Talk:La Luz del Mundo

DRN Case

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

I have closed this case, but I believe that some follow-up is in order. I will watch the page myself for the next few days, because I am hopeful that the agreements we came to at WP:DRN, although not binding, will serve to temper the heated discussion that has often taken place here. It is my opinion that contentious edits, such as those to toe controversy section as we discussed at WP:DRN should for the moment be "proofed" on the talk page before going live.

Again, just to be clear, nothing about WP:DRN is binding or mandatory. I simply feel that I have an interest in following up to make sure that WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NPOV are adhered to. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for staying around, that is much appreciated. I don't know if this is what you meant back in the DRN, but I have attempted to reduce the amount of detail of the controversy section. I organized it into three parts. The first two parts are about the controversy which took place in the year 1997 (The "Controversy in Mexico" section) and overspilled into the USA ( The "Controversy in the United States" section). The last part was not lumped into the first due to the fact that it is a bit confusing, more on that later. So here it is, the first version of a shorter and more concise controversy section is found in this sandbox of mine User:Fordx12/sandbox.

A note to everyone, this is version one. I left out info about Padilla, the quote with the "fringe" theory of the church conspiring with the government and others to evade prosecution, and some background details about the controversy in the US. The reason why I left out the Padilla part is because I was not sure how to turn that into one or two sentences. Suggestions are welcomed. I did not add the quote with the fringe theory due to the RfC located above in this talk page, it is a fringe theory and unreliable. I left out the background to the US controversy mostly for space reasons. I am sure the last section can be shortened. Fordx12 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made some initial suggestions. I have not gone through the entire passage. I feel like this needs some additional work to further reduce the number of words, but I also feel like it is a good start. Thanks for your work on this. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder, is there a reliable source that comments on the back and forth of the allegations and how things have progressed in the media, so that maybe that can be used for further reading, and the amount of detail it is necessary to include can be further reduced? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the controversy died by 1998 when the media turned their attention elsewhere. The controversy is essentially ignored by the Mexican media afterward, they just make a passing reference to it. I have not been able to find anything regarding the dissidents or the organization they created, although some scholars of the time suggested that they would form their own congregation. Anthropologist Garma Navarro initially assumes the church leader is guilty but later changes his point of view and gives a good overview of how the controversy developed and how the authorities responded.

Having said that, I think the controversy section should have a different title since it was isolated to 1997-1998, and because some scholars saw this as religious intolerance, while the church viewed it as discrimination. But then the Silver Wolf section would be out of place and just floating around. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to try and make things succinct enough to be folded back into the main article, rather than stay in a controversy section. If this means, say, that the 1997-1998 controversy needs to be a separate controversy section, i think that's fine. The silver wolf ranch thing seems like it should wind up being small/focused enough to be put back into the main body of the article. having a broad "controversy" section practically invites bloat from WP:UNDUE and edit wars, so my feeling is it would be best to keep them contained historically, where possible. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

You could even collapse that first sentence further, to something like "The day after the Heaven's Gate mass suicide was discovered, anti-cult activist Jorge Erdely appeared on -tv station- and accused LLDM of plotting similar activity"

I think that you are heading in the right direction. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, it should suffice to link to the Heaven's Gate article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I made a few changes. I am not entirely sure what you guys would want, so now would be the time to edit my sandbox yourselves directly. You can state your rational on this page, I guess. I for one am pleased by the way it looks now, however I agree with Usethecomandline that it ought to be integrated into the history section (So many users have said that, why hasn't it been done?) Fordx12 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is how it should be integrated. Should the title just be changed from Controversy to "Events of 1997/8", "Late 90s", etc.? Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'll have a closer look at this tomorrow. I noticed you didn't include De la Torre's POV which was removed here and might be relevant. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think stating that Erdely's appearance led to the accusations of Padilla et al could be seen as problematic. Unless there is other evidence of a direct link (or someone writing about this) that i have not seen, I would argue that you should not connect the events. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 07:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, i think you could make an argument for calling a section that collects the information on controversy etc during this period "increased scrutiny during the late 90s" or "higher profile during..." or something similar. I dont think you want to ignore the fact that it was negative publicity, of course, but not calling it a "controversy" can allow talking about both the issue of religious freedom (an argument made at the societal level) as well as the abuse allegations about the organization itself, without having to appear to support one or the other. It could very well be that all the allegations are true AND there is an atmosphere of religious intolerance, AND there are revenge motivations. Not saying thats the case, just that it's possible. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It was my impression that cited sources pointed towards Erdely as a central figure in the entire situation, Masfarrer says that his initial accusations led to the whole controversy, that's what I based that sentence on. We could just remove the first few words of that sentence and leave it at that until a later point in time. Fordx12 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess there's been no opinions this whole time? Well, I will very soon incorporate this User:Fordx12/sandbox4 into the section as an attempt to make it look better and more concise. It will also help set the framework for integration into the history section which seems to be the desired direction by the community that has weighed in on this issue for past several months. Fordx12 (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's somewhat redundant in that the state prosecutor and his belief that the accusations are unfounded is mentioned twice. You should also state that the sexual abuse accusations were uncovered and spearheaded by Erdely and the ICM per Garma Navarro. Additionally you should mention that Gaston Pardo speaks years later after Erdely and his group were implicated in the kidnapping of children from shelters. It would be nice to get input from other editors. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Did not see this before. There is a relevant discussion at Talk:La Luz del Mundo#Reliability of El abuso sexual como rito religioso. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move page to La Luz del Mundo Church

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

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

---

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

• English references vary with this. Just in the article I've found "La Luz del Mundo", "La Luz del Mundo Church", "Luz del Mundo", "Luz del Mundo Church" and "Light of the World Church". I'm neutral in either of them unless one of them is particularly have more uses. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• From what I have seen "La Luz del Mundo" is more frequently used both in English and in Spanish. I think adding the word "Church" at the end makes the title more descriptive. The Spanish article es:Iglesia La Luz del Mundo has the word "Iglesia" (Church) in the title. The entry on the Encyclopedia of Global Religion is titled "La Luz del Mundo Church". Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd rather not use the Spanish article as an example at this point. But I digress, I am neutral on the matter. Eitherway works fine with me. The Jehovah's Witnesses article isn't titled "Jehovah's Witnesses Church." Grant it, some Jehovah's Witnesses don't like to admit being a "church" even though they are one. Though this does bring an issue of streamlining how the LDM church is named in this article. My 2 cents. Fordx12 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Absent ambiguity or evidence of predominance in English-language sources, I don't see any reason to move to a longer title. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence that the longer title has any advantage, and the shorter title seems recognisable, WP:Precision therefore suggests the shorter title. Andrewa (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support cf. Russian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Scottish Episcopal Church, etc. with redirects from "La Luz Del Mundo" and "Light of the World Church" -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Interesting thought, but none of these examples are relevant IMO, as in each case there's some problem with removing the word Church from the title which doesn't occur here. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Church of Scientology, as another example, refers to the religious organization whereas Scientology refers to the religion and its tenets. Similarly, Christian Science refers to the religion, whereas Church of Christ, Scientist refers to the organization. The tenets of the religion, based on my limited knowledge, seem similar enough to other churches that the religion itself may not yet be notable (or it may, in which case, create the article plz). And from a functional perspective, since practically the entire article is about the organization, the article is in fact about the organization, and should probably have Church (or Iglesia, perhaps) as part of the article title. If the tenets of the religion are notable enough, put a disclaimer at the top and refer to the article on the religion itself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

These examples each have two separate articles, one about the organisation, the other about its tenets, and church is used as part of the natural disambiguation of one from the other. But here, no disambiguation is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Use of Bible verses to explain beliefs

Ajaxfiore's recent deletion of some bible versus is the subject of this inquiry. While I do agree that there is a limit into how much an article like this should go into using versus from the bible to illustrate the Church's interpenetration of the bible, I think there is merit in including some examples. Any thoughts? The edit in question is this one [1]. Fordx12 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Yes The tag should be removed. I think the tag is unsubstantiated as sources show that church members suffer discrimination due to their distinctive dress code, strict moral conduct, and different theology. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• No I don't think the tag should be removed yet. While it's established that the group has suffered discrimination, the whole section is very one-sided, making it seem as though everyone around them is discriminating all of the time. There is no balancing mention of cases where people have spoken or acted against the discrimination, or been supportive in other ways, or communities where church members have been accepted. Also, the word sect, meaning "a religious group which has separated from a larger group", is not particularly derogatory. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AbuRuud's edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Snip--

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

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

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

Reliability of El abuso sexual como rito religioso

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

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

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

The anon acknowledged that the first one was a violation of BLP and "Changed wording to comply with BLP".[2] However, both sentences, in sum and substance, say the same thing and are a violation of BLP. The word "however" serves to discredit the previous sentence while giving undue credibility to this sentence.

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

The other problem with the source is its reliability. The article was supposedly written by Sylvia Marcos. I say supposedly because Marcos does not list it in either of the two curricula vitae she has on her blog.[3][4] The article begins by labeling La Luz del Mundo a "destructive sect" and its director a "cultic leader". The basic assumption of the article is that Joaquín is guilty. This assumption is neither questioned nor supported because it is assumed to be true by the author. The article does not attempt to determine the "legitimacy" of the accusations, it merely accepts them as fact. The article claims that the parents think the leader "does them a favor by choosing their children for his intimate service", but never interviews any of the parents. The article does not include point of view of any church members. The article was published in 2000, and claims that Joaquín "has so far refused to give explanations to the Mexican society". Here we see the same tactics employed by Erdely: accuse and judge in the media instead of resorting to the pertinent authorities. Yet in that same website we find a 1997 letter by Joaquín in which he denies the accusations and condemns sexual abuse.[5] I think it is clear that the article is not a reliable source, especially not for assertions of culpability. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a link to the alleged document itself, or is it perhaps listed as being published somewhere where the material could be reviewed? John Carter (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot I reverted the anon, the document in question can be found here. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can't read that, unfortunately, but it seems to be a subpage of http://www.revistaacademica.com/, another page I can't read because it isn't in English. I guess the question might become whether that site, and, apparently, journal(?) it might relate to, qualifies as reliable. If I could read it, maybe I could say something. Otherwise, maybe WP:RSN might be a place to go. I do not necessarily disagree with you, but I can't read it one way or another to know. Unfortunately. I could see, maybe, in some cases, an academic choosing not to include such a brief article in their c.v, particularly if maybe they have later chosen to change their opinions, or maybe, like has happened in a few other cases, maybe relied upon or used student work, which later might have been found faulty or fraudulent. I certainly would not at this point think that it necessarily meets WP:WEIGHT for this article, but that is a different matter than whether it meets WP:RS. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. I haven't gone through the whole website, and there might as well be good stuff in there. I rather focus on this specific article. The website is essentially dead though, it's fifth volume was never published.[6] As stated elsewhere in this talk page, it is perhaps because one of its editors, César Mascareñas de los Santos, was arrested in connection with the Casitas del Sur case[7]. Another editor, Jorge Erdely Graham, is wanted on similar charges.[8] Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, that recitation of warrants and arrests sounds kinda familiar to me. This site has maybe been discussed before, or those individuals? Under the circumstances, that material makes the article possibly even less likely to meet WEIGHT requirements, and for all I know might even call into question whether the author actually wrote the article. I dunno, but I don't think felony fugitives and arrestees are necessarily counted as being completely above-the-board editors, y'know? Barring some serious discussion of this source elsewhere, I really can't see it included in the main article as it stands now. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The website, and more specifically the individuals have in fact been extensively discussed in this talk page. Should I still proceed to WP:RSN? Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

For this article, the matter under discussion is whether it is a reliable source for material of sufficient weight that it should be included in this article. In general, the site might contain several reliable sources, and the article itself might be sufficiently important for a subarticle or related article, but at this point I honestly can't see any reason to believe it is of such significance that it should be included in this article as per WEIGHT, whether it meets RS or not. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll wait and see what the anonymous editor says. Ajax F¡ore_talk 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are my two cents: Ajaxfiore’s suspicions about the authenticity of Dr. Sylvia Marco’s article about sexual abuse are unfounded. I found a newspaper article in respected Mexican newspaper La Jornada with a previous version (1997) of the same article, signed by her. The name isSilenciada violacion ritual: la sombria luz del poder religioso. What appeared in Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones ( RAER ) in 2001 was obviously an expanded, scholarly version of the newspaper article. Sylvia Marcos RAER article has been cited as reference in sociology books. Here is one published by CLACSO.See page 107. There is no reason to suspect its authenticity.

As far as the source itself goes,this is what I found: RAER is a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Sociological Abstracts and in the scientific database of Mexico’s main university, UNAM, Latindex. All volumes of RAER are in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard University and University of California library catalogues. I assume librarians would know how to qualify bona fide academic journals before acquiring them, especially if they are periodicals. These ares typically used for reference and research.

The journal is obviously a reliable source of information regardless of allegations against one or two members of the Editorial Board. The board is composed of five scholars, not two, plus the allegations are unrelated to their work as editors. In any case, allegations are many years after the Sylvia Marcos article was published in RAER so I cannot see how her work would be tainted. The author's viewpoint in the article is echoed by other respected anthropologists like Paloma Escalante, Elio Masferrer and other reliable sources that have published on the matter.162.211.179.139 (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)