Talk:Mercy Multiplied

Opinions are not Knowledge

"Mercy Ministries operates both an ex-gay program that offers conversion therapy, as well as a pro-life program that serves young women with unplanned pregnancies."

The Mercy Ministries page is being disputed because of the insistence of certain Authors continuing to contribute their opinions under the guise of factual information. These authors would like to control public perception and present their bias as truth and their actions undermine the purpose of Authoring on Wikipedia which is "to write articles that cover existing knowledge". Opinions of this nature may well be important to include on this page but not if it is presented as fact. Because opinions are not knowledge.

In particular the semantics of the above statement are misleading as Mercy Ministries does not offer any of these types of program. There are in-fact specific Ministries that are explicitly and purposefully ex-gay and pro-life. These issues are certainly not the foundational tenets on which Mercy Ministries operates. Whilst these issues may be addressed in the life of a young woman in the program it is only because Mercy Ministries is unashamedly Christian in both its organizational foundations and its modus operandi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.145.234 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why anybody would dispute that MM is not a pro-life organization because one of their main objectives is to help teens/women with unplanned pregnancies. Why is that somebody's opinion? In addition, Nancy has stated that they "help" girls who are "struggling with their sexual orientation". I do not purport that this is the sole purpose of the program, just as helping girls with eating disorders is not the sole purpose of the program. However, if somebody was looking for an alternative to abortion, and needed help, Mercy Ministries would be a place that she would consider as a "safe haven" so to speak, that she might have a place to stay during her pregnancy, and get help making plans to either parent her child or pursue a private adoption. And according to Nancy Alcorn, a girl who was "struggling with her sexual orientation" would also be welcomed into the program for help with that "issue" (Again, quoting Nancy).Victoria Lucas (talk)

I meant to mention this in the previous discussion about the 'ex-gay' issue but got snowed under at work and never got around to it. I appologise for leaving it this long.

I don't think that merely welcoming a girl who is struggling with her sexual orientation into the program is quite the same thing as running an ex-gay program, even if the program is based on Christian beliefs. My understanding of the terms 'ex-gay program' and 'Conversion therapy' is that they involve taking specific steps 'reorient' an individual towards a heterosexual lifestyle, or at least a lifestyle where they do not act upon their homosexual urges. I don't think that, for example, simply offering theological advice on the church's teachings on homosexuality, offering a 'sanctuary' for a person who is confused about their sexuality to think things over or helping them to deal with issues stemming from their confusion is quiet the the thing as running an ex-gay program.

If an assertion that MM offers "help" young women who are "struggling with their sexual orientation" in dealing with that issue is the only evidence that it offers an ex-gay program, and no details about exactly what that 'help' entails are given, I don't think that it is sufficient to warrant the statement that MM operates an ex-gay program. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply say something along the lines that, according to its founder, MM offers assistance to young women coping with unplanned pregnancies and confusion about their sexual orientation in dealing with these issues. This may be a little vague, but from what I can gather, not having had time to listen to it myself, so is the source material.

And 202.80.145.234, might I suggest that you go easy on the accusations. Even if the edits about the ex-gay/pro-life programs were inappropriate, this may stem from a simple misunderstanding of the terms, not from any attempt to 'control public perception'. Landithy (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Nancy doesn't fully explain what she means by "help." I still see no problem with calling the organization pro-life though. It's not as though I would even consider describing them as "anti-choice". I thought the pro-life part of their program was a major positive point for their organization.

Also, possibly there could be a statement in the controversy about the ex-gay program because of this article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html, and some of the statements made by the girls.Victoria Lucas (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Having finally gotten to listening to the audio file you provided as a reference for the "pro-life"/"ex-gay" statement, there doesn't seem to be anything in the interview that supports the assertion that MM is "pro-life" either. It simply states that MM takes in clients with unplanned pregnancies, and while no options besides raising the child or having it adopted out are mentioned, no explicitly "pro-life" political views are expressed at all, much less than with regard to the services offered by MM. I think it is too great a leap of logic to assume that MM runs a pro-life program, simply because they are a Christian organisation which offers help to people with certain problems. Particularly when so many different denominations and interpretations of Christianity exist. You may not see anything wrong with those movements, but that doesn't mean that it's OK claim that they form the basis of MM's programs, if there is no credible evidence to support it. The problem isn't that it derogates from MM's reputation. The problem is that it's not verifiable.

Also, with regard to the term "pro-life" itself, it is a political term, the same way that "anti-choice" is. Perhaps "anti-abortion" would be a more neutral and specific term, if one is going to mention it at all. Plus, the pro-life movement is opposed to a number of other practices, besides abortion. Landithy (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to referencing the audio file, I wasn't using that as evidence of their pro-life stance, just the ex-gay part of the program. I truly didn't think the pro-life position would be an issue, but I will look for other references. As far as the term "pro-life" I though it was the most positive was to refer to the services they offer, but perhaps you are right that anti-abortion would be better, on the basis that pro-life does have to do with the debate over the legalization of abortion, whereas anti-abortion is a more general belief against having abortions, and not necessarily a political belief about abortion laws.

However, I do think it is unfair to say that just because they do not call themselves "anti-abortion" that we may not write about them as being such, if there is evidence that they are against abortion, because that is what the term means, no matter what connotation the word carries. For example, if they described themselves as red, yellow, and blue, for somebody to then describe them as colorful, and then to be told that it is inappropriate because MM is not red, yellow, blue and green, or because they do not consider themselves colorful, or because they have never used the word "colorful" in describing themselves. Here is a piece just published on their site: http://www.mercyministries.org/LearnMore/News/AnotherLifeSaved.aspx. I suppose you could say that the "life" was "saved" because of a number of things, but I think at some point it becomes inaccurate to avoid a certain term just because it is politically charged. To stay in the program, a girl has two options, parenting or placing her child. This is detailed on their website, and there is no mention of an option of abortion, although that part of the ministry's description would be the appropriate place to mention it. I feel that including the specific information that abortion is not an option in their program is relative, and using the adjective "anti-abortion" is a good way of doing so.

So perhaps we might write something like this: Its founder, Nancy Alcorn has stated that Mercy Ministries also welcomes girls who are "struggling with their sexual orientation[1]." In addition, Mercy Ministries is an anti-abortion organization that offers young girls and women who are seeking abortion alternatives the option of placing their child for adoption or preparing to parent their child while they complete the program requirements.[ref appropriate part of website]. Followed by "After entering the program...(following sentence describes how residents are helped to decide)Victoria Lucas (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are stating, as a matter of unequivocal fact, that MM operates programs aimed at producing certain results ("anti-abortion" and "ex-gay"), or use particular methods, when you have no unequivocal evidence to back such a statement up. In my opinion, the statement currently in the article (in bold above) contravenes Wikipedia's rule against original research, because it is, at best, speculation based on tenuous evidence. If had MM made a statement to the effect that its program for women with unplanned pregnancies aims to prevent those pregnancies from being terminated, it would be fair to say that they run an anti-abortion program, but I am unable to find any sources where MM makes such a statement.

I also think it is fine to state that some sources have described MM as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" (plenty have), so long as you state who made the allegation, but I don't think it is appropriate to state as a matter of fact that they MM is opposed to abortion, unless the organisation has expressed explicitly anti-abortion views.

I would suggest simply stating that MM provides adoption services and parenting classes to women with unplanned pregnancies, with an appriate reference (eg. this FAQ section from MM's UK site[2]. Then the reader can draw their own conclusions about the program. Any specific information, from a reliable source, about the nature of the help that MM offers to clients who are "struggling with their sexuality" would also be appropriate. Landithy(talk) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what you're saying makes sense, but I do have a question. Does this mean the only reliable source we have about the program comes from the program's site, promo videos, etc? Truthfully, they do not give very much specific information on how they treat any of the issues that they help people with. Man does this article have some serious issues!

This is seriously an honest question because I am relatively new to contributing. Looking up at my own example, I can see my flaw because if something is comprised of three colors, we should just state that it is comprised of three colors, and leave the reader to decide whether three colors makes something "colorful". I assure you, I am not trying to contravene the rules, but it's hard not to synthesize when you are trying to state things concisely. For example, in the Joyce Meyer entry, it states that she is a proponent of the prosperity gospel, but (as far as I can tell) it doesn't have a source following it. It is easily deduced from her teachings, but I have never heard her say, "I am a proponent of the prosperity gospel." In your opinion, is that statement inappropriate?

Also, do you think that any mention or quotes by people as MM being pro-life/ex-gay, etc. should go into the controversy section? After our discussion, I think so. I am going to reword it, with citations and quotes, etc. and move it there for now. Let me know what you think about the changes.

Nancy talks again about bringing lesbians into the program, along with other girls, and gives a bit more detail about the MM treatment methods during this program: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-r-PEFhZ3uE. (On Youtube, but from their site, they also have an mp3 of the sermon here:http://media.ccconline.cc/sermons/2_10_08.mp3)Victoria Lucas (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that an organisation's own promotional material is the only source that could ever be considered reliable regarding that organisation's policies. From what I can gather, a published interview with an official spokesperson would be suitable too. Some kind of publication in a reputable, independant source might also be suitable. My concern with the radio interview was not so much that it wasn't a reliable source per se. It was simply that what was said in the interview didn't support the statement that was the subject of this discussion. I think that it is a perfectly good source for anything that Nancy Alcorn did explicitly say about MM, because she was acting as MM's official spokesperson for the purpose of the interview. For example, it is a good source for the fact that MM takes in young women who are confused about their sexuality, or that it planned a "Chick's Day" to celebrate its 25th anniversary.

From what I can gather from Wikipedia's policies, they want a slightly different standard of evidence to say, a news report or even a scholarly article. Information should ideally have already been reported in a reputable secondary source. There is some useful information in the article about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policyfor dealing with conflicting sources, where no one source can be considered more reputable than the others.

I agree that it is hard to find reliable information on the actual content or mentods used in MM's programs. Much of what has come up in my research seems to come with a heavy dose of either pro-MM or anti-MM spin and/or be extremely vague. There are many first or second-hand accounts of former clients of MM around, but none that I have seen have been independantly verified, and therefore can't really be treated as reliable sources . I think that given the lack of any kind of consensus or verifiable accounts, it is best to name the source of any claims

And I agree that these issues deserve a mention in the controversy section. If claims about MM's "pro-life" and "ex-gay" programs can't be independantly verified, and claims that such progams exist can be attributed to more than just a tiny minority, I think it counts as controversy. Besides which, even if it could be established that MM runs such programs, opinions differ considerably about the value, validity and ethics of such programs.

Re. your question about Joyce Meyer, obviously I'm not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia's guidelines, but I don't think that the assertion that she is a proponant of the prosperity gospel falls withing Wikipedia's criteria as to when it is necessary to cite a source. For example, it is unlikely that somebody would challange the assertion that Meyer is a proponant of the prospertiy gospel, because there is just so much evidence that her teachings fall within that category, and it would be readily apparent to a layperson that her teachings could be categorised as such. To contrast this with the discussion at hand, the assertion that MM uses conversion therapy in its programs, or is anti-abortion is likely to be challanged, because there is so little direct evidence that this is the case, and it is not readily apparent from the information that MM has made public, or any other reliable source. To use another simple annalogy, it's like saying that something is red, when it is on public display and countless pictures and descriptions of it exist. In that case, it would be fine to state that it is red without citation. However if the object is hidden away in a cupboard somewhere, and there are only a few eyewitness accounts of people claiming to have seen it, some claiming that it is red, but others asserting that it is clearly purple, then it probably needs a citation. Landithy (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in here, that not only are opinions not knowledge, but it is generally considered that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. This is a barbaric view of homosexuality, perpetrated by those with a hateful attitude towards the GLBTTQ community. I think that, to make that part of the article as factual as possible, it should state that MM offers programs based on the views that homosexuality is something that needs to be 'removed' or 'forced' out of someone's personality, because they are not a mental health organization, nor are they medical professionals. Therefore stating that they are assisting these girls with mental health issues is very biased. 99.240.235.230 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to the first paragraph:

Some residents attend the program for help with lesbianism and sexual promiscuity.

after finding some testimonials by young women which discussed this. I am not sure if I should rephrase this or not, but I feel like this is a fair way of addressing the fact that they regard homosexuality as something that needs "help" while being NPOV. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethos

I have removed the following, its the personal opinion of the author and has the effect, whether intended or not of sidelining serious instances of abuse as a casuality in the culture wars, or a difference of perspective. I think it better to just state the facts

' Such controversy emerges from the different ethical standpoints employed by observers. Those who employ virtue ethics ask questions about the purpose of any practice, whilst others use a rights based, deontological or utilitarian approach. The Evangelical Christian commitment to virtue as a basis for ethics brings them into direct conflict with those who believe in moral relativism, or that someone should not be discouraged from doing anything they want with their own body.'

Allegations?

In light of the recent allegations SMH 17/3/2008, it may be worthwhile setting up a new section following the progress of the investigation as it develops. The current article is quite uncritical of Mercy Ministries. Orthabok (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, actually. Some of the information about the allegations made by the SMH is currently under the "Use of funds" heading, which seems a little confusing, and isn't really relevant to that heading. I'm also a little concerned about the tone of the article. It seems a little weasel-wordy. I think it needs to be made clearer that the only investigation into the matter as yet (as far as I'm aware) has been carried out by the SMH. I don't think that the article should jump from being uncritical of Mercy Ministries to being uncritical of the SMH's allegations. Landithy (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section called "Controversy", and added a POV tag for that section too, as some of the information is probably covered by the original tag in the "use of funds" section. Although I think that a POV tag could safely be applied to the whole article, given that information has been added to the overview which has clearly been cut and pasted directly from Mercy's own promotional material.

I also updated the "Controversy" information a little, to include the reactions of some of Mercy's other corporate sponsors. Will try to dig up some information on Mercy's reaction to the allegations when I've a little more time. Landithy (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edits re. "Controversy" section (28/04/08)

I've made the following changes to the "Controversy" section:

Deleted however interviews with several young women who have been in the Mercy Ministries program in Australia indicate that Peter Irvine's claims are unfounded. - There is nothing in the source cited to support this statement, and it appears to be a conclusion drawn by the contributor who added the comment. The statement seems rather biased, since there is no obvious logical link between the allegations of a small number individuals and the statement that Irvine's claims are unfounded.

Deleted This is hardly surprising, as Peter Irvine is a director of Mercy Ministries and a co-founder of Gloria Jean's Coffees. - This statement is unreferenced and appears to be a personal opinion of the contributor, which I believe compromises the neutrality of the article. Plus, Peter Irvine's involvement with both Gloria Jeans and Mercy Ministries is mentioned elsewhere. If some specific allegation of conflict of interest has been made, I'm all for reporting it, but with appropriate references and mention of the accuser.

Edited the paragraph dealing with the ACCC investigation to make it clear that the allegations have not been proven yet. Since the Australian Democrats are the ones making the allegations, they could be considered to be a biased source. To state the allegations as though they were established fact would be misleading. Since this section is about controversy, I think it is important to specify who is making any allegations, and whether those allegations have been proved.

As always, I'm happy to discuss the matter if somebody takes issue with it. Landithy (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ACCC Investigation

I found links to the Hansard reports for the Senate decision to refer MM to the ACCC over the false advertising allegations. These may be a more reliable source than the press release from the Australian Democrats. I haven't had a chance to properly read through the manuscripts yet, but here are the links:

[3]

[4]

Landithy (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Organisations With This Name

A quick Google search shows that the name "Mercy Ministries" is also used by the catholic Sisters of Mercy to describe a shelter in Laredo Texas and by Youth With A Mission (YWAM) to describe their overseas charitable and social work. Both of these are clearly quite different from the organisation described in this article. Should we put something in to this effect to avoid confusion?Majurawombat (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I actually did get confused the first time I saw a 'Mercy Ministries' pamphlet, because there's a Catholic-run charity in my suburb called the 'Mercy Centre'. The Sisters of Mercy in Australia have specifically stated that they aren't connected with the Mercy Ministries that this article is about. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landithy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Overview

I've removed the overview section as it is a copyright violation of the Mercy Ministries site. As for the controversies section, I don't see why it needs the POV tag. It seems well referenced. Is anyone disputing the neutrality? Because otherwise it doesn't need the tag. Recurring dreams (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I put it in because I'd moved material from another section that already had a POV tag, I wasn't sure exactly what the POV tag in that section applied to, and I didn't want to remove it purely on the basis of my own edits. I've no objection to it being removed. Landithy (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for the reasons given above Majurawombat (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm really all that bothered, but the above discussion related specifically to the tag in the "Controversy" section.Landithy (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Recent IP edits from 70.148.121.218 have, amongst other things, removed the "Controversy" section, leading to the edits being reverted. That IP address is in fact registered to "Mercy Ministries of America". I have left a "welcome" message for the IP, including reference to WP:COI, but I did also wonder whether the article was over-dominated by the controversy section and whether it needed to be that long in comparison to the rest of the article. It may be that the balance of the article needs to be looked at. I've asked the IP to discuss matters here before editing the article further. Bencherlite^Talk 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, because the edits are being noted on some news websites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy part is definitely too long. Especially in light of the fact that the articles are all Australian and the fact is that Mercy Ministries is an International organisation. Wrinkleintime123 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly there are probably some worldwide view issues with the article, because Mercy Ministries seems to have risen to greater prominence in Australia, due to the afore-mentioned controversy, and its connections to the Hillsong and Gloria Jeans Coffees, which are both large and to varying degrees, controversial organisations. There is also more readily accessible information about the Australian perspective for similar reasons. However while perhaps the 'Controversy' could be trimmed down a bit, I think some of the other sections could do with expanding. In particular, they could do with more detail about MM outside Australia.Landithy (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Cut down the article a bit. I've tried to focus on the most serious/concrete of the allegations.Landithy (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How come the controversy section has been cut down so much? I think the controversy section is more relevant than what it has been cut down to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmkelly (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was cut down following the above discussion. No mention was made of the USA allegations (mentioned here[6]) in the original version. If you have verifiable information regarding any such allegations, by all means, include it. Was there some part of the original version which you think should be kept? Landithy (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (edited Landithy (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Mercy Ministries is a rather small international organization with only a handful of homes worldwide catering to a small number of women at each home. From what I've read on the websites there are 3 homes in the US, 2 homes in Australia, 1 home in New Zealand and 1 home in the UK. They serve no more than 200 young women in all of the homes combinedat any given time. This would give the allegations greater relevance given the relatively small amount of young women cared for by the organisations. This isn't like the Teen Challenge or the Salvation Army which are much larger and serve many more people in comparison. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section did say: Controversy On 17 March 2008, an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, containing allegations of mistreatment by several former clients of Mercy Ministries in Australia. They claim the organisation has made false claims about its services, and that instead of receiving counselling from qualified professionals, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students who treated them with techniques including exorcisms and prayer readings. [7] Australian Government agencies such as Centrelink have also been drawn into the controversy, as residents are required to transfer their benefits to Mercy Ministries. There are also allegations that the group receives a carers payment to look after the young women. Mercy Ministries says 96 young women have "graduated" from its program since its inception in 2001. But many have apparently been expelled without warning and with no follow up or support. ("They sought help, but got exorcism and the Bible", Sydney Morning Herald, March 17, 2008) Peter Irvine, a director of Mercy Ministries and co-founder of Gloria Jean's Coffees, has stated, in response to the allegations, that Mercy Ministries had received "overwhelming positive feedback from graduates, their families and the community" and that clients were made aware of the details of the programs before they joined.[8] Since the allegations were first made public, several other former clients have come forward, reporting negative experiences and abuse at the hands of Mercy Ministries.[9] Gloria Jean's Coffees, a major sponsor of Mercy Ministries, has stated that, despite the allegations, it does not intend to change its funding arrangements for Mercy Ministries. Several other corporate sponsors have announced that they will be severing their connection with Mercy Ministries.[10][11] On 16th April 2008, the Australian Democrats announced that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would be investigating Mercy Ministries Australia over their alleged misrepresentation. The Democrats claim that Mercy Ministries advertised that their program provided professional medical and psychiatric care for their patients, however the young women were placed in the care of Bible College students who were unqualified to treat mental illness. It is also alleged that Mercy Ministries advertised that they did not charge young women to be part of their program, however the ministry did require payment from young women in the form of their Centrelink benefits. [12] In 2006 it was revealed that Nancy Alcorn, founder of Mercy Ministries, earned $178,583.00 from the charity for the financial year.[13] The wages paid to other directors of Mercy Ministries are unknown.

There were a lot of references in there to support it. I'm disappointed that a lot has been edited out, and as the other person said, Mercy Ministries is a very small organisation compared to TC, Salvos etc, and the fact that so many from Australia and some from the USA have come forward, is a very big deal.

I don't want to argue about it though - I'm fine with the majority on here making a decision about the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmkelly (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to start a row either. However I do think that it's good to discuss these things. I particularly welcome constructive criticism of my own edits, since it's easy to lose objectivity when looking at one's own contributions, and obviously I'm not omniscient.  :-)

I honestly can't find anything in the referenced articles which refers to the allegations from outside Australia. Also, much of the information I removed was vague or of questionable relevance. Otherwise, I've tried to make the article as concise as possible while still covering the main points. I've also tried to avoid the emotive tone of many of the articles referenced in the interests of providing a NPOV.

I would also like to reiterate my view that I think that while Mercy Ministries may be a small organisation, it is affiliated with two very large and prominent organisations and has a high media profile (at least in Australia). While obviously it doesn't merit an article as large as an organisation so old and widespread as the Salvation Army, I think that it does warrant a slightly larger article than it has at present. I would argue that the fact that it is more prominent in Australia than in other countries does not necessarily mean that it is not worthy of more attention. In this respect, it could be likened to the Magdalene Asylums, which existed around the world, but became particularly notorious in Ireland. Landithy (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I cleaned up the links removing all but the links to the mercy ministries websites and the mercy survivors website. These links were to various christian publications as well as to youtube and myspace. I did not see the relevance of any of them being included. Here are the links I removed for anyone to review and add their input.

Mercy Ministries on MySpace Nancy Alcorn SpeaksLittle Big Town Touchs on Baby shower that supports Mercy MinistriesNancy Alcorn Founder of Mercy Ministries talks to Life Today about Mercy Ministries Have Mercy Woman of Mercy A Survivor Story: Meet Laura Schultz… Treatment or Death Mercy Ministries Promo video Another Article on Mercy Ministries A fan visits Mercy Ministries Career Minded - Mercy Ministry President, Nancy Alcorn Help for Women with Eating Disorders CelticLabyrinth (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits during protection

I have a new account and want to make a few minor edits that do not change content, should I just wait or post suggestions here?(Victoria Lucas (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

If you want to make edits such as rewording or grammar checks, or you want to add cited information to improve the article then please go ahead. Just don't outright delete sections of cited information or rewrite the article without discussing it here first. If you're new to wikipedia then I would suggest using a sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox first. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not letting me make even minor edits and I think I have to submit something on this page to request specific override of protection in order to make minor edits, so honestly I think I am just going to wait until it's unprotected, since some of the problems I have with it are as simple as correcting the names of the various locations of the organization (Mercy Ministries of America/ Mercy Ministries Australia instead of "in the US" or "in Australia".
However, I would like to admit my bias regarding the article as I am a former resident. In my defense, I have a library science and literary research background and am trained in technical writing, so I am familiar with the necessity of references, and believe in the case of Wikipedia it is particularly important to be as impartial as possible, to list out facts for people who are looking for information on a subject, and not attempt to remove information, or make an argument defending my view on the recent controversy.
I think both the overview and the controversy sections need clarification, and can be more concise, while adding more detailed information, so I'm hoping to do that once the article is unprotected.Victoria Lucas (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Overview Section

I am not finding the quote "... to provide opportunities for young women to experience on teaching young women aged 16-28 about Jesus Christ" in the referenced interview with Darlene Zschech. Where is it exactly? I can't find any sort of quote that references MM's mission. The quote itself is also not grammatically correct as "to experience on teaching" should either be "to experience teaching" or "to teach", but neither of those makes sense for what I understand their mission to be as the residents to not actually teach anything to other young women. You could change the statement to "to provide opportunities for young women aged 16-28 to experience Jesus Christ," or alternately "to learn about Jesus Christ". But again, there is nothing in that interview that references the mission statement of MM, that I can see. I think we should find a better mission statement, maybe from their site?Victoria Lucas (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to using a (properly referenced) a mission-statement from the official site. It's possible that some of the references got pushed around a bit when a whole bunch of copyrighted material (cut & pasted wholesale from MM's website) was removed out a little while ago. Landithy (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Overview Edits

I rewrote the overview paragraph explaining the mission statement/objectives of MM. There are a couple of items that are probably going to be controversial, so I thought I would address them preemptively. I will have the citation up soon, but all of this information is paraphrased from either a recent radio interview by Nancy Alcorn found on the MM of America website or the other already referenced history pages, etc also found on the website. At this point, all that needs to be done in the first two paragraphs is clean up the references, but as a new Wikipedian I am still working on doing that without messing the whole page up, or deleting references by mistake.

I can most likely find more references for most of what I've written, but I think it is a good choice of reference because Nancy herself is describing the ministry. Here is the link to the interview I am basing the overview on (It can be found on the site under the Audio/Visual section of their press center.): http://www.mercyministries.org/shared/audio/public/Nancy_Radio.mp3

I wrote:

"Mercy Ministries is an international Christian charitable organization that offers a long-term residential Christian-based treatment program for girls and women aged 13-28 who struggle with life-controlling mental illnesses such as eating disorders and depression, as well as psychological issues that arise from sexual abuse and predispose girls and women to attempt suicide, self-injure, or abuse drugs and alcohol."

Paraphrased from interview. I phrased the "psychological issues that arise from sexual abuse and chemical dependency, etc." the way I did because sexual abuse is not an actual illness, and MM is not a detox facility, but instead works to treat the roots of the problems that they feel caused the residents to become dependent on drug and alcohol, self-injury or attempt suicide in the first place.

"In addition, Mercy Ministries is both an ex-gay program that offers conversion therapy to residents who struggle with their sexual identities, and a pro-life ministry that takes in girls and women who seek help with their unplanned pregnancies."

I stated this in as neutral a way as possible, and feel the pro-life and conversion therapy are equally valid parts of their program and should be included along with information on the psychological issues they treat. I made sure to stress that the pregnant girls and women who enter the program have in fact sought help of their own volition.

When I mentioned the gay conversion aspect of their program I also made sure to stress that the potential residents were again seeking help of their own accord because they feel they need help.

Nancy mentions both of these aspects of the program in her interview, and I made sure to refer to their ministry as pro-life and not "anti-choice" as some might view it because, again, residents make their own decisions to go there.(Victoria Lucas (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Just wanting to clarify something. Does that list of programmes run by MM apply to all MM institutions worldwide, or just the ones in the USA? Only this article, says that MM "denies it runs an "ex-gay" program". I've no problem with the article stating that MM offers such a program if it can be verified, and the article I mentioned is admittedly from a secondary source, but perhaps the issue warrants further investigation in light of this anomaly. Landithy (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the programs are the same across the board. I do think it's fair do include the ex-gay part of the program (and to some extent a fact that should be included for a thorough overview) because the reference [7](that I need to add, sorry I've been on vacation) is a radio interview where Nancy, the founder mentions it herself. I agree, though, that the gay conversion part of the program has been denied, so I thought it might be something to include in the controversy section. Thoughts on that?(Victoria Lucas (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Reference 16 should be April 16, not March 16, since you have editing rights Victoria could you please change it? Thanks

Done. I am going to try and figure out how to link the mp3 file to the end of the first and second paragraphs. I'm not sure if it's different than linking a webpage, and I think I need to put the "retrieved" date on there, but am figuring that out as well. If there is a tutorial specifically for references, can you lead me to it? I am also in the process of figuring out how not to repeat a reference without creating a second reference that is the same link because I see one link is repeated instead of just having the same number referenced in two locations. Does that even make sense? I can see there is a different code, but I'm still figuring it out.(Victoria Lucas (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Have you tried this article, and some of the cross-referenced ones? Landithy (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the reference/example for the fact that the Sisters of Mercy use the term 'Mercy Ministries' in reference to their work. On reflection and review of Wikipedia's referencing policies, I think that this point would fall within the category of general common knowledge and does not need a citation, and the reference was only an example, not a statement of a policy. Landithy (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing of the Sunshine Coast Home

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/jun/07/mercy-ministries-close-coast-home/ I can't add it right now, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of others working on this article. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing Ex-gay/Pro-life part of description

This is true as referenced further up in the discussion. Why is it being taken out? Can you explain?Victoria Lucas (talk)

removal of addition to controversy section

I also think the addition of the "positive articles" statement shows bias. I merely added as fact that statement by MM that the home is closing. I understand if the fact of the closing needs to be removed to the overview section because placing it in the controversy section might be considered biased (as there is no proof that the closing is related to the controversy). However, I do not think listing the existence of what might be considered positive articles has merit. Mentioning relevant information that references the articles would be fair, I think. I am totally open to discussion about this, of course, but for now I took it out.Victoria Lucas (talk)

Another IP (from Sidney Australia- my best guess is it's Mercy Minitries) is editing this page and removing controversial information. Last time it happened I notified some editors of it- I think we need to protect IP's from editing the page- but I don't know how to do it, I'm not a very good wikipedian, but if you don't want to deal with it I'll deal with it later tonight. I'll also see about putting a warning on their profile and blocking that IP from editing this page CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected this article for another month to stop the IP from editing it for the time being. They'll have to register to edit it from now on. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt sort of weird protecting myself as I didn't want to seem like I was trying to stop them from ever editing it, or seem like it was a personal thing. Maybe they could weigh in on the discussion? Victoria Lucas (talk)

There was more vandalism today by 202.80.145.234 I have reverted it back. Melanie587 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Books by Alcorn

Since Nancy does not have a page of her own, do you think this would be an appropriate place for a list of her books/teachings? Just a thought. I was also thinking of expanding the funding section, well, making it less confusing as well, but I thought I might list some of the other churches/pastors who support MM financially, such as Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church, Abundant Life Church, Darlene and Mark Zschech, Chris Caine, Hillsong, any other major contributers. I will of course find references, but I think in each major city that they are expanding, they are partnering with a local church, usually of some notoriety, that have at least the beginning of an article on Wikipedia. I think she has mentioned some major private sponsors, as well, but I will have to check on whether there are any of notoriety. Thoughts? Victoria Lucas (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up/adding references

I'm in the process of cleaning up/adding references, and could use help. I'll eventually figure it out myself, but I don't yet know how to create anchors, and it's clear that several references are repeated. I also have not gone through and checked all of them, but am hoping to do that within the next couple of days. I have tried to list a variety of appropriate ones, and not rely on a single source, even when possible. (I'm assuming that's a good thing.)

Also, I haven't even begin to deal with references in the beginning of the controversy section as I think they've gotten jumbled up.

I will defer to those who can help in deciding if I've "over-cited" the article, etc.

Also, with the formatting, I have placed the citations inside of the final punctuation as the end of the appropriate sentence and outside of the punctuation of the final sentence when cited for more than once consecutive sentence. I think that is right, but haven't dealt with this for many years. I haven't gone through and done this for the entire article, however, because I haven't checked every ref/statement yet and thought the actual formatting would be a good thing to do last, so I will look into it and see if that is the correct formatting before I get to that stage. (Unless somebody already knows?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Lucas (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Does anyone know why the NPOV tag was put back up? I can find information on older NPOV issues, but none that are current. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was added by the person who initiated this discussion, presumably for the reasons outlined in said discussion. Personally, I'm satisfied that that particular issue has been resolved, although the person who put the tag on and initiated the discussion hasn't added anything further to it. Landithy (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they did. I have no objection to take it off now that revisions have been made to the passage in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Lucas (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Texmis (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some further information taken from a recent article Texmis (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence (posted below in the dotted box with my emphasis) makes it sound like homosexuality is a mental illness. While this may be the view of Mercy Ministries, it is not the commonly held position amongst psychiatrists and other mental health professionals of the modern day. Therefore, this wording needs to be changed.

Mercy Ministries is an international Christian charitable organization that offers a long-term Christian residential treatment program for young women aged 
13-28 who struggle with various issues, including mental illnesses such as eating disorders, mood disorders, homosexuality, sexual addiction, and substance 
addiction and the affects of abuse.

I am also removing the part about "affects of abuse" because that isn't necessarily a mental illness. It's also redundant given the later cite. I also removed the second mention of self-harm and suicidal thoughts. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Australian age reference

I removed the Australian age reference as MM's has different age ranges in different countries (the UK is 18-28, AU is 16-28, NZ is 16-28, the US is 13-28, who knows what Canada and Peru are going to have). 13-28 is inclusive of all of the age ranges, so I think it is the most appropriate thing to put up. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Undid Vandalism

The article has been reverted after a user appeared to delete some of the main information. I hope that's ok.

Hyper3 Edits

What does everyone think of the deleting of information and other edits that Hyper3 has done? Hyper3 can you explain why you believe your edits enhance this article? If you make your points we can discuss them. Thanks

Happy to answer any questions you may have. Hyper3 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. The questions are above. It's also good you're now willing to discuss it before simply going in and changing whole sections. Discussions can promote improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletree80 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to "be bold" and "assume good faith." I'm sure you are in favour of both. I hope you don't mind, but I can't anticipate what you don't like about my edits - you need to ask me specific questions for me to be able to answer. Hyper3 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Can you explain why you believe your edits enhance this article?" Type your proposed changes in here and explain why you believe they are necessary. We then discuss them and come up with a version that everybody is happy with. Appletree80 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Really happy to address your specific concerns. Your proposed procedure is not the wikipedia process. Being bold involves making the edits you think are the best. If there is a problem, then anyone who wishes to object can raise them on the talk page, and we can work for a proposal that satisfies legitimate concerns. If I have to justify every aspect of my edits, I will inevitably waste time addressing issues you have no problem with. By all means be specific, and I will answer. Hyper3 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed

I have done a substantial overhaul of the article, which was repetitive and unbalanced. It still may be over-emphasising those who have an axe to grind. There have obviously been a number of problems with MM, its just that life is more complex than good guys and bad guys, and this needs reflecting better in the article. Hyper3 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this piece again, I think that the neutrality of this article is in doubt because half of it is given over to complaints. Because it is on a religious topic, there are bound to be differences of opinion. For example, exorcism is presented as always and every time a wrong approach; adherents would obviously not agree. The issue here is to do with consent, one which was given by the parties on entering the course. One could also say, that because the course participants were vulnerable, this consent was not validly given... In other words, its not about exorcism really, it is about consent and vulnerability. The tone of the text should be amended to reflect this. Hyper3 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that consent was given for the exorcisms. Where are your sources?

There is overwhelming evidence that consent was not given for the exorcisms, and Mercy Ministries itself is not open about its practices of exorcism. I can see that it was you Hyper3 who added a reference saying that very thing - that Mercy Ministries on their website claim that they do not do exorcisms. I cannot see how you can now say that consent was given for the exorcisms.

I see no evidence anywhere that the exorcisms were done with any sort of consent, but if you find a valid reference I would be interested in seeing it.

I have to state my interest in this article (as I believe Hyper3 you also have an interest in it.) I work in the social work field, I'm a Christian and I have a dear friend who attended Mercy Ministries. I do have information about the program from knowing somebody who attended, however that knowledge cannot come into it as things need to be referenced. Rainy885 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainy - nice to hear from you.

Actually I know no-one involved, though I am acquainted with the sort of Christianity that it entails. I am contributing to this page because it is a good example of the sort of ethical conflicts that arise for Christians in a postmodern society. People who begin with different ethical standpoints speak across each other.

I am suggesting that the consent issue is more relevant than the exorcism issue. Of course secular humanists don't believe in demons, and why should they? But it is important that each side is treated with respect. That tone of respect is lacking.

The main question is whether the vulnerable people who agreed to join the course (which they were aware was being run by Christians) gave a valid consent to MM to use whatever spiritual goods they believed they had to offer. It is possible that they consented to participate in a course about which they did have full understanding - we might call that trust. It may well be that everyone who joins MM is in that position. Perhaps their life controlling issues do not allow them to concentrate, or maybe they don't really care, as long as it works. However, MM owes a duty of care to the individuals involved not to take that trust too far. Yet it may be that MM folks honestly believe that praying against demons is the best they have to offer. How do we solve such a conundrum?

Interestingly, it appears that MM has realised that they have a problem that arises out of the cultural conflicts involved, that may be more acute in Australia. They have changed their course, and though they themselves obviously do believe in exorcism, they have realised that they need to be careful in the way they approach people who are vulnerable and have offered them their trust. Not scaring them and threatening them with increased demon possession if they don't co-operate, is definitely a start!

There have obviously been some serious mistakes made, and from what I can read, there is both the cultural conflict evident, and some problems with being honestly sorry. They should be able to learn from their mistakes and continue, though. It would involve much humility however.

Actually, I think your knowledge, which is probably accurate and yet limited due to it being only one person, is still relevant. No one is unbiased!

I would find your thoughts very interested, and if you wanted to email my from my user page I would find it a privilege. Hyper3 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3 I appreciate your reply. I think the key here is to look at the advertising - does Mercy Ministries advertising lend itself to being open about what their practices are, and what a young woman should expect when in the program? Only when a practice is explained, can it be consented to (and then as you stated, it may not be informed consent due to the nature of the girl's illness.) The advertising on the Mercy Ministries websites says they do not perform exorcisms, and their brochures (from which young women often learn about the program) have no mention of exorcism or deliverance either. I have never seen any form of information brochure or advertising from Mercy Ministries that says they perform exorcisms. http://s495.photobucket.com/albums/rr314/mercysurvivors/?action=view&current=Mercybrochure.jpg The brochures indicate the young women will be treated by psychiatric and medical professionals. I'm sure you'll agree that consenting to a program that says the young women will be treated by professionals, is quite different from consenting to exorcisms by untrained staff. What are your thoughts on the issue? Rainy885 (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainy - thanks for your information, and the picture of the brochure.

The brochure mentions "physical, spiritual and emotional" wellbeing - and good Modern Western culturally aware people think they understand what the references to "professionals" means, so they don't ask further questions. Actually, there are hundreds of "therapeutic modalities" and research done into many of them does not prove their utility especially when compared to "spontaneous recovery." One could accuse much that counts for therapy of being abusive, manipulative and money orientated: it would not however seem plausible, and most would reject it. A Christian approach that includes Christian versions of therapy (including deliverance) is much more implausible to the modern Western mindset, and therefore accusations against it stick more readily. It is very likely that the therapists mentioned as being "professional" are also Christians, and therefore may well use a variety of approaches, from prayer to Freud. My point is that we must ask the question whether even Modern Western therapies are openly described.

What MM believes spiritual well-being to mean is not what modern Westerners in general believe it to be. Christians and this particular type of Christian group, come from a tradition that defines "the good life" in a particular way, and therefore their path towards it, and what they count to be the virtues that are needed to lead the good life, are far more divergent than you might expect. When it comes to instructing the vulnerable how to live the good life, there is no doubt at all that this is brought out more starkly.

I think it is important that MM and those like them are very careful at this point, because the accusations that can be made are extensive, and therefore they need to be as honest as they can. It is clear from the beginning, that Christians come to different conclusions to non-Christians, and that it is unlikely that Christian therapeutic modalities are going to be wholly acceptable to non-Christians.

What bothers me more is that they seem to have been taken by surprise in this. I think it is the difference between Australia and America that particularly has brought it out.

Was consent given when the girls entered the programme? I believe that this is really the main part of the debate. I think we need to be open to the fact that these girls often are willing to try anything, and therefore have offered quite a wide consent. Are they in a position to give that consent given their vulnerability? I don't think there is a general answer, but there should be some work done on a case by case basis to make sure. Some of those who do give consent, may do it unwisely, and regret it later. The majority buy in to the whole package, and feel they have been helped. These are some of the most difficult people to help. Other therapies may be more acceptable, and less effective. There will always be failures and complaints. MM statistics claim 7% failure, because 7% are asked to leave, and 7% say they did not progress. This is very low, in my opinion. If you look at secular drug rehabilitation figures, their success rates are often in the low single figure percentage. And this is why Alcorn began. Hyper3 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

From my knowledge of them in Australia, many more than 7% are asked to leave, and many more again leave after joining the program and realising it was not what they consented to or expected. Whether this was across the board in both homes I don't know, but certainly in one house over a length of time. My view is that this isn't so much a question of Christian belief and how faith is perceived by non Christians. It's more about services needing to be honest about their treatment regimes, whether they take a faith based approach or a secular approach. Keep in mind that Mercy Ministries have flatly denied doing exorcisms. It's not simply that they didn't mention them in their advertising - they outright denied it. Therefore when a young woman consented to the advertised program, there was no consent for the exorcisms as she did not know they were a part of the program. Rainy885 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think on the issue of what they said and didn't say, there is clearly a muddle that turned into a PR fiasco, and made them look like they were caught lying. I think there are a number of issues to do with openness that have not been dealt with well here. But then, perhaps we can agree that the main issue is the area of consent and honesty about treatment regimes? Hyper3 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Australian Operations

I've added a brief statement about the announced closure of MM's operations in Australia. Other parts of the article, such as the "Locations" section of the article will also need to be updated in light of this. Will try to get around to this in the next few days, once I've sourced appropriate information. Landithy (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added quotes from MM's own site and from Hillsong's (extraordinary, IMHO) statement cutting MM loose and admitting damage by association. I've also taken the liberty of referencing the only site I could find that carried an earlier, harsher version of a statement from Hillsong that Hillsong's own website no longer carries.

I would regard this as very much an open section which will further evolve over time; MM's claim of mere financial unviability and Houston's statement admitting there is an ongoing "investigation" (which may or may not be related to the ACCC investigation of 2008) and exhorting co-operation means there is undoubtedly more to tell. --baliset 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baliset (talk • contribs)

Reasoning

It seems like this page still has a lot of issues and it seems like someone is trying to give Mercy Ministries a bad name instead of just reporting the facts. Referencing blogs on this site is a stretch. Blogs are based on opinion not fact.

For instance, the descriptions of Mercy Ministries in the first section are NOT true. The entire ministry is NOT charismatic. I have met several of the staff members and happen to know that several denominations are represented, including Methodist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Four Square, non-denomational, etc.

You really should change the heading of “Exorcism” on this page. What Mercy Ministries is doing is not even close to the TRUE definition of an “exorcism”. If you look on Mercy’s site, in the FAQ section, they clearly state that they do not perform exorcisms. They also don’t use the “restoring the foundations” program mentioned. They are using a program called “choices that bring change”. These facts really should be cleared up if this page is to keep with wiki standards and guidelines.

Even the language used to “balance” this section is also inflammatory – “nonetheless” etc.

This word “exorcism” was first used in descriptions of Mercy Ministries when a former Australian resident was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying, “when they laid hands on me and prayed, it felt like an exorcism.” This word was used incorrectly to sensationalize what is commonly practiced in all denominations – laying on of hands and praying for people. (http://www.ccel.org/contrib//exec_outlines/top/layhands.htm)

The term “exorcism” is very loaded especially after the 1970s movie – “The Exorcist” – and is used on the Mercy Ministries wiki page in a way that clearly indicates an axe to grind by those who are posting it.

As I read this section, it is very one-sided and serving only to attack Mercy Ministries rather than report FACTS – which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. This is a side bar to the overall Mercy Ministries page and should be under a controversy or discussion section and not presented as “fact” as it currently is.

Also, all of the 50 articles that are referenced, with the exception of 3, are Australian and include blog postings by Australians. There IS NO Australian organization anymore! Seems very biased and one-sided; even with some of the edits. I really don’t see any indication that the truth was sought in this page’s discussion of Mercy Ministries.

Lastly, according to this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJoSMifx02c , “Victoria ‘Vickie’ Lucas”, who is responsible for a large part of the edits, is actually the alias for “Jodi Ferris” who is quoted in the Tennessean article and who has written Truth Will Out Blog – which indicates an “axe to grind” in and of itself. “Jodi Ferris” is also responsible for a Mercy Survivor story by Sean the Blogonaut, where she is using the name “Hope”. From what I’ve read, there has only ever been ONE former Nashville resident who has spoken out about being required to take part in group prayer sessions for casting out demons, and that was Jodi Ferris, a.k.a. Victoria Lucas, a.k.a. Hope, a.k.a. Vickie Lucas.

The comment about the Nashville Scene reporting – belongs in the Australian controversy part and not in this area. I am suggesting that this area be labeled – other controversy… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denice May (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum to slander an individual, nor is it a forum to discuss personal opinions about the organization. Exorcism was the term used by numeronew sources regarding the treatment at Mercy Ministries in both the US and abroad, I do not believe there is a more neutral term for it. The Australian controversy is in large part what makes this organization notable. Certainly there is room in the article to detail other notable things about this organization, and if you have cited information to add then please do! CelticLabyrinth (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above comments do throw light on serious problems with the article: blogs should not be used WP:BLOGS and being involved in the dispute is a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. These two problems if remedied properly will reduce the article in size considerably. Hyper3 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tammyp2319 edits

• I can't see a reference for the second closed location - can you help me?
• There is no need to repeat the information about the controversy in the location section. It can already be found under controversy. I have taken that out again.
• Happy to help with footnotes if you have a further problem.

Hyper3 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyper3 edits

1) There was no reference for the outdated statement that one project had been closed, so updating it to two projects in itself shouldn't have required a reference. As stated and widely noted, both homes in Australia were closed, the Queensland and Sydney homes. Mercy Ministries Australia closed down. You might like to add this footnote (see number 4 on this document) http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=906586&nodeId=3e5d2c62fdfda22b0c1c708fe24326ff&fn=Undertaking.pdf

Once a discussion gets going, we usually start looking for footnotes to back up any statements. Wikipedia stresses that the issue is verifiability, not truth. Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2) I didn't repeat anything. If you look at your edit, you'd notice that most of what you deleted was not added by me. It was already there. I had added a few words to add details, and I attempted to add a footnote (as you had suggested) and then you deleted the whole part, not just the details and footnote I had attempted to add which were relevant to that part.

My mistake then. I think it is better as it is, having reviewed the whole section. Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

3) Thank you. Please feel free to add the footnote referencing both projects that were closed if you would like a footnote there.

I've reviewed both footnotes. The evidence you have found is very useful.Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tammyp2319 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Tammyp2319 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources and other concerns

This article has about five times too many references published by Mercy Ministries. This article (as with all articles on WP) should be based primarily on secondary sources independent of the organization. Additionally, the entire "Beliefs" section should probably be removed per WP:UNDUE, the Locations section should be trimmed, and the Fundraising section should be drastically slashed. The latter is the worst, in that it clearly is intended to promote the organization by tying a bunch of famous names who've fundraised for it; this information is not really relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.

However, I would like to add that DownRightMighty was correct to remove all of those blogs and the excessive focus on the Australian scandal. Like the rest of the article, controversial information must come from reliable independent sources, and blogs almost never qualify as reliable sources (nor do other self-published wesbsites).

I'm not going to edit this page at the moment--I'd prefer that interested editors start to have a conversation here about article improvement. I'd rather act primarily as an administrator here at this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being objective about the article and the edits. I have no issue with the discussion which has been started on my talk page. I just want people to have a level head as I will discuss anything that needs to be in order to get a consensus. The edits from Miss Bobbins were disruptive to Wikipedia and done to make a point. We will continue dialogue on my talk page and hopefully reach a consensus. I will work on the other information that you suggest above over the next couple of days. I will need time to obtain references that meet the criteria that you site and make the adjustments as necessary. Again, sorry to get you involved. --DownRightMighty (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have an inquiry about the Australian scandal. Since there is ample coverage by various Aussie news sources and the Nashville Scene in Tennessee, I don't believe it to be 'excessive focus.' Could you elaborate on that, please? Ollyoxen (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

I apologize as there is so much writing on this talk page at this point that I missed your inquiry. Wikipedia has a policy on weight of information. You can view it at this location and Qwyrxian and I have dialogue about it below in another section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight).

Censorship

My main concern about the recent edits by Mighty is that almost half of the content of the entire article has been deleted. My reason for reversing them without comment is that it looked like censorship of criticism which would fall into the category of vandalism. This page has been the victim of censorship over the years by supporters of this organisation and even Mercy Ministries themselves (scroll down and read). It was even frozen for a time for this reason. So when close to half of the article was deleted, that was my first impression of what had happened.

Deletions of content I had previously added had been removed, but more than that, content that had been there for years has also been deleted, despite the article discussions showing the fine tuning process of why that content should be there.

I am hoping to go through each section of the article and discuss its current and previous states, one by one, and see if we can work towards a more balanced and accurate article. I think this is the best way forward.

Reasons given for a number of deletions was that it relied on unreliable sources such as blog pieces.

1. A substantial number of statements that were deleted were in fact supported by published media articles
2. Some of the links that related to blogs etc were actually duplicates of media stories that are no longer viewable at their original source. In addition, some of these blog/website pieces contain evidence such as scanned letters from Mercy, or copies of the counselling manual that they use or have used in the past. Therefore, if a sentence in the article is supported by that type of content alone (rather than the actual blog commentary), then I don’t see why those statements should be deleted simply because at face value they reference a blog link.
3. Finally, there are statements that were supported by both media stories and blog links, and in those cases, all one would have to do is delete the blog references, provided they do not fall into the above category.

If there is anything else anyone thinks should be discussed before we go through each section, then please post it here for discussion so we can work through it.

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.82.91 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First, a note: "censorship" is not vandalism--vandalsim (per WP:VANDAL) only refers to cases where someone is intentionally trying to make an article worse, like saying "Obama is an idiot" or "suck it!". This is a content dispute.

But, moving forward: the best step would be to reintroduce, slowly, the content you think still belongs. Work only from reliable sources--newspapers, news tv shows, etc. You can't use blogs, even if the blog was "reproducing" content from other online sources, because we cannot verify that the blog accurately copied the original source. And we definitely would never include blog info that has allegedly "scanned info"--such sources would be primary sources, and only if we had absolute, rock-solid proof that they were authentic, which we cannot get from a blog. This is really not something that can be compromised on--if mainstream sources haven't covered it, we can't either. However, please note that sources don't have to be online--if you know full publishing info for a newspaper article that's not archived online, you can include it. If someone wants to challenge the info, you may be asked to provide quotations to verify the info.

Given my experience with articles like this, the best thing to do is tackle one small section at a time, adding sources, making sure they meet WP:RS and the text meets WP:NPOV. Then we can evaluate each part, and gradually build up a good article. Work on the lead last, because we can't know what belongs in the lead until we know what's in the article itself.

Oh, at the same time, we can also go about removing the excessive material sourced to the Ministries itself, as that's also WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for giving us both insight on what needs to be done. You are correct about the undue weight which is why the Australian information was removed in part. 50% of the article seemed to be dedicated to this affiliate location. I am unsure of how it would equate to 50% of the article and also to be mentioned in every section including the intro, an "ethos" section, locations, Australian controversy, etc. Although I agree with Qwyrxian's reasoning stated above, I would recommend coming to a consensus on the talk page prior to any edits being made. In fact, I have cut down the funding section as suggested and will paste a recommended version of the new text here tomorrow. We can discuss the content and hopefully come to a consensus on what needs to be added or removed from that section. Also, I will be introducing some additional references in the next few minutes. I will NOT be changing the content as there is a current content dispute and I will not add content or remove it going forward unless there is a consensus. I will only be adding the primary sources as suggested by Q. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is about consensus. So, regardless of your reason for wanting more weight to negative information on the organization, let us try to reach a consensus here for the sake of the millions of people who use Wikipedia on a daily basis. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose that due to the dispute between us, that we work with the original version that was negotiated and agreed upon before either of us made edits. I propose that we restore the version of this article from 13 July 2012 at 03:31. We can then discuss what sections we should add or remove from that one. This version has less content about the controversy, and you can insert the sections that you created such as funding which have and are already being discussed herein.

I propose this as a neutral way forward for both of us, because I am being accused by you of trying to undermine this process and I have serious concerns about the past and present issue of gross censorship that this article has undergone, by you and others and also by IP addresses that belong to this organisation.

On the subject of censorship, many things were deleted that were referenced by proper sources such as the countless media articles available on the subject of this organisation. And not all of those things that were deleted related strictly to the controversy. There has also been controversy surrounding the US branches, and that section was removed entirely, despite references to several media articles and radio interviews.

I am not bringing this up to discuss the controversy section here (let's create another heading for that), but rather to make the point that we should both work from the version that existed prior to either of our edits. It is a more neutral starting point as edits up to that point have been made upon considerable discussion and input of many before us.

Please advise if you are disagreeable.

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissSherryBobbins (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I just mentioned on MissSherryBobbins' talk that we can't do that, because that version, while it does contain a number of good references that I think can be salvaged, also contains a number of blogs, self-published websites, and advocacy sites (some clearly made specifically to harm the Ministries) which we cannot have on the page, even temporarily What we should do, though, is go back to that version (I'm thinking of this version from July) and pull out some of the newspaper sources. One thing that MSB said to me is that this controversy isn't just in Australia, but also in other countries as well. And even if it is just Australia, the current coverage seems too light given how extensive the news coverage seems to have been. As such the right level is likely somewhere between the current one and the way it was a few months ago. I recommend that, in a new section, someone start collecting useful articles (including offline ones, if necessary), and you start to figure out how to summarize those with due weight and neutral tone. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with reverting the article back to an earlier version as from the history of the page this has been done numerous times in the past when these conflicts arise. However, I did look at that revision and feel that some of the sources could be plucked and placed into the current article if we can get a consensus on the wording. At your suggestion, I have started with new proposed wording for the funding section which as I step back and look at it again, is way too long. I am hoping that we can reach a consensus on the shorter section soon so that it can be implemented in the article. From looking below, it appears that the issue that Ollyoxen/MissBobbins have deals with the statement that they do not receive government funding, not the length of the content itself. If we can resolve that issue, I believe that we can move forward with that section. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the July version is more factual. The version now has been so distorted it's very biased. 198.176.189.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen.

Q, I have to concur with OllyOxen that the 13 July version to me seems better referenced and more neutral than the one with my edits and the one with DRM's edits. Even peeling back the references I added that were not reliable, there is still alot of content in that article that was deleted by DRM for apparently having unreliable references. Furthermore, DRM has simply replaced poorly referenced (and well referenced) material with promotional fodder, referencing MM's own promotional material. Therefore, I still believe that this July version would be a better one to work with, but should you still disagree, I will go with what you propose about keeping this one and reintroducing previous content as we go through it. DRM, I will address your comments about funding when we commence discussions on that section of the article. MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Independent Sources

• Again, Keep in mind that I am only adding better sources and not changing any content.

1. Added an article from the Tennessean that talks about the closing of Australia franchises and the apology issued by the Australian director. Also removed the under referenced notice. More references to follow.--DownRightMighty (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Removed self-published source from the MMOA website (http://www.mercyministries.org/what_we_do/our_program.html). Was used twice as a reference in the opening paragraph. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Added the source from Today's Christian Woman to support the information previously sourced by #2 above. This should suffice to support the content in the opening regarding adoption.--DownRightMighty (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

4. Removed self-published source to MMOA website (http://www.mercyministries.org/who_we_are/about/locations.html). Used Washington Times Article (Mercy Not Strained; Christian Mission Nurtures Young, Distressed Women) to replace the self-published source.--DownRightMighty (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

5. This source (http://www.mercyministries.org/who_we_are/founder.html) is self-published and used 3 times in the article. I have removed the 1st instance of it and replaced it with the above referenced Washington Times article. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note that there will be quite a few self-published sources removed under the proposed new wording of the funding section below. The new section will be limited to the independent and reliable sources, not the organization's website.--DownRightMighty (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Removed source to MMOA website under the funding section. Link is self-published and also a dead link.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Removed another self-published source (http://www.mercyministries.org/AboutUs/OurFounder/MercyHistory.aspx) from funding. Cutting out the fat first. Will introduce the independent sources under the "funding" section on this talk page for everyone's review.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

8. I have not yet removed this reference (http://www.mercyministries.org/who_we_are/about/statement_of_faith.html) as it is the one that supports the beliefs section. Although not independent, the article states that "According to their website...." References 3 & 4 in the article would also support the belief section; however, stating what they DO believe is different from what they STATE that they believe. It could be subjective to state that "they believe" as opposed to a more objective "they state that they believe." --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DRM.

Again, I will respond to each section as we discuss them oen by one.

One thing I will say for now is that you have raised the issue of neutrality a number of times, and on that subject and your point 8 above, I think it is more accurate to state "the Mercy Ministries of America website states" rather than "Mercy Ministries are such and such". I think this will help to preserve neutrality of the article, and we can take the same approach to other sources, eg "the Sydney Morning Herald reported such and such". I think this is especially important given the number of discrepencies between the content of the MM website and what is reported in a number of other reliable sources. Are we able to agree on this approach?

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Funding

I have edited the funding section and cut quite a bit out. Instead of having subheadings within the main heading, I would propose to leave it as just one heading. Here is what the new proposed wording is:

MMOA is funded through donations from individuals, businesses, and organizations. They do not accept state or federal funding. MMOA is supported by numerous celebrities including New York Times Best selling author Dave Ramsey and The Ramsey Family Foundation, California-based multi-millionaire Buzz Oates, and Joyce Meyer and Joyce Meyer Ministries among many others.

MMOA partners with numerous other nonprofit and charity organizations. One of their principles states that they will give at least ten percent of all donations that they receive to other organizations and ministries. In 2012, Big Idea Entertainment, the animation production company best known for the VeggieTales films and now owned by DreamWorks Animation SKG, announced a partnership with MMOA. The partnership revolves around the company's recently released (August 2012) video entitled VeggieTales: The Penniless Princess - God's Little Girl, which features a video intended to help drive donations to Mercy. The video contains testimonials from girls who have been through the MMOA program.

MMOA also partners with many famous artists to raise funds and awareness for the mission. In 2010, Grammy nominee Contemporary Christian musician Matthew West invited the girls from Mercy to be a guest of himself and his wife Emily on The Story of Your Life tour. In November 2000, Donna Summer recorded the song Take Heart for The Mercy Project, a compilation CD with proceeds benefiting MMOA. Other artist supporters featured on this CD include Amy Grant, Martina McBride, Point of Grace and Michelle Tumes.

The section is shorter and it cuts out the lengthy details about each event that they have conducted with a celebrity. I feel that it is important to leave information about how they do partner with celebrities, but not in as great of detail as it was. This is because the articles that I found that support their funding are largely based with celebrity and popular artist partnerships. Of course, I welcome the comments from others. --DownRightMighty (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The above wording would be supported by the following sources [8], [9], [10], [11]. There are additional indpependent sources that I am looking for now. They are in hard copy and not online so I will need to find them and then post them here for everyone's review. If you take a look at the current article, the above section here and the sources that I currently propose, it will widdle down the self-published sources from Mercy down quite a bit. Please make a comment about the above proposed wording. Also, if you have a reference that shows that they do in fact take donations from government sources.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page 3 of this source, http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/103/pub/pc0372.pdf from the Tennessee Senate Bill in 2003 contradicts the statement that MMOA does not accept state or federal funding. Could you point out a more relevant or direct source that shows that this is incorrect? Ollyoxen (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

A government bill is not a reliable source. First, we would need a reliable source to verify that the bill was passed, and passed in the version that you linked to. Second, you would need evidence that money was actually disbursed to MM--just because they're on the list, doesn't mean any money was finally sent, because lots of bureaucratic decisions can intervene between a law passing and money changing hands. Finally, the wording of the bill makes it unclear about "who" is getting the money; there are two ways to read it, and one of them implies that, while these charities are facilitating a process, they aren't actually receiving the money--they're just passing it on to other "clients". So, in fact, its you, Ollyoxen, that needs a better source to support your claim that they do take state funds. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the above source. It is a good reference to show what the government has stated they are going to do; however, it does not state that they actually gave the money nor does it say that Mercy accepted it. Can you help me by telling me how you have direct knowledge of their funding? If you can actually point in the direction where you are obtaining your information it would help me find a source that is independent that we can use in the article. Thanks.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I would appreciate it if you could remain neutral on the article. Perhaps I'm misreading your statement, but it reads quite condescending. I don't agree that this source should be tossed out entirely, as it is state paperwork and is a reliable source on the issue, but I see your point and will provide those sources/details.

To further prove my point, here are 3 sources showing that the bill above in 2003 was finally made a law in 2006. The ACLU held it up for 3 years but it went through.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188267,00.html

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

http://www.lifenews.com/2006/11/15/state-1963/

I will bring forth more sources about the direct link to MM. Thank you for your patience. 198.176.189.201 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Australia Scandal

(Recopied from "Locations" as I believe I misplaced this discussion originally)

I'm not certain this is an accurate statement:

"Affiliates of the Mercy Ministries brand also exist internationally, although each affiliate has its own independent executive director and board according to MMOA's website.[9] Affiliates include Vancouver, Canada; Auckland, New Zealand; and Bradford, United Kingdom. These homes are operated and financed independent from MMOA; an international board from Mercy Ministries International (MMI) oversees these worldwide operations.[10]"

According to the news sources in Australia over the controversy and the Nashville Scene article in 2008, Mercy Ministries of America is a new concept and the terminology was used after the scandals. I don't believe it is correct to state that "each affiliate has its own independent executive director and board" unless it is qualified with a "now" or "after the allegations." Ollyoxen (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Upon further reading, I don't agree with the following statements based on the articles that are from Aussie news sources.

"An independent charity with two homes founded by Darlene and Mark Zschech[11] in Australia called Mercy Ministries of Australia (MMAU) closed in 2008 and 2009.[12][13] These locations had no oversight from MMOA,[11] and they had separate and independent leadership, program design and organizational structure.[14] According to MMOA's website, because of a shared vision to serve hurting girls, Nancy Alcorn, Founder and President of Mercy Ministries of America, permitted Darlene and Mark Zschech to leverage the "Mercy Ministries" brand when they founded MMAU in 2001."

This would be a "he said-she said" account of allegations that are quite serious with MMOA blaming Darlene and Mark Zschech for the incidents that the Aussie news sources documented as MMOA's fault. I will link the original Aussie news sources I'm referencing after I gather them. Ollyoxen (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

A recent 2012 article discusses the scandal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-17770794

I am not on Wikipedia full-time so I hope to address your comments as much as I can. For the above, please propose new wording. The fact that you disagree is not coming to a consensus, it is just disagreeing. Please propose new wording that is supported by reliable sources. If you have wording that is supported by sources, I believe that we can reach a consensus on new wording. Keep in mind that it is not about what you know, it is about what you can source. The "he said-she said" is not a blame of MMOA, it was a well-sourced admission of the director of MMAU. Again, please provide some proposed wording and I will look at it. I am not that hard of a person to deal with and know that we can come to a consensus. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will propose new wording and get back to you. However, I'm simply pointing out the sections of the article which are biased or innacurate so we can move forward addressing each section. If we are going to revert back to the July version, then we should do so now, so the same detail can be given there and time not wasted on this one. 198.176.189.201 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Programs: Structure

Under structure, I would suggest adding this quote from the Sydney Morning Herald under "Funding" or "Structure".

"Yet few who donate to Mercy understand they are giving money to fund exorcisms in a program that removes young women from proven medical therapies and places them in the hands of a house full of amateur counsellors. Its literature claims to have a 90 per cent success rate - yet nowhere does it publish any results.

The allegations by Johnson, Canham-Wright, Smith and others indicates the program cannot lay claim to such a success rate."

Another point I would suggest to add is this statement from the same article, saying the following:

Some former residents of Mercy Ministries spoke with Syndey Morning Herald reporter Ruth Pollard about their stay at Mercy. Pollard writes of the women's experiences: "Instead of the promised psychiatric treatment and support, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students, most of them under 30 and some with psychological problems of their own. Counselling consisted of prayer readings, treatment entailed exorcisms and speaking in tongues, and the house was locked down most of the time, isolating residents from the outside world and sealing them in a humidicrib of pentecostal religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollyoxen (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While that's a good article to look at for information, putting it in the funding section would not be appropriate--it's not really about funding, it's about the quality of the services MM claims to provide. As DRM pointed out above, it is inappropriate to try to turn every single section of this article into something critical about MM. However, that does look like a great article from to draw criticism. Could you all work out how to do so together? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sections to be agreed upon

Although this will ultimately get worked out as we proceed, I thought it would be a good idea to maybe list the sections/sub-sections we think should go into or be reinstated into the article. Drawing from the 13 July version, my edits, and DownRightMighty's edits which are represented by the current version, here is what they are combined:

A. Intro/overview

B. History

C. Beliefs/Ethos

D. Locations

E. Funding E1. Direct funding E2. Charitable partnerships

F. Programs F1. Structure

G. Media outlets

H. Controversy H1. Australian controversy H2. US controversy I. Exorcism

J. Use of false memory recalling/Use of recovered memory therapy at Mercy Ministries

My initial thoughts are:

• Remove sub-sections in funding section. You can have paragraphs about "direct" and "charitable partnerships", but I don't think that the subsection headings are necessary.

• I'm not adverse to there being a "history" section, but at the moment it looks more like Nancy Alcorn's bio. Unless someone wants to create a page on her, I think that this section should be reserved for the organisations history, not Nancy's.

• "Beliefs/Ethos" could probably be covered in the intro/overview. It's more recently been simplified to "Christian", but i think that the previous description of "evangelical" and "charismatic" elaborate on this well, as subcategories of Christian, and those labels are well supported by available evidence that could be cited.

• Have "Program structure" as a heading or something similar, rather than a sub-heading for "structure".

• Media outlets is not really accurate... MM aren't a media outlet. Many organisations publish newsletters but they wouldn't be called "media outlets". I am wondering if there should even be a section for this? It seems more promotional than anything.

• DownRightMighty mentioned in a comment that he/she thinks that the controversy section should be limited to that section and not spill over into other sections. From a structural perspective, I think that this would be ideal, but due to the magnitute and the nature of the controversies, I don't know if it is possible to not at least reference them in those other sections. The controversies arose mainly around the nature of the program and counselling used across all homes (which highlight allegations of exorcism and false memory therapy technique, not to mention their entire counselling manual), false and misleading advertising of services as shown in government undertakings signed by former directors, and the taking of government welfare monies when the program was advertised for free. According to US media sources, not all of these issues were isolated to the Australian homes. And these controversies relate to sections such as "funding" and "program structure". What are everyone's thoughts on how to approach this?

• As for exorcism and use of recovered memory therapy, we could put those in controversies, however as they relate specifically to the nature of the therapy, do we put this in "program structure" and subcategory "counselling"? Or do we simply reference them there and then elaborate in controversy?

• In the controversy section, I am wondering if we should add a "UK controversy" given there are at least two newspaper articles that I am aware of.

Would like to know what others think?

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Note that you can't put spaces before you start a line--it doesn't indent, it just messes up the formatting; I've reformatted your section. As for your proposal, two things. First, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't decide ahead of time what sections there will be until you find out what sourced information you have. We've already established that large chunks of the old article were unsourced or linked to unreliable sources, and until you establish that reliable sources exist, we can't guess ahead of time there will be a section. Second, in an ideal article, there is no controversy section. Instead, relevant controveries are mentioned within the rest of the article. This doesn't mean they should permeate every aspect of the article (unless, of course, the group is primarily notable for controversy), but it does mean we should try to put a controversy next to a topic. If that can't be done (because there's no clear way), then a separate section is okay, but it's always preferable to avoid. As an example, If exorcism is a major portion of their activities, and that can be documented, then have that as a separate section, including both positive and negative comments (if soured, WP:DUE, etc.). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to weigh in as Qwyrxian is giving good advice; however, an important thing to keep in mind when editing is to make sure that you use a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Note that I have included both positive and negative information about the organization. I have also recommended wording to remove a large portion of positive information that I previously introduced in the article. I am also agreeable to introduce additional negative information that you feel should be in there; however, it appears that everything that you want to introduce is negative. Please make sure that you try to stay as neutral as you possibly can and I will keep an open mind about any proposed wording that you feel should be introduced. Thanks.--DownRightMighty (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DRM, there is no requirement that a specific editor find "positive information"; the key is that the information be "neutral". In other words, our job is to report the facts about Mercy Ministries, in due balance to how they are described in reliable sources. If the organization is almost always described negatively, then our article should reflect that. I don't mean that Wikipedia should say "MM is bad", but the sources we site and the amount of weight we give to each section isn't based on trying to give both positive and negatives, but on trying to present an accurate picture of how reliable sources portray the subject. Yes, if one person is always trying to force in negative information, that's a problem. But, in any event, this discussion is really all a waste of time--what all of you need to do is focus on finding and summarizing reliable sources, not on trying to build some big picture of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that I completely understand. After re-reading what I wrote, it is apparent that I did not get the point out correctly. What I mean by a neutral point is that all of the information about the article should be included if it is from reliable sources; however, it also needs to be given the appropriate weight. I used the term positive and negative comments, when I want to say that there are positive and negative press items out there and we should weigh them appropriately. For instance, there is plenty of press about Mitt Romney transporting his dog on the roof of a vehicle. In fact, you can find hundreds of articles about it from some of the top sources such as New York Times, USA Today, etc. However, just because there is so much press about it, I do not believe that 50% of his article should be consumed with this information. Is is credible enough for a mention, but just because it was covered in great detail, it needs to be weighed against the other sources about him. If all there was on him was negative press about his dog, then that is what the article should be consumed with. I believe the same would apply to MMOA and all other articles in Wikipedia.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q.

Sorry, I intended this to be more of a guide that is open to change, and also to give a visual aide on the combinations of the sections of the three versions (my edits, DRMs edits and the one from July before either of us made changes). I thought it would be a good starting point.

Regarding the controversies, I think your idea is better than having it limited to its own section. I agree that they should not permeate every aspect of the article, but when discussing topics such as funding or the exact nature of the program/treatment methods, then I think it would be negligent to not raise the controversies as far as they relate to those aspects. To keep it neutral and balanced, we could also include MM's media responses or website information(where applicable) to show what they have to say in response.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Use of abbreviations and referencing Mercy Ministries homes correctly

Even though the article is titled "Mercy Ministries", the first line of the article says "Mercy Ministries of America (MMOA)", and then uses this abbreviation throughout the article.

Firstly, if this is an article about Mercy Ministries, then we should use the term "Mercy Ministries", not "Mercy Ministries of America" (except where referring to the US branches specifically), and there is no reason why the term should be abbreviated throughout the article.

Actually, using an acronym is appropriate, especially with such a long title. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations.--DownRightMighty (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago, someone kept changing references to "Mercy Ministries Australia" to "MMA". Again, there is no good reason why this should happen, and without making accusations of any one person, I have wondered if in the past this was a further attempt at censorship or perhaps an attempt to interfere with search engine rankings.

Also references to other Mercy Ministries homes should be called by their name, eg "Mercy Ministries Australia", "Mercy Ministries UK", and not simply "an affiliate". All of these homes were overseen by Mercy Ministries International for many years and all are linked to the entity "Mercy Ministries Inc". The idea of thes homes merely being an affiliate only popped up in the last year, but I see no evidence to support that Mercy Ministries of America or MErcy Ministries Inc being entirely seperate from the other homes that bear its name.

Thoughts?

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

You bring up something very important. Based on your above logic, I would propose changing the name to Mercy Ministries of America and redirect the page to that title, leaving a redirect from Mercy Ministries. I believe that we will debate when the name began being used, but by your own admission, you agree that it is currently Mercy Ministries of America. I believe that this would be our first consensus, that the current name regardless of when the use began, is Mercy Ministries of America. So, unless you have an object which I will give a couple of days for people to discuss, the page could be redirected.

Also, Since the article does discuss the other affiliate locations and you feel that there are strong controversies about the Australian location, my opinion is that they should go into another article, not this one. Of course, I still feel that it is important to put the information in the current article as these are affiliates who are using the name; however, I believe that the mention of these should not take up 50% of the article like they did previously. Hence, I put the information in the location section to talk about that there was an Australian location, and also put in a controversy section to cover that there was a controversy there. Again, I am using your logics, not mine. I can infer from your comments that you would be happy if the entire article was about the Australia location; however, we have to make sure that we follow the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. If you use that as a basis and come up with wording that you think should go in the article, please propose it on this page as I did with the funding section. The only way to reach a consensus is to propose the wording so that everyone can comment. --DownRightMighty (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the name of the largest umbrella organization? That's probably what the name of this article should be, and we can reference each individual sub-group by clear name w/in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are actually 2 which is why I would suggest 2 different articles. There is Mercy Ministries International and Mercy Ministries of America. Links for MMOA can be found at these locations but I do not know which ones would be reliable [12], [13], [14], [15]. I also did an IRS search and they are listed as separate entities and each has their own tax exempt status. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q and DRM.

Q, the largest umbrella organisation would be the entity Mercy Ministries Inc. This and Mercy Ministries International were umbrella organisations for all homes around the world. But the organisation is best known as “Mercy Ministries”. It has only been in the last year that MMOA has labelled other homes as “affiliate organisations” on their website. However, this was not conveyed before this point, and certainly not prior to the Australian controversies. Many of the older promotional videos for MM show girls’ testimonies, not only from the US, but also from the Australian homes. This material was used to raise money for Mercy Ministries in the US wherever founder Nancy Alcorn went to speak at various conferences around the world. Following the Australian scandal, Nancy Alcorn announced on their website that MM was now working to streamline the reporting and program structure for all homes internationally. If they were merely affiliate branches, then MMOA would not have the power to do this. Furthermore, the other home are known as “Mercy Ministries UK”, “Mercy Ministries Canada” etc, and to merely refer to them as “an affiliate” is not accurate. Therefore, the existence of MM Inc and MM International, and the references made to those entities in media articles and other available documents, it is disputable that MMOA is entirely separate, commercially and otherwise, from other homes.

DRM, regarding the issue you raise about how there should be separate pages for the different MM homes, I disagree. One reason is given above, that they are not entirely separate entities (and there is evidence to dispute that they are separate as MMOA recently claimed). Another is that other organisations, large and small, do not have separate pages for their different branches. For eg, check out the YWAM article. YWAM is active in many different countries. Thirdly, I think that the controversies surrounding not only specific MM entities or branches, but MM globally (eg, the program structure which is the same across the board) would result in information being repeated in each page. And finally, there would be virtually nothing to report on A Girl Called Hope (MM in New Zealand) or MM Canada, other than promotional information propagated on the MM website.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins