Talk:La Luz del Mundo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comment

This article is a joke. It is completely filled up by members of the church and does not contain any mention of the various scandals that surround such sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.106.4.26 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's already been taken care of to the fullest extent. Any further edits are being closely monitored for their validity. V3ritas RidjalA (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This Articles is a good work

This Article need the section of the Adultery commited by Eusebio Joaquin, in which himself had one son called Abel Joaquin Avelar with Guadalupe Avelar and a daugher called Marta Joaquin with Ramona Oliveres. The evidences that Abel Joaquin Avelar, indeed is the son of Eusebio Joaquin are found on youtube where member of his church uploaded videos of him and Eusebio Joaquin.

Just to mention, all the sources about the sect la luz del mundo are not against cristianity nor even against the sect actually, all the information posted is the reality of la luz del mundo, which was founded based on the anti-catholic Fanatism promoted by the government. there is no way to deny it, la luz del mundo is just the same kind of "church" like the one of Jim Jones , Jose Luis Miranda, Josmar Flores, Vissarion, etc, founders who always create a moustrous myth in order to create hysteria, in the case of la luz del mundo, it was among the poor people who indeed fell into the hands of a charlatan.

thanks for protecting this article, since it is not rare to find out that members of the sect modify, erase, oppress, hide the truth in order to beautify their cult.

in the case of some comments below that argue that in other wiki pages of other churches there is no section about controversies actually they are linked to another article not a section.

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

That's very funny seeing that sex scandals made about the Apostle of God Samuel Joaquin Flores were never proven and yet the sex scandals of the Catholic Church you may belong to, are all true. If you wish to have a religious discussion, post your email and I'll gladly answer all your questions. p.s. I'm 14 years old and I do feel the need to defend the Apostle of God because there are people out there are wrong in believing he's a charlatan.

A Wikipedia article does not disprove the charges against Samuel, nor convict anyone of any charges either. The 14 year old writing above gives a good example of the blind statements of faith which propel this cult. This organization is built on fantasy stories which exalt Samuel and Aaron Joaquin to Messianic status, and vocal prejudice against Catholics; not built on the Bible. Samuel Joaquin is very wealthy and has close connections to the corrupt government and court system in Mexico, that's the reason why he's never even stood trial for the crimes he has been accused of.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroSectasMX (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 October 2010‎ (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I have removed the "Controversy" section for the time being, until we can work out whether the sources are reliable. It is the burden of the editor who adds the sources to demonstrate that they are reliable by Wikipedia's criteria. Please leave comments here for now before engaging in another edit war. ... [|discospinster]] _talk 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

hello [User:discospinster]

The accusations that are being made are incorrect 1. they are "RUMORS" i apologize for the caps 2. another thing you might want to take a look at is that if you wiki any other religions you do not find any controversial tabs in those pages the person who continues to make these changes is doing them with what feel is hatred towards this religous group. and yet they continue to update the information placed on this article with mishaps it is a shame to see how someone would try to hurt so many because of their beliefs a church or any religous group purpose is to help those in need another thing this website isnt a current events putting every mishap that occurs to place it here as it if where the 5 O'clock news ... the person or persons who are doing this do it only to cause damage i dont know who they are or where they live but i do wish that they stop cutting and pasting information from diff websites without knowledge of who the church 'la luz del mundo'is if you like take a look at these other artilces and tell us what controvesial tabs you find in them you will see that you do not find any

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

these are just a few to mention...

as the person who is continously editing this article said, this is not a church website.it should not be biased. this church does have its websites where one can get to know the church more and if your interesed in more information the doors are always open to anyone who would like to know us better.. I am a member of the church la luz del mundo and it does feel ofensive to use a resourse such at wikipedia to spread rumors and fallacies over my beliefs or any other beliefs for that matter..

thank you for your time.

I have cut down the controversy section to hold only material sourced to reliable scholarly sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Source reliability in controversy section?

There is an on-going edit war with regards to the "Controversy" section. One editor removes it, and another puts it back, ad infinitum. I brought the discussion to the talk page, hoping to get some more information about source reliability and possibly some kind of consensus. I removed the section in the article for the duration of the discussion, but it was put back almost immediately. I have no ties to this church nor to any organization criticizing the church. I'm only interested in the reliability of the sources. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The references cite research which has been done on La Luz Del Mundo including: Field work on The Light of the World by different investigators (De la Torre, Becerra and Reyes, and Bernal). Personal interviews with former members of the elite group known as "unconditional". Interviews with former pastors and leaders of The Light of the World who have personally known Samuel Joaquin Flores for many years. Recorded video testimonials of former members of La Luz del Mundo. Magazines and literature published by the Iglesia La Luz del Mundo. Letters signed by Samuel Joaquin Flores directed his followers. Doctrine of La Luz del Mundo. Newspaper files of public statements by Samuel Joaquin Flores and various sectors of La Luz del Mundo. Personal conversations with members of the group practitioners. Audio cassettes with sermons by militant ministers. Videocassettes of worship and religious festivities inside the main temple in Colonia Hermosa Provincia de Guadalajara, Jalisco. Historical literature and chronicles the origins and development of The Light of the World produced interchangeably by dissidents and active members. Public statements by the organization on its key doctrinal tenets. An extensive photographic archive of the leader and the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.45.254.11 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also have no ties with this church or with any group criticizing it. However, the editers removing this section are members and spokesmen for the church who appear to be removing the information for no reason except than to protect their own public image. At one point, the references in the controversy section were the only references in the whole article, and one editer removed the section saying it was "offensive." I am in the interest of keeping this article neutral, not biased either way. There should also be a section describing the enormous amount of work Samuel Joaquin Flores does for the poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhacky25 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only semi-reliable source among the references is LaJornada. The others are obvious anti-LLM websites. I think a controversy section is probably necessary, but it sshould be written in a neutral manner and based on reliable sources. That is not the case with the current article that seems very biased against the church. I think a possible way to proceed would to shave the article down to include only information that is sources to sources that are unanimously agreed to be reliable for the claims here on the talkpage. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section is no longer disputable, as it is fully backed by primary research (L.A. Times and San Antonio News among other sources). Any further editions must be done in that same manner; in other words, the only way section blanking can occur is if the section contains a wiki-editor's opinion, or if any claims are not backed by reliable sources. Otherwise, all further edits or blanking will be reverted. User:RidjalA 4:33, 15 April 2011

The section titled "Founder's exploitation of underage women" states that "Eusebio was later sued by two minors, Guadalupe Avelar and Ramona Olivares". However the source states that "was later sued by the mother of Guadalupe Avelar," and makes no mention of Ramona Olivares or Martha Joaquin Olivares.--Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else had written that section some time ago; I simply offered a source to back up their claim. Everyone outside LLDM knows that Eusebio (i.e. "Aaron") at some point exploited and raped some of his female followers. The article states it, and you can no longer disprove it. In fact, Aaron registering himself as the father of someone else's baby makes for quite a powerful statement! As the saying goes, "The guilty man is his own hangman". V3ritas User:RidjalA 5:16, 03 February 2012

I have been doing some research, finding actual scholarly data online is very hard when dealing with a small group. It seems that most articles that talk about this all have roots in the body of work compiled by "La Revista Academica" which according to my Mexican History professor, is not really known for its scholarly value. She wasn't fund of some of its comments regarding Islam after checking its website out. They don't seem to do much other than talk about Islam and this group.

There are many reasons why someone would register other children as their own, my own Grandmother did that. I would refrain from making leaps and taking one document (newspaper) or two as pointing to a particular fact. If this were so, then the Protocols of the elders of Zion would be considered factual as well as all the evidence that shows that Jews are evil monsters who control the world (which can be found in many newspapers and articles around the world during first half of the 20th century). I hope we both can agree that these racist arguments about Jews are no more factual than the Earth being flat. Anyway, I am just merely trying to offer my opinion after trying to find as much as I can online and reading it. Take it for what it is worth, one person's opinion Fordx12 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fordfox12/Ajaxfiore, it would be nice if your Mexican history professor can provide 2 things: 1) a reference to what exactly she is not fond of in regards to La Revista Academica's publication on Islam (was it because it explored potentially taboo topics like extremism and Islamic feminism?), 2)what exactly (in her opinion) would deem this publication 'non-academic'?

So the difference is that Eusebio registered himself as the child's father, and it is noteworthy that this occurred exactly during the culmination of the investigation of sexual abuse. Your grandmother, on the other hand, can claim you as her 'legal guardian', but she cannot register herself as your mother. There is a clear distinction because firstly, your grandmother did not register herself as anyone's birth mother, and secondly, I'm sure she was not being charged with rape (I pray to God she wasn't) during the time she claimed legal guardianship.

This is an excerpt from the article: "Aarón Joaquín, eventually recognized the infant and registered him as his own son". I don't make any 'leaps' when I say Eusebio was illegally having sex with women other than his wife (specifically underage women). His admission of guilt for any wrongdoing is only compounded when he registered himself as the father. There are no false implications in what I just wrote, and if I make a mistake, however obvious it may be, I ensure to acknowledge it. But in this case, I made no leap.

Also, who says that a newspaper or two can't point to facts? You mean to say that you're against what academians use on a daily basis for their research?! So long as it's not a fictional tabloid, it's perfectly reliable. Keep in mind the painstaking work and oversight of researchers, writers, editors, senior producers, and other staff that goes into publishing every newspaper, journal, and book. In actuality you're confusing "bias" for "validity". Simply because a publisher focuses their work on taboo topics does not mean it is unreliable. As anthropologists, it is important to cover every aspect of their subject matter, regardless of how unacceptable their publication may sound to you or anybody else.

As for the Protocols of Elders of Zion, there's countless books that refute and prove the fraudulent nature of it. I do agree that ANY predisposed beliefs based on intolerance of others' race, religion, and beliefs, not just against Jews, but against all minorities, are false.

Now that we're on the topic of intolerance, this brings me nicely to my last point. It seems to me that you may be finding ways to discredit any claims made against the church founder because, frankly, I believe you to be a member of the church (which I frequently encounter on wiki lldm, but that's okay). This could potentially become a huge problem when you edit the controversy section because of the following:

The basis for your arguments against those updating and protecting the "Controversy" section becomes flawed because any argument that is contrary to members of lldm's beliefs is "intolerable" to you (to see what I'm referring to please read or google Genetic Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy ). Even the La Revista Academica is somehow distasteful to you. Thus your arguments become based on a discreet dislike of people who are not on your side of thought (just like Protocols of Elders of Zion was intolerant of Jews, you're now intolerant of scholars who want to give light to the personal lives of church leaders), and that becomes a catatlyst for you try to remove as much content from the controversy section (which is impossible by the way). Do you believe that Samuel Joaquin is the Apostle of God? ~V3ritas

User:RidjalA 2:28, 07 February 2012

I can't quite tell to who your comments are meant for specifically since you state both my username and someone else's. But anyway, I did not make my statements with the desire to edit the section in question. There is something you ought to know about Mexico during those times. People did not always register their children at times of their birth, at times it didn't happen until years after the fact. My parents got registered during their late childhood, and it was common for some in the area to register children who were not their's (Lack of DNA and Blood tests and the commonality of late registrations made this possible).

I was also not saying that newspapers can't be used as evidence for historical events, however historians tend to look at the greater context of articles. Given the hostile environment that non-Catholics faced at the time, any allegation against any entity that does not confirm to the Church's liking is bound to arise and become popularized (even if it is against the Catholic Church's wishes). My statements were made with the goal of reminding everyone that nothing in History is 100% sure, and that throwing words like "Facts" when there are only a few articles that I haven't read myself (if you have links to them on an online archive, that would be appreciated). Historians usually use more than just two articles formed under such circumstances, do they not?

And to answer your question, yes, I do believe that Samuel Joaquin is AN Apostle of God (for there have been several like him in the past). Which is why I asked about deleting one portion that I though should be deleted. I am ashamed of what others (who may be members of the church) have done and their conduct. But that goes to show you that within the church we are all different just like members of LDS (Mormons) church or any other church. And based on the hostile environment in the past that the church has faced, I question most sources from the past. For example: I have always thought that my church did not have a centralized administrative organization that would insure the cohesion that I see in other places (based on my experiences). You can imagine the shock I have received when I read that some think the church is too centralized (not true from where I am sitting, and those who have acted rudely in deleting portions of the controversy section serve as proof).

My suspicion of such sources is extended to the detractors of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I believe that those two groups have been and are victim to fallacious attacks as is LLDM. So no, I do not base my opinions on blind faith. I have been reading much online about the church (my church) for I do not wish to make edits that I can not back up. If I find a good source that counters anything in the controversy section, I'll post it here first (as I did when I asked about deleting one part of it in the past). One of the things about revista Academica is its insistence that there is a paramilitary group in the church. This is news to me, unless of course this is a fact that members would be oblivious to? It is no more real than the fictional brainwashing in the LDS church or in the Watchtower. So I do consider the Revista Academica to be suspect (and the LA times article that gets most of its information from it).

If you can read Spanish, I found a nice link that talks about various sociological points in relation to the church (http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=59805304) published by a university. I plan on eventually adding more on this article with the information from that source. If you feel that I should post that information here before editing in, I will do that. As for Apostle Aaron's situation, I was under the impression that the child was just merely adopted and that the allegations were false and inconsistent. However I did not mention that because I have no hands on proof that I can provide (Same goes for the whole section) therefore my hands are tied. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773794) another source if you can access JSTOR you'll see that it says that LLDM is trinitarian. This is false, we do not believe in Trinity. So even scholarly sources can be wrong about our beliefs. There are a few more things that I believe to be in error in that article, and things that are spot on. Forexample, women do go out preaching, usually the preaching groups are one male and one female per pair. That could be a difference in the pastor that is in Fortin and the one that is here (See what I mean by not being centralized?). While we don't have the most centralized administration (talking about ministers) we do have a centralized doctrine that doesn't undergo as much variation from congregation to congregation thanks to Apostle Samuel. But that is beyond the point.Fordx12 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA

HOW CAN THEY BE OPINIONS WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY FACTS BASED ON EVIDENCE, IF YOU JUST WANT TO HIDE THE TRUTH AND OPPRESS INFORMATION JUST TO BEAUTIFY THE CHURCH JUST SAY IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MXZeroSectasMX (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"This case must be a case of shame for the members of this cult who like to promote" ... "However since they are private school, they are most likely to be businesses where actually the employees or teachers are the people that impart the education." Really? Or redue your points of view or you will be reverted. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to more than half of the work contained in the controversy section, I am the last person on wikipedia to want to 'beautify' lldm. As Tbhotch points out, you use phrases like "most likely", which is strictly speculative on your part. The wikipedia community appreciates your efforts, and I would encourage you to try editing again. But in order for your edits to have a bigger impact (and also to have your contributions protected by the wikipedia community) they must be neutral, sourced, and unspeculative. If you'd like, message me some links and maybe we can work together.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RidjalA (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

INTERESTING RidjalA, YOU PUT THE SECTION OF HEAVEN'S GATE TO ASSIMILATE POSSIBLE MASS SUICIDE FROM LLDM MEMBERS WHICH COULD ACTUALLY BE SPECULATIVE. WHY IS THE SECTION ABOUT THE DRUG-DEALER ARRESTED? IT IS A QUITE WELL CONTROVERSY. BUT IT IS FINE, KEEP BEAUTIFYING THE CHURCH AND PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM ACKNOWLEDGING WELL STABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT THIS CHURCH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0MXZeroSectasMX0 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck with your edits. I tried my best to help. User:RidjalA 1:59 , 21 April 2011

Edit request from 0MXZeroSectasMX0, 20 April 2011

Information on La Luz del Mundo page is being oppressed by members of the church, the postings i have made have enough evidence and are in the controversy section. the controversy section in the past has been vandalize by members of the church in order to prevent the public from acknowledging irrefutable evidence. Actually this the only page that oppresses information.

i request the privilege to edit since my editions are in the controversy section and are posted with enough evidence to support them

0MXZeroSectasMX0 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for several reasons, including the fact that you are blocked, and edits by sockpuppet accounts of blocked users are not permitted. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue with "Status of Samuel Joaquin in the Group" section

In order for the section to avoid deletion, all claims made must be backed by publications that state that it is controversial (being that this section is in the controversy section). Again, THE CITATIONS *must state or imply* that it is controversial. Simply citing a lldm website where it refers to SJF as an apostle does not necessarily suffice to deem the information "controversial". Doing so may violate wiki original research guidelines since it would be advancing a position not advanced in the sources. Please refer to WP:NOR RidjalA (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a question for regarding the information in this section. Each of the three links used as sources do not work and I can't find the sources. Perhaps this should be moved into the "doctrine" section since this deals with beliefs? I mention this because I found the church's webpage that lists some of their beliefs. Fordx12 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add edit tags. Anyway, like I said, there doesn't seem to be any source cited for this section that I can find. So perhaps it would be best to delete the source and move the information into the belief section? I could look for new references/sources as well. Fordx12 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. You could delete it if you'd like, that section does violate original research guidelines, and no one has done anything to update it since May 2011. RidjalA (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There was a section where about Samuel Joaquin being considered the Angel of Apocalypse 10:1-2, i believe the section was rejected and turn into a discussion, i believe there is no need to suppress the fact, or put is into the "Status of Samuel Joaquin in the group" is should be put in the controversy section,

The official LLDM site states: Hace 50 años, estando el Apóstol de Jesucristo pastoreando la Iglesia de Veracruz, se soñó leyendo el libro de Apocalipsis 10, versículos 1 y 2. En aquel sueño-visión escuchó la inconfundible voz de Dios que le decía: “Ése ángel eres tú”.

50 years ago, the apostle of Jesus Christ pastoring the church of Veracruz, He dreamed reading the book of Apocalypse 10, verses 1 and 2. In that dream-vision he listen the unmistakable voice of GOD that told him : "That Angel is you"

"being" in spanish "estando" refers to Samuel Joaquin but he is stated "the apostle of Jesus Christ" as present, having or doing something in the past without explicitly 50 ago being known as "the apostle of Jesus Christ" since being can be translated as ESTANDO or SIENDO,

here is the link: http://www.lldm.org/2007/pagina.php?id=365

IKKSMX (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking to be changed, or why; This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it - please can you be specific, and re-request? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not Millenarian, Not Charismatic, Hardly Chrisitian

Wikipedia should change the religious orientation of this church. It has many unorthodox beliefs, such as the concept of "the election", worship of their leader, architecture with pagan influences/symbolism, and many other doctrines that mainstream Christians would find heretical. It is also nontrinitarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laverdaderaluzdelmundo (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources can you cite to back these claims up? —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.sectas.org/Articulos/luzdelmundo/laluz.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laverdaderaluzdelmundo (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The key here is "reliable" sources. The sources that the article sites are not exactly easy to find, minus references to the hymn book. Everything else has a generic "La Luz Del Mundo" citation. Is it a magazine? A book? A documentary? An interview? A recording? A newspaper? A pamphlet? A textbook? An anthology? If that is valid, give me a few months and I'll have a ton of sources that will back up anything that I say. But of course I can't do that because I actually look for real reliable sources. Fordx12 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The controversy section has been restored with references. The references cite research which has been done on La Luz Del Mundo including: Field work on The Light of the World by different investigators (De la Torre, Becerra and Reyes, and Bernal). Personal interviews with former members of the elite group known as "unconditional". Interviews with former pastors and leaders of The Light of the World who have personally known Samuel Joaquin Flores for many years. Recorded video testimonials of former members of La Luz del Mundo. Magazines and literature published by the Iglesia La Luz del Mundo. Letters signed by Samuel Joaquin Flores directed his followers. Doctrine of La Luz del Mundo. Newspaper files of public statements by Samuel Joaquin Flores and various sectors of La Luz del Mundo. Personal conversations with members of the group practitioners. Audio cassettes with sermons by militant ministers. Videocassettes of worship and religious festivities inside the main temple in Colonia Hermosa Provincia de Guadalajara, Jalisco. Historical literature and chronicles the origins and development of The Light of the World produced interchangeably by dissidents and active members. Public statements by the organization on its key doctrinal tenets. An extensive photographic archive of the leader and the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhacky25 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the websites used in references and external links, www.sectas.org, does not appear to be a collection of "academic research articles" as stated here and on that website. It looks more like an Antireligion website put up to debunk various religions. If it were a collection of academic research, it would have more than just articles attacking aspects of the religions it covers. Also, if they are conducting verifiable academic research, where's their accreditation? I would say that that website is about as credible as a blog. Fail per WP:ELNO. Also, since many of these sources seem to be self-published, and refer to a living person, they might not be appropriate per WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

I'm not a fan nor a member of this church, but I think the controversy section looks like a bunch of conspiracy theories with lousy references. They might all be true, but better sources are needed in order to keep them here. – jaksmata 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

www.sectas.org is not focused on the elimination of religious groups that are interfering with there way of beliefs. Their entire mission is to bring awareness to the public of not just religious but any organization that is using mind-control practices to control large groups of people for their own agendas and are therefore not looking to sway anyone to their faith or beliefs. Just a desire to liberate those people who have found themselves under the control of any one person or any one group. Furthermore, their program for victims of cultic groups is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.45.254.11 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I undid the recent edit removing the controversy section. Users should provide some rationale for removing such a large amount of content with cited sources. Jenrzzz (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in including the section about Mass suicide. As the section itself points out, it was a bogus charge to begin with. Last time I heard, Wikipedia isn't a place to post bogus charges about organizations even if it does state that they are unfounded. Deleting it would be my option since it is just taking up space. What encyclopedia type goal does it achieve? The only justification for it would be to add that the Church is targeted with baseless charges such as the mass suicide. So should it be deleted or edited as I stated?Fordx12 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As with Wikipedia and encyclopedias, the Mass Suicide section serves a historical purpose. Although the charges turned out to be untrue, they were nonetheless part of a post-Heaven's Gate hysteria. If we follow your reasoning, then by the same standards we must also remove the O.J. Simpson case out of Wikipedia because he was found innocent of any wrongdoing (good luck with that one).

RidjalA (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Jorge Erdely

I am going to add the following section in the controversy section. Please take a moment to read it and voice any concerns, add any changes, and discuss. If there is no objection, I will be adding these at some point in the near future. My justification for this is that it part of the controversy, controversy means that multiple sides are in conflict. La Luz Del Mundo does have a conflict with those that accuse it, and this pictures part of that conflict. La Luz Del Mundo is being accused of attacking one of its accusers via the media and legal proceedings.Fordx12 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Jorge Erdely became known for accusations against the Church in the Mexican media and publishing research on the subjects of abuse in La Luz Del Mundo in the late 1990's. He is described as "the critic most despised by La Luz del Mundo and a former head of a small religious group" by an LA Times article. According to the same article, La Luz Del Mundo has accused Dr. Erdely of attacking minority churches to sell books. Erdely has been identified as a directer of a church, La Iglesia Christiana Restaurada (also known as "Los Perfectos", which was involved in an international ring of kidnappings of children who were placed in shelters known as "Casitas." A former pastor of the Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada claims that Erdely was a "Spiritual dictator" and that he manipulated the church and prohibited the reading of news papers or watching the news.. Lydia Cacho in her book "Esclavas Del Poder" said that Erdely illegally gave up Latin American and Asian children who were rescued to couples of his church. Recently, Dr. Jorge Erdely has accused La Luz Del Mundo of working with another church and the Mexican government to discredit him as revenge for his attacks on those churches. Jorge Erdely asserts that he was never a member of that church nor did he start any religious movement. He also said in an interview that he considers "denominationalism" the cause of many problems in Mexico. He also pointed out that the Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada denies his involvement.. The Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada has also indicated that many families are filling for asylum in the European in light of losing their registration as a religious association in 2010.

I would reject this addition, and I'm pretty sure most editors would too, on grounds that although Jorge Erderly may be a nuisance to the faithful of lldm, he still isn't significant enough of an entity to warrant the spotlight on wikipedia. RidjalA (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012

I do believe that his significance does warrant mention, given that the majority of the information in the controversy section is a result of his actions. He is responsible for the "fraudulent" accusations of suicide, his research his cited for the "Founder's" alleged exploitation of underaged women, his research is also cited, and the source of, rape accusations in the 1990's. His research is also the source of information in the Belief and Practices section regarding LLDM's nontrinitarianism and was sourced, if I remember correctly, on an other item or two in that section. Lot's of more information in the Spanish wiki is a result of Erdely and he seems to feel important enough to La Luz Del Mundo that he accuses the church of fabricating rumors and inciting legal proceedings against him for his actions. Take him out of the equation and the only stuff left in the controversy section are sections on the Silver Wolf Animal Refuge and possibly the 2004 rape accusations. Secondary sources (LA Times, Elio Masferrer K., La Jornada etc) seem to feel that he is significant enough.

I request further discussion please, so that we can arrive at a consensus. All editors are welcomed Fordx12 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very short on time but I remember reading something like that in Sanjuana Martínez's book "Se venden niños." There is also a blog dedicated to reporting about “Los Perfectos.” I suggest you look into both of these. However I would like to bring into attention his formal education. He supposedly received a Ph.D in theology from Newport University, and then was a fellow at Oxford University through the graduate theological foundation. Both, Newport University and the Graduate Theological Foundation (GTF) are very suspicious distance learning institutions that have been accused of being diploma mills. Newport is now called Janus, and is unaccredited in Mexico (http://ses2.sep.gob.mx/dg/dges/rvoe/avisos/av2.pdf). At one point the GTF sought accreditation from Accrediting Commission International. In Martínez's book, one of the individuals interviewed states that Erdely received an online degree. I believe that by looking into his education we can make an assessment on the reliability of his research Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the only objection is an issue of notability. According to WP:NNC this isn't an issue for information found within an article. However, various prominent Mexican news sources speak about Erdely in relation to the information in the proposed subsection. Lydia Cacho, prominent journalist/feminist in Mexico, makes mention of him in her book (cited above). A prominent journalist in Mexico wrote extensively about him in a book detailing the kidnapping ring that he is implicated in (and makes references to La Luz Del Mundo and it's relationship to Erdely, that's Sanjuana Martinez's book. An excerpt can be found here http://www.m-x.com.mx/xml/pdf/177/30.pdf. As stated in the proposed subsection (cited), Erdely accuses LDM of causing these accusations. Each news paper that deals with him mentions LDM to some capacity. Elio Masferrer K (cited in the proposed subsection) mentions him as the guy who started the 1996/7 accusations and goes into detail on his dealings with LDM making him significant (Especially since he is used extensively as a source for the controversy section). Both US newspapers cited in this wiki article mention Erdely in their discussion about LDM.

Right now it seems that out of three editors who have spoken about this subject, only one disagrees on the grounds of notability or significance. It seems that the secondary sources (And at least two US journalists, and a few Mexican Journalists) disagree with the opinion that Erdely is not significant/notable enough. With the information one can make an independent wiki article on him and mention LDM in it to a great extent. If The anonymous woman who claims that her police files went missing, a woman who claims to have had relations with the "founder," are significant enough to mention (When they are absent in all other sources independent of La Revista Academica cited in this wiki), then so is Erdely.

Spanish Wiki for info on Sanjuana Martinez http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjuana_Mart%C3%ADnez Fordx12 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of notability, I believe Jorge Erdely has played a central role in the history of LLDM in the past two decades, in fact, he can even be considered the main antagonist of the story. It was him who began the accusations against LLDM and its leader 1997, by publicly accusing LLDM of being a destructive cult with the potential to commit collective suicide. In the words of Renée de la Torre, "this event unleashed a controversy brought into the public arena through desplegados (flyers, newspaper ads?) and statements/declarations made ​​in various news media, in which at least three positions were expressed: members and supporters of LLDM who defended the integrity of the religious movement, intellectuals and academics who demanded a climate of tolerance for religious minorities, and two non-governmental organizations (el Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos and el Instituto Cristiano de México) whose leaders [Hugo Elizalde and Jorge Erdely, respectively] reaffirmed and supported accusations against the Light of the World." Elio Masferrer also makes a similar statement. Erdely is currently an editor for Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, which has been responsible for publishing most of the accusations against LLDM. It is worth mentioning that both Jorge Erdely and César Mascareñas (both editors for the Revista Académica) have been involved with the Las Casitas del Sur incident (César Mascareñas was even arrested). In my opinion, this says a lot about the Revista Académica and casts doubt on its credibility. Additionaly, I have already mentioned how his PhD has little merit as it was apparently obtained through a questionable, unaccredited distance learning institution. Furthermore, when the first volume of the Revista Académica (the one on LLDM) was published, Erdely was still pursuing his Theology degree as indicated at the end of the first chapter. As far as I know, Newport University never offered any theology degrees, so Erdely's PhD might as well be a sham. Therefore, I propose that references to Erdely and the Revista Académica as sources be removed, and instead be included only for their historical purpose. Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Revista Academica

There are a few reservations that I have about Revista Academica which is sourced here in this wiki. Most of the information in the controversy section can be validated by other sources. However, within the articles of Revista Academica there are some assertions that are unsupported by other scholarly works cited in this article which include Fortuney, De La Torre, Hugo, and Biglieri. These assertions include the claims about a group called "Unconditionals." Many of the material that they get their information not shared by other scholars are from their own research which has not been collaborated with any other group, as far as I know, outside of the Revista Academica.

Then there are unproven allegations of political allegiance between the PRI and the church which have not been elaborated upon. Why a secular potical party of liberals will side with a "fundamentalist" church that allegedly only has around 60,000 members (According to Revista Academica there is only under 100,000 members) in Mexico when there are alternative groups available (Like the Mormon church with around one million members) is unexplained as well.

The only group that bears the name "Unconditionals" are a subsection of missionaries that agree to be married via lottery. That is that both men and women volunteer to do missionary work and thus enter their names into a lottery of sorts to be married off to whomever's name is pulled from the lottery. This also includes being sent anywhere in the world. Conditional missionaries marry on their own and set limits as to where they may be sent to carry out missionary work. Other studies of the church, as reference here, lack the presence of these "Unconditionals" and they only seem to exist within the Revista Academica's world and their "ex-LLDM" interviewees who are barely mentioned by other scholars.

Much of the information in Revista Academica about sex abuse relies on the existence of this group (If it were so secret, they wouldn't be listed in their public publications). This brings to question the authenticity and reliability of this source. But then again, wikipedia doesn't seem too concerned about authenticity when it can't even verify if La Luz Del Mundo is Trinitarian. I say this because I added two scholarly sources that contradict each other (reliable sources at that) about whether or not La Luz Del Mundo is trinitarian. The source that states that La Luz Del Mundo is trinitarian cites the Revista Academica as its source. Both scholars cited, Wyatt and Nutini, contradict the Revista and thecenters.org.

The truth about Christiology in La Luz Del Mundo? While I don't have a source right now, we are not Trinitarian, nor do we beleive part of Jesus is God. We believe that Jesus Christ was the sun of God, inside of him was God himself. We believe that divinity attributed to him is a byproduct of God being within Jesus Christ and God's command (found in Hebrews chapter 1 as well as other locations) that Jesus is to be worshiped. We do not comment on Jesus Christ pre-baptism since we consider that to be his private life. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes from? Anyway, either Revista Academica is right or wrong, and since none of the three sources seem to agree with each other, that begs the question. How reliable is this wiki at all if it can't select reliable sources from the get go?

I am not asking to get rid of controversial information. Independent sources are cited for the Silver Wolf Ranch, that's safe until a new source comes up. Independent scholars cite the Guadalupe Avelar thing (just not the conspiracy theory that the Revista Academica has). Other sources cite the controversy with the current Apostle, once again they don't cite the conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories to be posted as fact either, and sources that talk of them should be dealt with suspicion.

Last I checked, encyclopedias don't really go through these pains to list in detail the alleged (never convicted) evils of a religious group, wait...it's not the religious group in the case of the revista's conspiracy theories, just the two Apostles...is this an article about the Apostles or the church? Is it about their lives or the beliefs of the church? I request an edit to audit these claims from the "Conspiracy R Us" source.Fordx12 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Publications are never perfect. If they were, then there wouldn't be the need for "2nd Editions" and "3rd Editions" for books and articles. But when the new editions are introduced, it's usually in the order of a handful of minor details that changes are made, but entire theses will still stand untouched.

There is no perfect book (unless you're religious, then I'm sure you think your own book respective to your religion is perfect), and what you're trying to do is discredit Revista Academica entirely for its minor imperfections (this is called 'the unnattainable perfection' fallacy for discrediting arguments, fyi).

You're trying to bring down the entire house with a minor detail. Simply put, whether or not La Luz Del Mundo is Trinitarian (the minor detail) does not suffice to discredit that the church founder exploited underage women (the major detail).

As far as I know, Revista Academica never published a revised second edition. If you feel there were minor errors made by Revista Academica, then simply provide reliable sources to backup your claim.

Whatever information contained in wikipedia that does not go unchallanged by an unbiased source will still stand as true.

And yes, even the most respected historians painstakingly go through years of work to expose all the details of any wrongdoings committed by establishments and their leaders(consider Howard Zinn, possibly America's best historian, (scroll down and read chapter 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States)) RidjalA (talk 011:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I did provide sources to back up my claims....Oh well, fair enough, but I think you failed to see what I was asking. What I am really asking for is that we take other sources, like Fortuney's or a source I am currently reading, to weigh any future additions to the article that use Revista Academica as a source. That's what I mean by "Audit." The claim that the church is following Nestorius' view of Jesus comes from the Revista Acadmecia, I want that claim to be revised in light of other sources with preference to Wyatt's description.

The source I am reading

http://books.google.com/books?id=uO6rawFQbtgC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=iglesia+la+luz+del+mundo&source=bl&ots=JcPThazZgB&sig=4DEfcfxpYSE38eq-1VFZURRc6zg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EkA-UN_sM4bs0gH7hYGIDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=iglesia%20la%20luz%20del%20mundo&f=false It is your responsibility to actually read the cited information before deciding whether or not I got it from the source or some how (as an evil plot) made it up and decided to undo any of my future edits and claim that the information is not found in the source.

Like I said, I do not want do away with the controversy section. Just make it look more like the controversy section of other articles (I would like for it to go away, but that's not my intention). But I can't do that if you delete my nearly plagiarized additions that I take from cited sources. I practically copied the words verbatim because I knew someone would want to delete the extra information, looks like I was right. By the way, this isn't a history book, it is an encyclopedia. I looked at two real encyclopedias that deal with religion, no controversy sections! But it does give further readings that do talk about some of that information. Fordx12 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours since I posted my response and I feel the need to further add to this. Considering that the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons requires an article to treat said person as innocent until proven guilty, it is necessary to take the following seriously. The Revista Academica's editor, one of the major editors, is Jorge Erdely who according to the Mexican media is linked to cases of children who have vanished.http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/587735.html The book "Esclavas del Poder" by Lydia Cacho found in this link confirms the news report further stating that he would kidnap rescued children and have them illegally adopted to families of his group.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hTRReYtjeZkC&pg=PT320&lpg=PT320&dq=jorge+erdely&source=bl&ots=vrLcHjtpza&sig=CxlU15c0pO2cnA8og3ob0XhydO4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fBVAUIDgC4Tc0QHjy4DICg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=jorge%20erdely&f=false

According to the news article, he fled the country after picking several fights with the church of this article. According to the LAtimes at http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/3 reports that Erdely was accused by the church of the practice of attacking minority churches to sell books. The news article mentions how he was called a "Spiritual dictator" and even went On page 158 of this source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KawyNmfSh-gC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=jorge+erdely&source=bl&ots=FiKuB85Gtb&sig=sRvLeJQBH2AYuD9-ns6ZRwDXZ30&hl=en&sa=X&ei=URVAUNXNG7K-0QGe9YDoDA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=jorge%20erdely&f=false

We see that Erdely began the accusations that resulted from the Heavens Gates hysteria mentioned in this wiki article in the controversy section under "Mass Suicide" which is not given the neutral name of "Accusations of Mass Suicide." Neutral names are absent in that section all together as well as opposing points of view (I added some and they were promptly deleted). Anyway, this other news article mentions that attacks Erdely has also made on other groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and how the things that he preached did not agree with the actions of his own religious group. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/02/18/opinion/021a2polThe Jornada article (The Jornada is a major newspaper in Mexico) mentions how he became famous for insisting that La Luz Del Mundo would commit acts of suicide, once again debunked. This link has a source that adds very similar charges including domestic violence and child abuse http://losperfectos.jimdo.com/archivo/opini%C3%B3n/jorge-erdely-el-jefe/

As I mentioned above, the Revista Academica levies charges against La Luz Del Mundo that no other scholarly work repeats. It's information that it provides via original research is not repeated either. The accusations of sexual abuse are based on the existence of an elite group of enforcers that the Revista Academica calls "Incondicionales" which are not repeated by any source linked in this talk page or in the wikipedia page (In at least one paper while giving an overview of the 1997 heaven's gates fiasco that led to the accusations, one researcher does reference the Revista Academica). The language in all the essays not made by outside scholars in the Revista Academica is unilaterally biased consitently claiming that La Luz Del Mundo is a distructive sect. The word Sect in Mexico is a word that is used for "second class religions" a word rarely used in several of Fortuney's and De La Torre's papers (Key researchers of La Luz Del Mundo). It's offensive nature is confirmed and mentioned in this source on page 33 where it describes how members face discrimination:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAmdggo3hh4C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=la+luz+del+mundo+borders&source=bl&ots=UPD2G4nmSD&sig=I6h-yQ7-4vXLXtqOIiR9XTqGJg4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nh5AULXEH6W10QG9v4DoDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sect&f=false

Other accusations include the paramilitary training of members as well as being the brain child of the PRI party in Mexico. The source that I mentioned by Jason H Dormay, linked in my first response to RidjalA, does not provide any support to their historical claims outside of that of the Avelar case found in this wiki article under "Founders exploitation of underaged women" not that it isn't cited by others, just the accusations of organized human trafficing and abuse don't exist outside of the Revista Academica (Except for websites that use it as a source).

Jason H Dormay's paper http://books.google.com/books?id=uO6rawFQbtgC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=iglesia+la+luz+del+mundo&source=bl&ots=JcPThazZgB&sig=4DEfcfxpYSE38eq-1VFZURRc6zg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EkA-UN_sM4bs0gH7hYGIDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=iglesia%20la%20luz%20del%20mundo&f=false

In Dormay's paper on page 88 he shows that there was no other political party for La Luz Del Mundo to seek help from other than the PRI. In Paula Beglieri's paper found here http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=59805304 on page 420-421 she discusses how the PAN party (A Catholic party) was supportive of the Luz Del Mundo's activities even inviting a PAN reprasentative of the state of Nayarit. She also reports how in footnotes how church members upon interviews answered that they would vote for the PRI, PAN, and PRD.

These are at least two claims, that of incondicionales and the political issues, that Revista Academica fails at. Not to mention a few issues over what the members of the Luz Del Mundo believe as discussed in my first statements. In the Sectas.org a paper by Jorge Erdely near foot note 93 we see him attest to the suicidal tendencies of La Luz Del Mundo, once again a debunked myth. If this does not make Erdely and his Revista Academica unreliable and biased, then I seriously question Wiki's idea of what unbaised and unreliable is. Given the evidence, there is at least enough cause for concern. And here is my concern, that Wikipedia is inadvertently advertising a source that spreads hatred and provokes religious discrimination against men, women, and children that profess membership of the church.

The Spanish wiki version of this article contains twice the information from Erdely and most of it, I fear, produces religious hatred and is not neutral. Discrimination and religious hatred against La Luz Del Mundo, as well as groups attacked by Erdely like the Jehovah's Witnesses, is real. Jorge Rocha at one point called for the "Social lynching" of La Luz Del Mundo according to another Mexican News Service http://www.lajornadajalisco.com.mx/2012/02/10/el-correo-ilustrado-15/ near the bottom of the section about La Luz Del Mundo, the article even mentions the possibility of physical harm done men, women, and children. Another news service even reported violence RECENTLY against the member of the Luz Del Mundo. http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=299274 (Proceso is also another major news service in Mexico). La Jornada reported also how a hospital has refused to allow ministers of the church to attend to the spiritual needs of the church http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/09/05/estados/031n2est The LA Times article cited previously here and in the Luz Del Mundo article also mentions that several people in the US have attempted to prevent the church from getting a permit that would allow it to have services based on accusations against the church. Despite the fact that researchers like De La Torre affirmed that any problems would only be isolated to the church in Guadalajara (The Mexican city where the Church began). While I don't think the English version of the wiki has reached the point where it puts members of the church at risk in the US, I feel that it should be something to be aware of. The way to do this is to include ALL viewpoints, but that's another problem.

My attempt to add more viewpoints has been reverted even though I used information directly from the source. Read the last section of this talk page for details.

I ask for a third opinion on this matter. Should the Revista Academica be considered unreliable and should ALL view points be added to the controversy section as well as including information about the discrimination that members of La Luz Del Mundo face near or inside the controversy section?

EDIT: I would like to add the following quote from a recent interview with Jorge Erdely where he proclaims how he is agaisnt any denomination of any church which begs the question as to his ability to be neutral in his publications and research (he seems biased).

"Una lectura somera de mis textos, especialmente La explotación de la fe... marca mi postura teológica. No considero a las denominaciones intermediarias, sino intérpretes; (…) el denominacionalismo religioso en México contribuye más a la problemática social que a las soluciones, porque es parte de esa misma matriz cultural que reproduce una serie de vicios, sobre todo los de tipo monárquico, contra los cuales he hablado, investigado y escrito mucho." http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/166751.html

He says how denominations cause many problems in Mexico, effectively blaming organized religion. He deneis charges reported by other news cites including the one that interviewed him. However the Iglesia Cristiana Restuarada has been tied by the Mexican Government to Casitas de Sur and it's kidnapping issues, as well as Erdely.

(I am going to make the Thrid Opinion request, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion, in about 10 hours of this edit. I have tried to give enough time for response of these matters and attempted to reason properly.Fordx12 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit reversions

Rape accusation reversion

This edit done by RidjalA is based that on the belief that my edits are not found in the works cited, however I wish to see how this is so. How am I misrepresenting the material from the source if it is basically copied directly from the source? Here is the link to the edits in question

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=509701785&oldid=509701614

I present direct quotes from the cited sources, please compare them with the edits done by RidjalA and his claims.

"The Luz del Mundo controversy actually had its genesis in a Southern California event: When 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves in Rancho Santa Fe last spring, Mexican media set their sights on religious groups at home."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361

"Silva, the Luz spokesman, denied that Joaquin or the church had anything to do with the attack. He accused Padilla of orchestrating the assault to give credence to his previous charges."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/3

"In addition to the sex abuse charges, Arguelles said she fears the church's "totalitarian control of powerless people." She said she is especially concerned about vulnerable recent immigrants.

Ontario officials have been meeting with residents and researching La Luz del Mundo while considering the permit necessary to operate a church in a commercial zone. Local police have checked with other cities that have La Luz del Mundo churches, city spokesman George Urch said.

"We couldn't find any problems at all," he said.

"One thing is the church . . . another thing is the Hermosa Provincia, the center of power," said De la Torre, who has written a book about La Luz del Mundo.

She noted that even church dissidents in Los Angeles, who have accused Joaquin of creating a cult of personality, do not allege sexual abuse."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/2

"Applying sanctions to this man and his organization would open the door to sanctions against the Catholic clergy."

http://books.google.com/books?id=U6opyVE_IYkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Legal+Situation+of+Religious+Minorities+in+Mexico:The+Current+situation,+Problems,+and+Conflicts&source=bl&ots=TYV9WZ5_so&sig=MS2ygr-DRs7oHfb2VAxHrwWpjYs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lTg-UMT3BMbv0gG324DwCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mundo&f=false

Is it not the responsibility of the editor to check and confirm such accusations before using them to revert an edit? If a mistake was done here then please undo the reversion. Perhaps it would be best to get a third opinion to see this and have them make a decision as to whether or not reverting that one edit is justified. I stand corrected with the other revisions done to my edits, we all make mistakes.Fordx12 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The preamble first sentence you added seems unnecessary. On the other hand, the counter-accusation against Padilla by the church and the findings of Renee De La Torre are mentioned in the LA Times article. Personally, I would say it is fair to mention these facts in the 'Rape accusations' sub-section, though in a sentence each. For example "Church officials counter-accused Padilla of orchestrating the attack himself" and "It has been pointed out that the sex abuse allegations were not widespread, but focused only on the Joaquin and the Guadalajara church." Sionk (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Researchers" vs naming said researchers reversion

I would like to discuss this particular reversion. I am not sure as to what purpose stating "researcher's" versus naming them fulfills and what wiki policies are involved here. (I do need and would appreciate your assistance with Wiki policies). I would like to refer to this policy found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL

"The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote."

I am not sure why adding the names of the authors of the quoted text would be an "unwiki" thing to do that would require a reversion given this policy. It's just attributing a name to the voice.

I am not sure about this next policy though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL

"Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."

One of the examples given is "experts declare" which is the same as "researchers say/claim/assert." Since the article where the quote comes from is not claiming that scholars generally agree on that to be a fact, this becomes a unique discovery that ought to be attributed. Clarification here would be appreciated.

Help needed here: What other policies are involved here? What policies require the presence of direct contradiction from other sources to name the two authors?Fordx12 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Title on Founder's section in controversy section

I would like to bring attention to this wiki policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BDP#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead

However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, or list of suicides, is covered by this policy. Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people

There are still children of the "founder" alive. And as such this does impact living people. There are still other close relatives and friends alive of the "founder" of the church in question. Also, the information is still maintained. The issue is the title which treats exploitation.

There are also article title policies to consider such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NDESC

Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSHEAD article title policies apply to section and subsection titles. So based on Wiki policy, even if WP:BLP does not apply, article/section title policy does apply. Is this a fair assessment? Fordx12 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your concerns in these matters.

So I think I mentioned previously that Wikipedia:BLP does not apply to Eusebio per the following line:

Anyone born within the last 115 years ago is covered by this policy

Eusebio was born 116 years ago, so his history is fair game.

As for your other concern regarding the avoidance of non-neutral words, I'd like to clarify that upon you adding "accusations" to the subtitles on lldm wiki, you violate the same policy that you're stating: "accusations" is synonymous to "allegations", and thus violating the example. The titles have been in place for so long after having gone through extensive revisions from different parties in the past that at this point they're as neutral as possible; as we just proved it, making any further amendments would make it non-neutral. RidjalA (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is can change as time goes on (Refer to WP:CCC ) I have offered a new arguement since this is not an article title, but an article subsection title. The addition of "accusations" to the subtitles on lldm wiki does not violate the policy that I was stating. If you read the quoted section that is found in parenthesis "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations)" Please review Wiki policy more carefully. Using wiki guidelines, I am assuming ( WP:DGF ) that you missed that exception.

3O Response: Hi guys, I gather the dispute involves this title: "Founder's exploitation of underage women". This isn't correct and should read, for example, "Allegations of exploitation of underage women". This is a dispute with two sides: the exploitation either took place or didn't. The allegations should be described as such. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism (original research)

The recent edits done user fordx12 are up for immediate reversion, given that large portions of the sources that the user provided have been copied, pasted, and reorganized in some way or form onto wikipedia in violation of WP:NOR. For instance, the entire section in the "Women in La Luz Del Mundo" can be traced back verbatim to its source, even punctuation usage was carried over from the reference onto wikipedia.

"Their hair can be long enough to reach the waist or shorter (to about shoulder length)." (Wikipedia edit by fordx12, 18:15, 18 September 2012)

"Las mujeres de la Iglesia de La Luz del Mundo usan vestido hasta el tobillo, el cabello largo (el límite es hasta los hombros)." (Fortuny, 2001, p. 126)

When even the parentheses are used exactly as the reference, it's difficult to prove you're not plagiarizing. The rest of the paragraph follows:

"They wear a head covering when they are in their religious services, listening to religious topics, and when preaching to others. When involved in sports or at locations such as the beach, they do wear bathing suits and other normal attire for those activities (Wikipedia edit by fordx12, 18:15, 18 September 2012)

"Se cubren la cabeza con un velo o chalina durante los servicios religiosos o, inclusive, cuando escuchan o predican la palabra de Dios fuera del templo...sin embargo, en sus vacaciones pueden usar trajes de baño, así como ropa de deportes cuando realizan ejercicio físico." (Fortuny, 2001, p. 126)

The rest of the section continues in that same pattern of translating and copying. Wikipedia articles must be written entirely in your own words, unless you're quoting someone; translated works are no exception. Lets take another random example of a fordx12 edit:

"... there are an estimated 70,000 members of La Luz Del Mundo with 140 congregations with a minister and 160 other congregations that range from 13 to 80 members" (Wikipedia edit by fordx12, 03:11, 21 September 2012)

"... La Luz del Mundo posee una membresía de unos 70 mil fieles desde los 14 años, 140 congregaciones con ministro, 160 grupos que van desde los 15 a 80 seguidores." (Alfaro, W., 2012)

Thus by inductive hypothesis, there is a strong likelihood that the rest of the edits done by the aforementioned user must violate WP:NOR. I would encourage you, fordx12, to try again. Only this time please ensure to review your work before you publish, or feel free to prepublish in the talk section. It will save you lots of trouble. 'Till then, good luck. RidjalA (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these issues. However, I could have done without the harsh accusative tone, inappropriate tags, and the assumption of bad faith editing. Editing Wikipedia is an ongoing process and I still consider myself to be a novice (which is another reason why I haven't branched out to other articles). While I do not agree with the last example, since facts can only be transmitted in a limited amount of ways (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When_there_are_a_limited_number_of_ways_to_say_the_same_thing ). This also goes for several instances. Also, I am very tempted at considering the tagging of most if not all of my recent edits for problems found in two areas to be a personal attack (defamation). Please consider editing the tone and nature of this contribution to the talk page immediately so that we may work together in editing problematic parts of the article that may be too closely paraphrased without any ill feelings. I'd hate to involve dispute resolution when this may simply be a misunderstanding.

My rational (done in good faith before learning of the close paraphrasing issue, of which I learned about today) for these edits was to avoid providing editorialized information not found in the sources used. Since I know more on the subject than I am typing I can at times accidentally add more than there is in the sources. These mistakes can happen, so paraphrasing is a good way to prevent them. Please review the wiki policy that I linked in my previous paragraph and assist me in correcting any issues. Fordx12 (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fordx12. There's one significant caveat to that rule, and it goes as follows:

"Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem."

There's no way around it, and it shouldn't be perceived as hostility on my behalf. On the contrary, I thought I'd explain the reasons for tagging your work so as to avoid misunderstandings. I know it's difficult to have to redo your hard work. But I was considerate of that and I tagged it instead of blatantly erasing it, that way it could be brought to the attention of the community.

In my opinion, your edits are pretty verbose and loaded with minutia. Keep in mind that this is all information that will require editing soon or will have to be deleted; to say that synthesizing it all in your own words will be daunting is no exaggeration. But I'll help in any way that I can.

I do appreciate our dialogue, and any disagreement that arises out of our discourse is merely a necessary process that is characteristic of progress. I look forward to continuing our collaboration, and in contributing our share of knowledge to lldm wiki.

RidjalA (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, perhaps it would be best to refer to my own talk page with such an issue without using words such as "plagiarism" and "you are" as they do tend to cause defensive responses. Plagiarism is a serious issue, and throwing it around does merit a very serious response. At that point we both could have agreed to post the call for assistance here and properly tag the problematic material without throwing any nasty legal terms like "plagiarizing," or causing suspicion, around. The violated policy tag isn't original research, there are other tags used to point out this specific situation (I replaced the OR tags with the paraphrasing tags).

As can be noticed by the edit history of the article, as of yesterday I have began rewording areas that you pointed out (minus the info in the demographics section and Architecture section. For those two sections, someone will have to point out the closely paraphrased material since I obviously did not notice any. The one example in the demographics section is limited since it is a regurgitation of facts. In other words, if you or anyone else know of another way of repeating cold factual information please feel free to edit it. Otherwise, I am unaware of any other way to reword it without removing the information itself (Facts can not be copyrighted, if they could, this website would simply not exist).Fordx12 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In order to address the problem of excessive close-paraphrasing, we are going to have to establish a close-paraphrasing threshold of no more than half of the content contained in wiki lldm.

Therefore at least half of the work must be written in our own words. I think that‘s being too generous, but its fair nonetheless. A heads up however, that rearranging words or replacing words still constitutes as close-paraphrasing/plagiarism since the content is still being copied and pasted from the source, with the exception of a few words here and there that are replaced or reorganized. If this issue is not addressed by the original editor (fordx12?) or anyone else, then the likelihood that anyone else will fix it is slim given the limited number of wiki editors. Effective 11/19/2012 (one month from today) I will start removing sentences until this threshold is met. Please review paraphrasing guidelines WP:PARAPHRASE for further details.

I would take it upon myself to help rewrite the content, but given the large volume of recently added information, that is a daunting task. So I leave that as the responsibility of the original editor, or anyone else willing to lend a hand. The most that I could do at this point is remove some of the weaker close-paraphrased sentences, and rewrite the remaining sentences so that they no longer appear to be plagiarized.

Cheers. RidjalA (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, another editor removed the tag. The issue of close paraphrasing is not a strict "not allowed" policy. Secondly, if there is close paraphrasing fix it. If you delete the whole section without providing all specific instances of close paraphrasing here or in user talk pages with reasonable forbearance, you will be reported. Thirdly, if you don't want to fix them, point the problematic sentences out, all of them, and someone else, such as myself, will work to fix them. Once you pointed them out and a reasonable time elapses, then you may feel free to delete the content if they were not addressed within Wiki guidelines. Lastly, you are not allowed to establish a threshold or any rules. Any further attempt to do so, or if you remove sentences on 11/19/2012 without previously pointing them out, you will be reported.Fordx12 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Fordx12. Ajaxfiore is a second opinion echoing your viewpoints and edits, and doesn’t constitute a third opinion to determine a neutral consensus in removing templates.

Close paraphrasing guidelines state that one should summarize content, and that is a basic responsibility of being a contributor. Unfortunately, in what you write I don’t see any summary of articles, except for extensive reiterations from the sources, almost verbatim. You have been contributing for quite some time now, so the "newbie" excuse doesn't cut it anymore. It seems careless, and the information appears irrelevant in the worst of cases.

I'm sorry to appear antagonistic, but this is not a position in which I have put myself. And you’re right about the threshold; in fact, given the ever-changing dynamic of wikipedia, information that is deemed insufficient in any way should be removed or replaced immediately.

For future reference, please know when to limit the content you seek to add. Doing so will avoid you blinding readers with seemingly endless information, and ultimately avoid making the wiki page irrelevant to some degree (for instance, what devotees wear or not wear for beach-going is not important).

This wiki page should be concise, summarized in your own words, and relevant.

Per the aforementioned reasons, I will remove sentences in good faith, and if there’s anything anyone believes to be erroneous, please consider requesting a third opinion. Thanks. RidjalA (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fordx12, per your request, here are some preliminary sentences that you could work on to help address the issues with close paraphrasing. They need some serious work done and they are at risk of being removed. Here are the results from your edits that I've checked thus far:

Source (Fortuny): “desde la década de los veinte del siglo pasado, la iglesia instituyó una oración…a las nueve o diez de la mañana”

Bing Translate: "since the 1920s of the last century, the Church instituted a prayer... of nine or ten in the morning"

Fordx12: “Since the 1920's there has been a prayer at around nine or ten in the morning.”

Source: “desde la década de los veinte del siglo pasado, la iglesia instituyó una oración…a las nueve o diez de la mañana”

Bing Translate: "since the 1920s of the last century, the Church instituted a prayer... of nine or ten in the morning"

Fordx12: “Since the 1920's there has been a prayer at around nine or ten in the morning.”

Source: “exclusivamente femenino, dirigido por mujeres y hacia mujeres”

Bing Translate: “exclusively female, directed by women and to women”

Fordx12: “These prayers are exclusively led by women in which mostly women attend.”

Source: “es una actividad religiosa igual que cualquier otra”

Bing Translate: "it is a religious activity like any other"

Fordx12: “These prayers are seen as a religious activity equal to all other activities.”

Source: “Este espacio les da acceso a aprender y transmitir la doctrina, y también les brinda la oportunidad de construir confianza en ellas mismas y estatus frente a la membresía” (pg 144)

Bing Translate: “This space gives them access to learn and transmit the doctrine, and also gives them the opportunity to build confidence in themselves and develop membership status.”

Fordx12: “This prayer provides space for empowerment in which women are able to express themselves and develop a status within the church's membership” (this last one just needs some minor tweaking so that it sounds more brief, yet original to your own words)

What you're writing is too close to the original sources. Wiki contributions should be reflective of your own summary and words, and not copied in any way from sources. Please help address these issues, and with the rest of the Women of LLDM section. Good luck. RidjalA (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finally doing what wiki policy says you should do in this case, to be honest I was worried there for a second. Now for your concerns I shall respond to each example, as per wiki policy.

Source (Fortuny): “desde la década de los veinte del siglo pasado, la iglesia instituyó una oración…a las nueve o diez de la mañana”
Bing Translate: "since the 1920s of the last century, the Church instituted a prayer... of nine or ten in the morning"
Fordx12: “Since the 1920's there has been a prayer at around nine or ten in the morning.”

Faulty translation, she didn't number the year. The sentence is purely factual. Besides notice the break "..." Anyway, would you prefer "Since the year of our lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty something, the religious institution denominated La Luz del Mundo established henceforth a religious service of prayers and songs at alternating times in the morning that may at times range between nine o'clock in the morning to ten o'clock in the morning"? Please excuse my humor for a moment there. I just don't see it. So I decided to just go ahead and changed the source to Dormady, since he reports it from a historical perspective.

Source: “exclusivamente femenino, dirigido por mujeres y hacia mujeres”
Bing Translate: “exclusively female, directed by women and to women”
Fordx12: “These prayers are exclusively led by women in which mostly women attend.”

You'll have to prove close paraphrasing here. Notice the absence of half the words from my sentence in Fortuney's sentence. Paraphrasing is not discouraged at all, you yourself have done it in the controversy section, the one about the woman who was allegedly abused and her case file vanished...according to a philosopher's words.

Source: “es una actividad religiosa igual que cualquier otra”
Bing Translate: "it is a religious activity like any other"
Fordx12: “These prayers are seen as a religious activity equal to all other activities.”

This one is the same as above. The only same words are "Activity" ""Other" and "Religious." The only other way to reword this is by going to redicioulous lengths, observe

"Each ecclesiastical meeting is seen with the same value as the 9 AM ecclesiastical meeting by proponents of La Luz del Mundo movement." It is most simple to just say that 9AM prayers are seen as a religious activity equal to other activities. It is not closely paraphrased. This is a close paraphrase

"This is a religious meeting which is the same as any other meeting" it is not the same as an accurately translated (your translation is very inaccurate) but it is extremely close. This is the translation "It is a religious activity equal to any other" Notice the similarity? It substitutes words and rearranges them slightly. That is close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is not covered by wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, RidjalA, "Ajaxfiore is a second opinion echoing your viewpoints and edits, and doesn’t constitute a third opinion to determine a neutral consensus in removing templates." I find it a bit annoying that you keep pairing me with another editor, "Fordfox12/Ajaxfiore, it would be nice if your Mexican history professor can provide 2 things..." I kindly ask you do not do such thing, and that you do not accuse me of being a church member as you did when you said "frankly, I believe you to be a member of the church," after I removed un-sourced content from the article. It seems to me that you categorize everyone who questions your edits or the Controversy section as members of the church. You also seem to be clearly biased as can be seen when you said "Everyone outside LLDM knows that Eusebio (i.e. "Aaron") at some point exploited and raped some of his female followers. The article states it, and you can no longer disprove it," after I removed the un-sourced content on Ramona Olivares and Martha Joaquin Olivares. Your sweeping generalization seems to imply that you believe that LLDM members are somehow blind to all the accusations against their leaders.

You went as far as doing a sock puppet investigation: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fordx12/Archive. You have also stated that "I know it's not going to end since their followers are tens of thousands of people strong, so it's a tough one to manage since it's not a random act of vandalism we're dealing with." I do not seek to start a war, I am simply asking you to be a bit more objective and to stop making personal attacks/accusations. Thank you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not just annoying, his or her conduct is suspicious and I beleive it should be discussed. If you wish to discuss this with him/her it may be best to do it at a separate section of this talkpage or their user talk page. Personal "attacks/accusations" are in violation of wiki policy and can lead to sanctions including blocking. WP:NPA WP:OUTING It is best to compartmentalize these things. Fordx12 (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Silver Wolf Ranch

This article states that "In May 2008 it was discovered that Samuel Joaquín Flores purchased an exotic zoo in Seguin, Texas." This sentence gives the impression that the ranch was purchased by Samuel Joaquín in absolute secrecy (since it was "discovered" that he purchased it). However the San Antonio Express News article by Todd Bensman does not give such notions. Bensman is careful to point out that church members make donations and volunteer in the maintenance of the ranch. Bensman also reports that the family also lets children's groups take educational field trips inside the zoo.

Additionally, I looked into public records to learn more about the Silver Wolf Ranch (900 Savage Ranch Rd), and according to the data found here:

http://www.co.guadalupe.tx.us/Appraisal/PublicAccess/

http://www.guadalupead.org/

The ranch is not owned by Samuel Joaquín and its appraised value is $17,088. I suggest a revision of this whole section. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the first sentence since it is not backed up by the cited source. I included the information that Bensman provides regarding the nonprofit nature of the zoo as well. Feel free to add any sourced information about the value of the ranch. I had to edit the "over 3 million" part of the section since the source did not say it valued over 3 million dollars.

I also changed the subsection to match what the source implies in regards to the ownership of the ranch. However this is not does not appear to be acceptable since it is not explicitly mentioned that the Apostle Samuel or his family owns the ranch itself. Aditional assistance with editing that information is required.Fordx12 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Several edits have removed sourced information claiming various things such as the removed content begin off topic. This will explain why the removed information was restored since edit reversions are not possible.

First edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518417685 reason for adding unsourced content is

the source clearly states "lavish private zoo-themed family retreat", hence it suffices to paraphrase as "exotic zoo"; this publication came to light on May 2008

This was done against consensus in this talk page subsection. Issues of neutrality, as another editor pointed out, are involved here. Not to mention, the article does not state that anything was "discovered" as if it were hidden in some insidious manner.

Second edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518418619 reason for edit is

Please refer to Bensman article. Its entire premise is based on the ranch owners sidestepping tax exempt laws by closing off access to the general public

This is a biased opinion. The premise was the reporting of a previously unknown church which bought a ranch and has caused a stir among the local community due to the lack of information. Bensman's comments on the lawyer's quotes is a minor addition to a lengthy article and is the first mention of the issue. However no where does it say that there is a legal accusation initiated by citizens, the government, an organization, nor the reporter himself. To say so is to misrepresent the source.

Third edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518419487 Justification is

This has no relevance to Silver Wolf Ranch. In fact, the article states "Federal tax records show the nonprofit has accumulated upwards of $1 million since 2004. This money comes from church collections taken weekly and annually"

However, the deleted content explicitly says that church donations do not reach private holdings. Source does not state that the money comes from church collections, much less that they are taken weekly and annually. Bensman was reporting the deleted content for a reason, because it served as a counter to any instigation that laws were being violated. The issue of neutrality is raised by deleting the sourced information. The content is right after the lawyer's statements...in fact Bensman does not counter the claims that the church donations do not benifit private claims, see below.

Church officials are careful to point out the donations from the faithful go into the nonprofit and does not benefit the family's private holdings. Castillo said the zoo and its complement of full-grown lions, a white tiger with cancer and an aviary full of squawking exotic birds, benefits the public in part by taking doomed or homeless animals off the hands of surrounding counties, like two tigers to be euthanized for mauling their original owners' son.

In fact, the deleted content based on bold section of the quoted paragraph from the source states how the nonprofit benefits the public thus answering the lawyer's concern.

Fourth edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518419714 with the justification that

This offers no explanation as to why it is closed to the general public.

Deleted content is as valuable as the info about the vintage cars. It has more to do with the nonprofit nature of the zoo. Since the nature of the zoo's status is brought up. Bensman once again does feel that this would explain whether or not the nonprofit aspect is being fulfilled. since the info is mentioned right after the tax lawyer is quoted. Is this either about the tax law or the closing of the zoo to the public? Either way the info is relevant.

Fifth edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=518419873

This is off topic as to why Silver Wolf Ranch remains closed to the general public 

The topic is "Silver Wolf Ranch" not "Ranch is closed to the public" no editor can limit sourced information because it does not deal with an ultra specific one sided topic and thus eliminate different views. The quoted lawyer says that nonprofits have to benefit the public, not that they have to be open to the public. The deleted content points out how the zoo benefits the public as mentioned also in Bensman's article.

Since these edits are made with justifications that do not hold water, and seem to push an unbalanced view by eliminating counter arguments represented by deleted content, the deleted content has been reintroduced. The mention of accusations of tax exempt codes is removed once again since it is not supported by the source and gives the impression that LDM is actively subverting US tax codes all over the place and not limited to the Silver Wolf issue. Fordx12 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The section is now divided into two portions to include both points of view.

As for the inclusion of “violations of tax-exempt codes“ in the Controversy introduction, the reasons are two-fold:

1)Firstly, it servers as a synopsis of what is about to be discussed (Silver Wolf Ranch violating tax exempt codes by benefiting the Joaquin family and closing access to the general public)

2)Secondly, in discussing Silver Wolf Ranch, the Todd Benson article quotes a lawyer, stating that “IRS regulations require nonprofits to actively promote their tax-exempt purpose of benefiting the public and not the personal wealth of anyone”. So frankly,whether you disagree with it or not is another issue.

If in fact this is not an issue about tax evasion, why then did you bother to write counter arguments about "rescuing animals" and "offering trips to childern" to try and prove that the ranch is NOT violating tax codes? This only proves my point that this section IS about whether or not Samuel Joaquin is the sole beneficiary of the ranch (i.e. whether or not his actions constitute a violation of tax codes). V3RitasRidjalA (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the inclusion of "violations of tax-exempt codes" this is once again misleading. It gives the impression that the church is actively violating codes in more than just one instance. Also, the lawyer failed to say that the tax codes were indeed violated. The source does not explicitly say any accusations have been levied. This is fully the editor's opinion and is thus editorializing. Provide quoted proof that the church or individuals involved with the church are being accused of violating tax exempt codes. If there is no proof, not even a statement, then this contentious material should be removed. If the editor wishes to inform people that the church is possibly violating tax codes, I suggest starting a blog about it would be most effective and appropriate.Fordx12 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unattributed claims regarding Silver Wolf Ranch

The following statement within this subsection is not supported by the source:

Flores came under fire by local communities for closing off access to the public

This statement is not found in anyform within the content of the source nor is it implied. The reporter has not explicitly or even implicitly mentioned that the church's leader has come "under fire" for closing off access to the public. This is in violation of wiki policy WP:NOR:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

The statement in question here is an analysis of the source at best and thus original research as the quoted wiki policy states in bold which presents an issue of neutrality. There is another example of original research here as well. RidjalA has reverted the deletion of the following from the controversy section lead (in bold):

La Luz del Mundo has been the subject of various accusations, including violations of tax-exempt codes, rape accusations, exploitation of underage women by the group's founder, and the potential for mass suicide.

Once again, as evidenced in the above section of this talk page, RidjalA has strongly implied that inserting this bolded material is a result of an analysis of the source though nowhere does it state that the church has actually been accused of violating any tax exempt code. This also violates the neutrality policy in that it implies that the church is accused of violating more than one tax code and can lead one to think that this happens more commonly than just the editor's accusation of the church itself. This is original research since there is a lack of sources to back up this claim.

Without these two statements it is hard to articulate that there is a controversy with the material that is left (if one were to delete both statements) and thus this subsection should probably be removed. The only other thing found in the source are allegations of people with guns in the area. However the issue of undue weight is also a problem in that regard. The article states that the police have found nothing problematic with the ranch and its owners, this now ceases to be an issue about the church itself. Without any other claims, what is left is the reporting of a living person's personal holdings and a quote about tax laws.

Deletion of the content will make the subsection unreadable and thus the only reasonable action to take is to delete the section(unless new info is introduced).Fordx12 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

| Response to third opinion request: |- |style="padding-left:0.6cm"|Reading the source, I can find no evidence that the ranch has "come under fire from the local community". That statement needs sourcing if it is to remain. As for the tax exemption, the lawyer quoted merely says that it is "troubling", implying that there might be a problem, but both he and the article stop short of what can really be considered, in my opinion, a real accusation of wrong-doing in that regard. However, I disagree that that makes the rest of the section/paragraph useless, because it does seem that there's a genuine controversy over the Church's accumulation of private wealth. I would strike that sentence, and the "...including violations of tax-exempt codes..." from the first line of the Controversy section, until better sourcing can be found. Anaxial (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |}

Thanks, Anaxial. I think those are concessions that both parties can make. RidjalA (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Anaxial. I did not see the controversy of wealth being involved. These are not concessions in my opinion though. It is recognizing what is true with regards to the content and the sources Fordx12 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the following sentence has been removed, or at least corrected, as well as other parts of the section

Flores came under fire by local communities for closing off access to the public

The Silver Wolf Ranch subsection of the article no longer belongs in the Controversy section. Controversy is defined as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view." However there was no prolonged public dispute or debate as in the case of rape accusations, allegations of exploitation of women, and potentiality of mass suicide. The Silver Wolf Ranch matter was more like criticism / scrutiny by the curious reporters of The San Antonio Express-News. Perhaps the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection should be placed somewhere else, perhaps removed altogether, perhaps the whole Controversy section should be renamed to Critique to incorporate both Criticism and Controversy. Please have a look at WP:CRIT especially WP:CRIT#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22 Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)