimed was a group of police and church members in an attempt to silence him. Dissidents were uncooperative, according to authorities, 
and they were also suspicious of the Mexican legal system claiming that it favored the Church. After four individuals initiated a formal 
investigation through the Religious Affairs Department of Mexico's Interior Ministry and a state prosecutor, Mexican authorities said 
that investigation wouldn't go forward due to the statute of limitations.

Several Mexican scholars and intellectuals, including Patricia Fortuny, defended the Church against the accusations. A state prosecutor 
stated his belief that the accusations were unfounded. Gordon Melton and David Bromley say that the suicide accusations were 
fraudulent. The church pointed out that none of them were ever presented to authorities and that Padilla probably orchastrated his attack 
to validate his accusations. Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro questioned the motives and methods used by the Church's accusers stating 
that it is possible that these actions may have stemmed from intolerant groups seeking revenge and that some researchers who supported 
the accusations may have been manipulated. He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation 
during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader. Others questioned Erdely's academic integrity, and that of his 
anti-cult group. Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco believes that this was more of a religious "war" exploited by the media for the 
sake of increasing ratings while journalist Gastón Pardo believes that Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 
launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and 
slander.

We could have this for now, and then later integrate it into the History section as "The Church and the Mexican media in 1997" or something else, perhaps include a small paragraph about the issue in California to show how it "overspilled" into the states. After that, we can include information about "Samuel Joaquin's ministry in recent years" (Starting from the 1990's to today) and edit the current section into "Samuel Joaquin's early Ministry." We could easily include the Silver Wolf Ranch in that last subsection (a shorter version). There's no need for a controversy section. RidjalA keeps using the Scientology page as an example, however since it is a C-class article, it is not a suitable role model. All A Class and GA class articles on religion don't seem to have these sections, and those ARE supposed to be models for other articles. What do you think?Fordx12 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look at this tomorrow. I noticed you didn't include De la Torre's POV which was removed here and might be relevant. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I think stating that Erdely's appearance led to the accusations of Padilla et al could be seen as problematic. Unless there is other evidence of a direct link (or someone writing about this) that i have not seen, I would argue that you should not connect the events. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 07:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, i think you could make an argument for calling a section that collects the information on controversy etc during this period "increased scrutiny during the late 90s" or "higher profile during..." or something similar. I dont think you want to ignore the fact that it was negative publicity, of course, but not calling it a "controversy" can allow talking about both the issue of religious freedom (an argument made at the societal level) as well as the abuse allegations about the organization itself, without having to appear to support one or the other. It could very well be that all the allegations are true AND there is an atmosphere of religious intolerance, AND there are revenge motivations. Not saying thats the case, just that it's possible. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It was my impression that cited sources pointed towards Erdely as a central figure in the entire situation, Masfarrer says that his initial accusations led to the whole controversy, that's what I based that sentence on. We could just remove the first few words of that sentence and leave it at that until a later point in time. Fordx12 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess there's been no opinions this whole time? Well, I will very soon incorporate this User:Fordx12/sandbox4 into the section as an attempt to make it look better and more concise. It will also help set the framework for integration into the history section which seems to be the desired direction by the community that has weighed in on this issue for past several months. Fordx12 (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It's somewhat redundant in that the state prosecutor and his belief that the accusations are unfounded is mentioned twice. You should also state that the sexual abuse accusations were uncovered and spearheaded by Erdely and the ICM per Garma Navarro. Additionally you should mention that Gaston Pardo speaks years later after Erdely and his group were implicated in the kidnapping of children from shelters. It would be nice to get input from other editors. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this Talk section, and parts of the article, seems to be turning into Erdely bashing. Neutrality is needed. Highly reputed Mexican scholars like anthropologist Elio Masferrer have endorsed Erdely's academic rigor and professional integrity, both on La Luz del Mundo research and on the field of pedofile priests within the Catholic Church. There are Jorge Erdely books on human rights and religious studies published by Random House and Ediciones B in 2005 and 2008. Obviously, circumscribing Erdely to anti-cult activism is reductionism and to attempt to disqualify his research citing ad hominem opiniones of rival scholars is fallacious. I suggest linking Erdely's works on La Luz del Mundo, available on-line, to this section so that readers can read both sides. Also, allegations of criminality against Erdely have not been proven in court and could be generated or blown out of proportion by interested parties. I want to point out that Claremont University Gender professor Sylvia Marcos and Mexican Anthropologist Paloma Escalante have done their own research on La Luz del Mundo reported sexual abuse cases and published relevant works validating many of the claims made by the alleged victims. Escalante and Sylvia Marcos are not being quoted anywhere in the article or bibliography and are sorely needed to add balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.179.99 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Did not see this before. There is a relevant discussion at Talk:La Luz del Mundo#Reliability of El abuso sexual como rito religioso. Ajax F¡oretalk 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, someone who has degrees in Philosophy, theology, and Biology cannot be considered "rival scholars" to people who have those degrees in Anthropology and Sociology, and consequently History. Also, the section talked about here merely reports what the sources state keeping within WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV which requires multiple views with contentious content. Also WP:UNDUE limits the amount of information from one obscure source written by individuals who have been determined by the community in this talk page in the past to not be reliable experts on La Luz del Mundo (see this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo/Archive_4#RfC:_Is_Jorge_Erdely_Graham_a_reliable_source.3F). In the comments there you'll see people mention that he is not notable enough to make such huge claims, now take into account that this involves BLP issues as well as NPOV. This isn't an attempt to discredit him, or his organization. Just an attempt to keep an article within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:RS and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE to understand that not just any source may be used for any reason without limitations. Fordx12 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the undue weight tag be removed from the Discrimination section?

In this edit editor Fordx12 added an {{undue-section}} tag to the "Silver Wolf Ranch" section, which was originally written by editor RidjalA. In response (see this edit) RidjalA placed the same tag on the "Discrimination" section, which had been written by Fordx12. RidjalA's edit summary reads "This section reads too much like a person's vent rather than an academic/research based finding." After some reverting back and forth, only the Discrimination section remained with the tag.

Should the tag be removed from the Discrimination section? If not, how can that section be improved? Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes The tag should be removed. I think the tag is unsubstantiated as sources show that church members suffer discrimination due to their distinctive dress code, strict moral conduct, and different theology. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No I don't think the tag should be removed yet. While it's established that the group has suffered discrimination, the whole section is very one-sided, making it seem as though everyone around them is discriminating all of the time. There is no balancing mention of cases where people have spoken or acted against the discrimination, or been supportive in other ways, or communities where church members have been accepted. Also, the word sect, meaning "a religious group which has separated from a larger group", is not particularly derogatory. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    Note: The word "secta" in Spanish can either mean "sect" or "cult" depending on the context. In this context, the word is used in the pejorative sense, i.e. cult. In English, the world sect has a pejorative connotations when used in Christian groups, as the group is assumed to have heretical beliefs. Ajax F¡oretalk 16:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    Comment: Thanks Anne Delong. Regarding the one-sidedness, I have been able to find that generally church members have a reputation of been hard workers, having high moral standards, and defending religious freedom. Should some of this be included in the discrimination section, or in a different part of the article. The Hermosa Provincia section mentions that the church was awarded a white flag for eradicating illiteracy. The Allegations of potential for mass suicide section does have academics standing up for it. How can all of this be used to improve the section? Ajax F¡oretalk 16:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that the problem is with the title of the section. How can you have a neutrally written section called "discrimination"? If the section had a more neutral title, maybe "Interactions with non-church members" or "Involvement in wider society" (well, that's probably not right, I don't know the topic well enough), then information about both bad and good interaction could both be in the section: Incidences of discrimination, cases where neighbours cooperated, good and bad press editorials, friction with particular religious groups, whatever comes up in the reliable sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Anne Delong (sorry to tag you, I don't know if you are watching this page). Sections titled "Interactions with non-church members" or "Involvement in wider society" would probably become too big because they would have to include the Controversy section and whatever future information can be dumped there. Would "Opposition" be a better title? Ajax F¡oretalk 21:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a question to help clear up what you mean. Persecution is used as a title for the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, how would this case be different? Persecution is also part of the name of the section in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article (rated GA). Fordx12 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean about my suggested topic being to all-encompassing. I'm not sure that "Opposition" covers it. I can be opposed to something without engaging in discriminatory acts. What about "Discrimination and tolerance" or "Discrimination vs acceptance". You mention above certain reputations that the church members have. If you have examples of people speaking in a nasty way against church members, you can balance that by including examples where people spoke well of them (attributing those qualities). If you keep the "discrimination" title, and the section talks about discriminatory acts, to create a balance you would need to mention acts of nondiscrimination in that section. For example, if they are considered hard workers, are they being hired on that basis in some location? If in one area the church members are ostracized, in another location do their neighbours work with them? I am sorry if I am not making sense; while I think I have a good handle on "neutral point of view", I am not familiar enough with this specific situation to know if my suggestions are practical. Sorry, I will not be available for comment any more today - have some commitments. (sorry again, this was an edit conflict with the previous comment and I have no time now to rewrite) —Anne Delong (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a much more clear explanation. If what you propose is done, then the title would have to be changed to reflect the new information. Fordx12 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Anne. I don't have much time either, perhaps Fordx12 does. Another way to deal with this would be to move some parts of the Discrimination section to other sections of the article. The beating and imprisonment of the founder could be moved to the History part of the article; the events of 1997 could be moved to the Controversy section; and the discrimination of women could be moved to the section on Women. The rest is more or less balanced, and could be renamed Religious Freedom/Tolerance and could include how the church has asked for religious freedom and how society and the government have responded. Ajax F¡oretalk 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of El abuso sexual como rito religioso

An anonymous editor keeps adding the following sentences to the article:

" Gender Psychologist and Anthropologist Sylvia Marcos, however, performed her own research and published that the women had indeed been raped by Samuel Joaquin Flores in ritualistic contexts."

"Gender Psychologist and Anthropologist Sylvia Marcos, however, performed her own research and published that the women's allegations of rape by Samuel Joaquin Flores were legitimate and that they happened in ritualistic contexts."

The anon acknowledged that the first one was a violation of BLP and "Changed wording to comply with BLP".[14] However, both sentences, in sum and substance, say the same thing and are a violation of BLP. The word "however" serves to discredit the previous sentence while giving undue credibility to this sentence.

The sentence contains an assertion of culpability while Wikipedia policies state that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Sylvia Marcos is not a court of law and cannot be used to declare a person guilty of a crime.

The other problem with the source is its reliability. The article was supposedly written by Sylvia Marcos. I say supposedly because Marcos does not list it in either of the two curricula vitae she has on her blog.[15][16] The article begins by labeling La Luz del Mundo a "destructive sect" and its director a "cultic leader". The basic assumption of the article is that Joaquín is guilty. This assumption is neither questioned nor supported because it is assumed to be true by the author. The article does not attempt to determine the "legitimacy" of the accusations, it merely accepts them as fact. The article claims that the parents think the leader "does them a favor by choosing their children for his intimate service", but never interviews any of the parents. The article does not include point of view of any church members. The article was published in 2000, and claims that Joaquín "has so far refused to give explanations to the Mexican society". Here we see the same tactics employed by Erdely: accuse and judge in the media instead of resorting to the pertinent authorities. Yet in that same website we find a 1997 letter by Joaquín in which he denies the accusations and condemns sexual abuse.[17] I think it is clear that the article is not a reliable source, especially not for assertions of culpability. Ajax F¡oretalk 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a link to the alleged document itself, or is it perhaps listed as being published somewhere where the material could be reviewed? John Carter (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I forgot I reverted the anon, the document in question can be found here. Ajax F¡oretalk 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I can't read that, unfortunately, but it seems to be a subpage of http://www.revistaacademica.com/, another page I can't read because it isn't in English. I guess the question might become whether that site, and, apparently, journal(?) it might relate to, qualifies as reliable. If I could read it, maybe I could say something. Otherwise, maybe WP:RSN might be a place to go. I do not necessarily disagree with you, but I can't read it one way or another to know. Unfortunately. I could see, maybe, in some cases, an academic choosing not to include such a brief article in their c.v, particularly if maybe they have later chosen to change their opinions, or maybe, like has happened in a few other cases, maybe relied upon or used student work, which later might have been found faulty or fraudulent. I certainly would not at this point think that it necessarily meets WP:WEIGHT for this article, but that is a different matter than whether it meets WP:RS. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I see. I haven't gone through the whole website, and there might as well be good stuff in there. I rather focus on this specific article. The website is essentially dead though, it's fifth volume was never published.[18] As stated elsewhere in this talk page, it is perhaps because one of its editors, César Mascareñas de los Santos, was arrested in connection with the Casitas del Sur case[19]. Another editor, Jorge Erdely Graham, is wanted on similar charges.[20] Ajax F¡oretalk 00:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, that recitation of warrants and arrests sounds kinda familiar to me. This site has maybe been discussed before, or those individuals? Under the circumstances, that material makes the article possibly even less likely to meet WEIGHT requirements, and for all I know might even call into question whether the author actually wrote the article. I dunno, but I don't think felony fugitives and arrestees are necessarily counted as being completely above-the-board editors, y'know? Barring some serious discussion of this source elsewhere, I really can't see it included in the main article as it stands now. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The website, and more specifically the individuals have in fact been extensively discussed in this talk page. Should I still proceed to WP:RSN? Ajax F¡oretalk 00:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
For this article, the matter under discussion is whether it is a reliable source for material of sufficient weight that it should be included in this article. In general, the site might contain several reliable sources, and the article itself might be sufficiently important for a subarticle or related article, but at this point I honestly can't see any reason to believe it is of such significance that it should be included in this article as per WEIGHT, whether it meets RS or not. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll wait and see what the anonymous editor says. Ajax F¡oretalk 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are my two cents: Ajaxfiore’s suspicions about the authenticity of Dr. Sylvia Marco’s article about sexual abuse are unfounded. I found a newspaper article in respected Mexican newspaper La Jornada with a previous version (1997) of the same article, signed by her. The name isSilenciada violacion ritual: la sombria luz del poder religioso. What appeared in Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones ( RAER ) in 2001 was obviously an expanded, scholarly version of the newspaper article. Sylvia Marcos RAER article has been cited as reference in sociology books. Here is one published by CLACSO.See page 107. There is no reason to suspect its authenticity.
As far as the source itself goes,this is what I found: RAER is a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Sociological Abstracts and in the scientific database of Mexico’s main university, UNAM, Latindex. All volumes of RAER are in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard University and University of California library catalogues. I assume librarians would know how to qualify bona fide academic journals before acquiring them, especially if they are periodicals. These ares typically used for reference and research.
The journal is obviously a reliable source of information regardless of allegations against one or two members of the Editorial Board. The board is composed of five scholars, not two, plus the allegations are unrelated to their work as editors. In any case, allegations are many years after the Sylvia Marcos article was published in RAER so I cannot see how her work would be tainted. The author's viewpoint in the article is echoed by other respected anthropologists like Paloma Escalante, Elio Masferrer and other reliable sources that have published on the matter.162.211.179.139 (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If you can produce those other sources, please do so. Otherwise, I believe my own concerns, particularly regarding WP:WEIGHT, would still be relevant, and, unfortunately, I have seen nothing yet which to my eyes clearly indicates that the material would necessarily meet that standard. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If the source in question was originally published in a newspaper it is definitely not a research paper, because newspapers are for opinion pieces and news. The difference between the original and the version at RAER, is that the version at RAER has sources that the original did not have. I am not comfortable using an opinion piece that has been slightly modified to make it look like a research paper. That would perhaps explain why Marcos did not include it in her CV. The article still does not satisfy WEIGHT to be include here.
Regarding the reliability of RAER, I would need buckets of salt to believe material published and edited by Mascareñas, a man accused of falsifying doctor's notes to justify the absence of abducted children. The name of the journal in English is "Academic Journal for the Study of Religion", yet Mascareñas is not a "respected anthropologist" but a medical doctor.[21] We have a similar situation with Erdely, who is also accused of being involved in the Casitas del Sur case, and whose doctorate in philosophy is from an unaccredited, online institution. Elio Masferrer seems to be the most reputable of the editors, but he received his PhD in anthropology in 2002,[22] while publication of RAER began in 1997. Moreover, RAER's publisher 'Publicaciones para el Estudio Científico de las Religiones' was also founded in 1997. All the works by this publisher are either authored, or co-authored by Erdely. The only exception to this is a very short collection of texts Joaquín García Icazbalceta which is hosted at Erdely's ICM website.[23] I find it strange that a publisher is essentially centered around Erdely. It lacks a website and its email address is raer_mx@yahoo.com.mx[24] Here we must note that Erdely had his own publishing house 'Ministerios Bíblicos de Restauración A.C.' which vanished right around the time 'Publicaciones para el Estudio Científico de las Religiones' came around. As for Lourdes Argüelles, I have not been able to find publications relating to Christian denominations or in Spanish by her prior to getting involved with RAER in 2002.[25] Her only publications to RAER have been co-authored with Erdely.[26] Argüelles, Erdely, and Mascareñas are all involved in Erdely's anticult group Instituto Cristiano de Mexico ICM. Argüelles lists ICM as Centro de Informacion sobre Sectas, Religiones, y Nuevos Movimientos Religiosos, but the link is to ICM's website sectas.org.[27] Ajax F¡oretalk 17:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have mentioned this before, looking at the source html for www.revistaacademica.com, one finds words such as the following in its keywords attribute: "britney spears", "tv", "google", "youtube", "gol". These false keywords seem to have been unscrupulously placed there in order to draw people to the website which says a lot about their honesty and professionalism. Ajax F¡oretalk 17:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, when I think of britney spears, google, youtube, gol and tv, the first thing that comes to mind is, of course, the academic study of religion. Riiight. ;) Heaven's Gate (religious group) was I think noted for google bombing of that type, and it does raise serious questions whether the source is one that can really be called "academic", or might just be, like a lot of other websites, a page (and/or print journal) created for some other purpose. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and the newspaper version. The article is just the newspaper version with footnotes. Not very economic. Apparently Sylvia Marcos also made "paper" on Islamic connections to the idea of an "Apostle." Funny, I didn't know Gender Anthropologists knew so much about religious history. The editorial board seems more like a board for a medical journal, not on that deals in social sciences (which is lacking in Phd's in the social sciences). What's even more bothersome is the use of the word "Cult" (Secta in Spanish) by so called anthropologists when in fact, the anthropological community has disowned such claims as a profession. While Mexicans may consider Masfarer as a "TV expert" I honestly can't say that I have run into many papers or books written by him when compared to other anthropologists. Then again, my field is history, not anthropology. He is barely ever quoted or referenced in papers done by other Social "Scientists" (Anthropologists, Historians, Sociologists) regarding La Luz del Mundo. His bias, is in fact, pointed out by another anthropologist and his writings ignored by one of the very few historians who have written about the Church. Just my thoughts. Fordx12 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. We have moved from a previous suspicious of forgery to corroborating that the Sylvia Marcos article on La Luz del Mundo is authentic. That’s an improvement. The discussion now is WEIGHT. I will address Carter’s reply first. Other comments like Fordx12 will take me a bit of reading because they assert things but provide no sources. It won’t take me long, tough. John Carter asks if I can produce the articles. Yes. Here is a link to anthropologist Paloma Escalante 1997-1998 research on the narratives of six persons (six women and one man) who affirm that they were raped and sexually abused by the leader as kids while they belonged to the church La Luz del Mundo: El abuso sexual y el uso del concepto simbolico del Padre. The analysis explores the themes of discourse, incest, patriarchal structures and sexual abuse, both in La Luz del Mundo and a Catholic Order called Los Legionarios de Cristo (The Legionaries of Christ). Paloma Escalante is a doctor of anthropology and has written entries about Mexican religions for encyclopaedias. She is Editor in Chief of a reputed university anthropological journal. See here. Given that Sylvia Marcos is a university professor at Claremont Graduate University and Paloma Escalante agrees in many points with Marcos, I think that a text should be included in the article saying that both anthropologists studied the allegations of sexual abuse and believed them to be authentic. They are reporting their findings and giving reasons for their conclusions. Links provided to both articles will allow the readers to make up their own mind about what happened and how it may have happened historically (not legally). The insertion of the comment I propose would balance out other commentaries and sources inserted in the current form of the article that suggest that the sexual abuse claims were bogus, conspiratorial or media hype. Balance and fair representation of all important points of view are important.162.211.179.202 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Argentinian anthropologist Masferrer agrees with Escalante and Sylvia Marcos. He is Director of ALER, the Latin American chapter of the International Association for the History of Religion, which depends from UNESCO. His credentials and credibility are strong. On page 79 of his study on the controversy of the sexual accusations, Elio Masferrer reports that “in controversial topics such as these, verification procedures must be very careful, but we (anthropologists) give a lot of weight to the consistency of independent and diversified alternative sources. These have been very convincing in this case.” (My own translation. Emphasis added.) The original in Spanish says: “en temas tan controvertidos los procedimientos de verificación deben ser muy cuidadosos, pero damos mucha importancia a la concordancia de fuentes alternas, independientes y diversificadas, cosas que han sido contundentes en este caso” 162.211.179.202 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You previously said Paloma Escalante was a "respected anthropologist". Her "research" that you provided was published in 1997, at that time she only had a bachelor's degree in social anthropology.[28] She was still writing her doctoral thesis in 2012.[29] Regarding Masferrer, he is the director of Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio de las Religiones (ALER or Latin American Association for the Study of Religion). However, you failed to mention that Masferrer is also the founder of this ALER organization,[30] i.e. he is director not because of his merits, but because he founded it. Ajax F¡oretalk 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I will continue to try to address pending concerns. Fordx12 vague assertion that Dr. Sylvia Marcos wrote a paper about Islamic connections to The Apostles does not appear to be accurate. Could you provide proof or a link? I could not find any reference on the Web or on her CV. Even if it existed, we would need to read it before evaluating the quality of its content. The fact is that Sylvia Marcos is a professor of Gender and Mesoamerican Religions at Claremont Graduate University She is obviously qualified. Why wouldn’t she know about a Mexico (situated in “Mesoamerica”) religion like La Luz del Mundo or any other she would chose to study and publish about? Marcos has published entries on sex, belief and customs in the Encyclopaedia of Women and World Religion ( New York: MacMillan, 2000) and many other topics. I see newspaper articles quoted as sources in the La Luz del Mundo Wikipedia entry. I don’t see why Marcos newspaper investigative report should be treated differently. Mexican newspaper La Jornada meets the requirement of a secondary source with a reputation for fact checking.
Regarding Elio Masferrers, his CV is here and speaks for itself. His are strong academic credentials. Masferrer has published many books and is quoted all over in other anthropologist’s books and journals. Whether he is seen as media expert or not is immaterial to this discussion. Elio Masferrer's reliability is not validated by my opinion or invalidated by other people's personal opinion. The prestigious International Association for the History of Religion (IAHR) validates him. He is an Officer and voting member of IAHR representing Latin America. His research on La Luz del Mundo concluded that the women who made the allegations were believable sources according to anthropological standards. That is relevant. He agrees with Sylvia Marcos and Paloma Escalante on the same point. There are other scholars who agree with them but three university professors and their respective published articles (two of them have contributed to encyclopedia entries) seem enough to establish a position and it should be fairly represented in the article. 162.211.179.189 (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I misread one of your links regarding the paper on Islam. The point I made is did sylvia write those papers? We already established, in the past in archived section that I linked in the DRN thread, that Erdely has been established as not notable enough nor reliable to make controversial claims. Several issues exist with the sources in his website "Revista Academica." We are dealing with WP:BLPCRIME here, which means that according to Wikipedia, no one is guilty until a court of law says so. So no, we can't include items where anthropologists or journalists say that there is guilt or not. Contentious sources can't be included either. I don't doubt Masfarrer's credentials, I doubt if he has the correct expertise. An Anthropologist does not specialize in saying if X or Y happened or if it is possible that they happened. That is not his expertise. His expertise is exploring culture. And at most, those crimes are possible in any religious organization, and that's what he may have intended to mean. Whether or not he personally believes there is guilt, is irrelevant as per Wikipedia standards unless the Mexican government made him a one man Judge and Jury. Any sources that are added are severely limited by the BLP policy. As far as wiki policy goes, those crimes never happened.Fordx12 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I am very surprised by Fordx12 saying that Elio Masferrer is not qualified to research on the practices, beliefs and history of an organization because he is an anthropologist. Why, then, is anthropologist Patricia Fortuny quoted dozens of times in the Wikipedia LLDM article? All her quotes, incidentally, reflect very positively on aspects of La Luz del Mundo. I don’t see you objecting to or editing those. Fortuny makes good contributions and provides balance but she is only an anthropologist, and as accomplished as Masferrer. See her CV here.
Masferrer is well qualified to publish research on historical matters. He heads the Latin American chapter of the International Association for the History of Religion, funded by UNESCO. Read his CV here. He is a university professor on Etnohistory. You are assuming that he is a cultural anthropologist but all indicates that he is a social anthropologist. I have mentioned twice already that Masferrer’s article does not pass judgment on legal issues or guilt. But it is not a “personal opinion”, either. He is writing as an anthropologist on the data about the sexual abuse accusations against La Luz del Mundo leader and finds the sources of information –the women alleging rape– to be quality sources. In its current form, the Wikipedia article already has sources insinuating that the women were not believable or that it was a conspiracy of lies. Let’s balance the information and fairly represent all positions.
If Fordx12 is so adamantly opposed to Revista Academica as a source, I found that Elio Masferrer published an expanded version of the same article on his doctoral dissertation. How does that sound? Dissertations are peer-reviewed. Not good enough yet? That information was also published in 2004 as a book on Mexican contemporary religions, co-edited by the UNAM –Mexico’s most notable public university. See the chapter “Religión, poder y sexualidad. El cuestionamiento de líderes religiosos en 1997” pages 151-177. How is that for an editorial compromise on the source of Masferrer’s article and including his position? Let me know your answer.162.211.179.244 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo/Archive_5&oldid=1136362034"