This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The user is editing competently the page, misleading the readers in order to promote a perspective of defamation against the church, He is putting irrelevant citations that give nothing more than speculations against the rape accusations, can I also put my name on the sections and write my speculations about the leaders without any reliable proof or investigation? he is also accusing me of vandalizing. which makes WikiNuevo ( talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) no sense at all
Hello,
It is incredibly difficult to summarize and link the months of dispute resolutions, RfC's, Third Editor Opinions, consensus building discussions, removal of text and headings that violated either WP:BLP or WP:NPOV and edits done by several other editors over the past several months concerning the controversy section. Even now there is an RFC on content regarding one source that was heavily used to cite the controversy section in the format that the new user WikiNuevo left it to (which resembles highly the format that existed months ago, he/she might as well copied and pasted it back). WikiNuevo's edit can be seen here in its latest incarnation [10].
Now the issue here is, for example, the content reads 2004 for TV based accusations, when sources say it is 1997/1998. It also includes new content from a none reliable source that seems to lack notability. It has removed several sources, and the content they support. Restored sections that consensus had removed (regarding the 1942 schism). Restored badly made subsection headings that violate neutrality rules, as discussed in the past on this talk page. Talking about neutrality, WikiNuevo removed virtually all the different POV's that exist concerning the church's "controversies." Content cited to secondary and primary sources, some of which are scholarly, has been deleted to favor a source that is currently being deemed unreliable and unusable by the RFC located above this section.
There is even a copyright issue with the first sentence of the "Rape Accusations" subsection in WikiNuevo's edit. It copies Erdely's source verbatim and cites it to an organization whose name appears to be that of a government agency, but if you read the RFC above, you'll see that it is in fact one of Erdely's groups, which begs it's reliability.
It is for these reasons, that WikiNuevo's edit can not be allowed. If he or she wishes to contribute, it is best for them to do so within wiki policy, and to realise that the "altered drastically and rewritten" (as he/she said in their first edit summary [11]) controversy section was drastically altered and rewritten because that is what happens over time to a wiki article. Sources are added, judged, removed. Content gets edited over time to add more information, points of views, and to correct any issues of reliability. Fordx12 ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The following sentences from my POV need some attention so that they stay on-topic. The topic is Sexual Abuse Accusations Against the Leader. This latest addition goes off on a tangent as such: starts off responding to rape accusations, and goes off on a discussion about quarrels between church and christian group (among other random information that is weakly associated with the main topic):
The accusations against Joaquín Flores were never proven before a court.[141] According to anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro, the Mexican government opted not to take action because there was no legal basis for a sanction, and this would open the door for sanctions against the Catholic clergy.[135][141] However, Garma Navarro criticized the fact that the accusations were brought before the mass media instead of a judicial court, "because they [the media] cannot operate as an alternative judicial court, and their aim is to maintain and increase their audience."[141] According to Garma Navarro, it is very likely that the researchers involved were being manipulated by groups opposed to the church that sought to give the church a bad image.[141] Garma Navarro believes it is very likely that these accusations were made in a "desire for revenge by intolerant extremist groups."[142] He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader.[141]
Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco, said the controversy between La Luz del Mundo and Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México seemed like a religious war "that was very well exploited by the media in their fierce struggle for ratings."[143] According to Barranco, there were many doubts regarding the alleged sexual accusations and the academic character of Erdely's group.[144] Due to a lack of information and a rigorous treatment of the case, it was the media that judged the permissibility of the religious organization. This, according to Barranco, "creates a precedent that is downright dangerous, because the media are the least qualified to do it."[145]
Catholic prelate Girolamo Prigione demanded that truth be sought without making false accusations since "it is very easy to falsely accuse, slander, or defame", which Prigione believes is also a crime.[146]
According to journalist Gastón Pardo, the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.[147]
Save for the first three sentences, this entire section is unnecessarily verbose and should be scaled down to not only be less wordy, but more relevant. Otherwise, it's just a semi-coherent ramble and it should be removed. Best, RidjalA ( talk) 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If an article contains non-neutral language, one does not place a copyediting tag on it. I have changed the tag accordingly. I haven't examined the article in depth, but the lead section itself reads like a press release for the church and needs to be completely rewritten. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
La Luz del Mundo → La Luz del Mundo Church – Relisted. Favonian ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC). Requested by Ajaxfiore Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I moved the page from "La Luz del Mundo" to "La Luz del Mundo Church", but it was moved back due to lack of consensus. I believe the latter is a more descriptive title and it is the name used in the sources for the article (e.g. "Origins, Development and Perspectives of La Luz del Mundo Church" by Patricia Fortuny). I apologize for not starting a discussion but it seems that I am the only editor left. What do other editors think? Ajaxfiore ( talk) 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Ajaxfiore's recent deletion of some bible versus is the subject of this inquiry. While I do agree that there is a limit into how much an article like this should go into using versus from the bible to illustrate the Church's interpenetration of the bible, I think there is merit in including some examples. Any thoughts? The edit in question is this one [13]. Fordx12 ( talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the clause "speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring" from the sentence "Journalist Gastón Pardo, speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring, said that the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander." This is for a couple of reasons:
1.) The source referenced is from 2005. The Casitas del Sur case happened in 2009. Clearly the source used cannot speak "after Erdely became implicated."
2.) The source doesn't speak to the human trafficking ring or Erdely being associated with the ring.
3.) Most importantly, Erdely was never implicated in the trafficking ring. This is the third page I've found where user Ajaxfiore has inserted such language. It's simply not true. To cut and paste from my talk page entry on the Jorge Erdely Graham BLP:
"The allegation that 'Erdely is wanted by the Mexican government charged with being the intellectual mastermind behind the Casitas del Sur child trafficking ring' is very, very poorly sourced and problematic. Sources 13-16 do not support the allegation at all. Neither source 12 nor 17 quote a member of the judiciary, police or attorney general in Mexico.
Someone was arrested as the mastermind of the child trafficking ring: Antonio Domingo Paniagua. News articles talking about Paniagua’s arrest mention Paniagua’s connection to Erdely (Paniagua was Erdely’s personal secretary), but do not talk about Erdely being the leader of the ring nor being an international fugitive, as one might expect. ( http://www.elporvenir.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=500836, http://www.elmanana.com/diario/noticia/nacional/noticias/dictan_formal_prision_a_lider_de_casitas_del_sur/1167485) Why would they mention Erdely but not the most newsworthy piece of information relating to Erdely’s connection to the ring (i.e. he is wanted as the leader of the ring)? In fact, a news article from the same source from source 12 (El Universal) ran an interview with Erdely on the subject without any mention of a warrant ( http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/588070.html). Further, it makes no sense that INTERPOL would be involved in Paniagua’s case but not the alleged leader of the trafficking ring.
I have found absolutely no proof that Erdely is a wanted fugitive. Any assertion that he is wanted should be supported by multiple high-quality sources. wp:exceptional There are only two sources, and neither source is from the judiciary (who issue warrants) or police (who enforce the warrant). Even if he were a wanted man (which, again, the balance of evidence suggests he is not), there is also a strong argument that the information should not be included anyway. wp:blpcrime
--Snip--
AbuRuud (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)"
AbuRuud ( talk) 13:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a case at WP:DRN regarding content disputes in this article. I suggest all involved editors temporarily stop editing and help out with the discussion at DRN. Once we have a discussion at DRN and come to a consensus, we should resume editing the article. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 14:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest an intro that contains this information: "On March 27, 1997, one day after the bodies of the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate that had committed mass suicide were found, anticult activist Jorge Erdely accused La Luz del Mundo on national TV of being a "destructive sect" with the potential for mass suicide. This accusation unleashed a two year controversy in the Mexican media which later spilled into the US and involved members and supporters of LLDM who defended the integrity of the church, intellectuals and academics who demanded a climate of tolerance for religious minorities, and Erdely's ICM and church dissidents". Ajaxfiore ( talk) 22:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That's just it, space. I mean, each subsection in the History section covers about ten years (more or less) worth of information into only one paragraph. The sections about the accusations against the Church and its leader covers only one year yet it is bigger than two history Subsections combined. How much detail do we really need to add?
A lot more happened in, for example, Aaron Joaquin's early ministry, yet it is not all included. Same thing with none-controversial events relating to Samuel Joaquin's ministry. Do we really need to detail each event of the controversy? Another issue is including all points of view. Contentious information must also include other points of view, and that is what inflates the size. Couldn't we just do something like this (Of course we'll have to place the citations at the right spots, but all the content is based on current sources that are used in the article):
In 1997, in the wake of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, Jorge Erdely went on National TV in Mexico and accused the Church of having the potential to commit mass suicide. These accusations were supported by his anti-cult organization "Instituto Cristiano Mexicano" and another NGO group led by Elizade, the "Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos." This led to a controversy where former members of the Church also claimed to have been sexually abused by Joaquin Flores. One member, Moses Padilla, was attacked by what he claimed was a group of police and church members in an attempt to silence him. Dissidents were uncooperative, according to authorities, and they were also suspicious of the Mexican legal system claiming that it favored the Church. After four individuals initiated a formal investigation through the Religious Affairs Department of Mexico's Interior Ministry and a state prosecutor, Mexican authorities said that investigation wouldn't go forward due to the statute of limitations.
Several Mexican scholars and intellectuals, including Patricia Fortuny, defended the Church against the accusations. A state prosecutor stated his belief that the accusations were unfounded. Gordon Melton and David Bromley say that the suicide accusations were fraudulent. The church pointed out that none of them were ever presented to authorities and that Padilla probably orchastrated his attack to validate his accusations. Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro questioned the motives and methods used by the Church's accusers stating that it is possible that these actions may have stemmed from intolerant groups seeking revenge and that some researchers who supported the accusations may have been manipulated. He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader. Others questioned Erdely's academic integrity, and that of his anti-cult group. Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco believes that this was more of a religious "war" exploited by the media for the sake of increasing ratings while journalist Gastón Pardo believes that Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.
We could have this for now, and then later integrate it into the History section as "The Church and the Mexican media in 1997" or something else, perhaps include a small paragraph about the issue in California to show how it "overspilled" into the states. After that, we can include information about "Samuel Joaquin's ministry in recent years" (Starting from the 1990's to today) and edit the current section into "Samuel Joaquin's early Ministry." We could easily include the Silver Wolf Ranch in that last subsection (a shorter version). There's no need for a controversy section. RidjalA keeps using the Scientology page as an example, however since it is a C-class article, it is not a suitable role model. All A Class and GA class articles on religion don't seem to have these sections, and those ARE supposed to be models for other articles. What do you think? Fordx12 ( talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, this Talk section, and parts of the article, seems to be turning into Erdely bashing. Neutrality is needed. Highly reputed Mexican scholars like anthropologist Elio Masferrer have endorsed Erdely's academic rigor and professional integrity, both on La Luz del Mundo research and on the field of pedofile priests within the Catholic Church. There are Jorge Erdely books on human rights and religious studies published by Random House and Ediciones B in 2005 and 2008. Obviously, circumscribing Erdely to anti-cult activism is reductionism and to attempt to disqualify his research citing ad hominem opiniones of rival scholars is fallacious. I suggest linking Erdely's works on La Luz del Mundo, available on-line, to this section so that readers can read both sides. Also, allegations of criminality against Erdely have not been proven in court and could be generated or blown out of proportion by interested parties. I want to point out that Claremont University Gender professor Sylvia Marcos and Mexican Anthropologist Paloma Escalante have done their own research on La Luz del Mundo reported sexual abuse cases and published relevant works validating many of the claims made by the alleged victims. Escalante and Sylvia Marcos are not being quoted anywhere in the article or bibliography and are sorely needed to add balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.179.99 ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
In this edit editor Fordx12 added an {{undue-section}} tag to the "Silver Wolf Ranch" section, which was originally written by editor RidjalA. In response (see this edit) RidjalA placed the same tag on the "Discrimination" section, which had been written by Fordx12. RidjalA's edit summary reads "This section reads too much like a person's vent rather than an academic/research based finding." After some reverting back and forth, only the Discrimination section remained with the tag.
Should the tag be removed from the Discrimination section? If not, how can that section be improved? Ajaxfiore ( talk) 03:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor keeps adding the following sentences to the article:
" Gender Psychologist and Anthropologist Sylvia Marcos, however, performed her own research and published that the women had indeed been raped by Samuel Joaquin Flores in ritualistic contexts."
"Gender Psychologist and Anthropologist Sylvia Marcos, however, performed her own research and published that the women's allegations of rape by Samuel Joaquin Flores were legitimate and that they happened in ritualistic contexts."
The anon acknowledged that the first one was a violation of BLP and "Changed wording to comply with BLP". [14] However, both sentences, in sum and substance, say the same thing and are a violation of BLP. The word "however" serves to discredit the previous sentence while giving undue credibility to this sentence.
The sentence contains an assertion of culpability while Wikipedia policies state that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Sylvia Marcos is not a court of law and cannot be used to declare a person guilty of a crime.
The other problem with the source is its reliability. The article was supposedly written by Sylvia Marcos. I say supposedly because Marcos does not list it in either of the two curricula vitae she has on her blog. [15] [16] The article begins by labeling La Luz del Mundo a "destructive sect" and its director a "cultic leader". The basic assumption of the article is that Joaquín is guilty. This assumption is neither questioned nor supported because it is assumed to be true by the author. The article does not attempt to determine the "legitimacy" of the accusations, it merely accepts them as fact. The article claims that the parents think the leader "does them a favor by choosing their children for his intimate service", but never interviews any of the parents. The article does not include point of view of any church members. The article was published in 2000, and claims that Joaquín "has so far refused to give explanations to the Mexican society". Here we see the same tactics employed by Erdely: accuse and judge in the media instead of resorting to the pertinent authorities. Yet in that same website we find a 1997 letter by Joaquín in which he denies the accusations and condemns sexual abuse. [17] I think it is clear that the article is not a reliable source, especially not for assertions of culpability. Ajax F¡ore talk 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the article and the newspaper version. The article is just the newspaper version with footnotes. Not very economic. Apparently Sylvia Marcos also made "paper" on Islamic connections to the idea of an "Apostle." Funny, I didn't know Gender Anthropologists knew so much about religious history. The editorial board seems more like a board for a medical journal, not on that deals in social sciences (which is lacking in Phd's in the social sciences). What's even more bothersome is the use of the word "Cult" (Secta in Spanish) by so called anthropologists when in fact, the anthropological community has disowned such claims as a profession. While Mexicans may consider Masfarer as a "TV expert" I honestly can't say that I have run into many papers or books written by him when compared to other anthropologists. Then again, my field is history, not anthropology. He is barely ever quoted or referenced in papers done by other Social "Scientists" (Anthropologists, Historians, Sociologists) regarding La Luz del Mundo. His bias, is in fact, pointed out by another anthropologist and his writings ignored by one of the very few historians who have written about the Church. Just my thoughts. Fordx12 ( talk) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The user is editing competently the page, misleading the readers in order to promote a perspective of defamation against the church, He is putting irrelevant citations that give nothing more than speculations against the rape accusations, can I also put my name on the sections and write my speculations about the leaders without any reliable proof or investigation? he is also accusing me of vandalizing. which makes WikiNuevo ( talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) no sense at all
Hello,
It is incredibly difficult to summarize and link the months of dispute resolutions, RfC's, Third Editor Opinions, consensus building discussions, removal of text and headings that violated either WP:BLP or WP:NPOV and edits done by several other editors over the past several months concerning the controversy section. Even now there is an RFC on content regarding one source that was heavily used to cite the controversy section in the format that the new user WikiNuevo left it to (which resembles highly the format that existed months ago, he/she might as well copied and pasted it back). WikiNuevo's edit can be seen here in its latest incarnation [10].
Now the issue here is, for example, the content reads 2004 for TV based accusations, when sources say it is 1997/1998. It also includes new content from a none reliable source that seems to lack notability. It has removed several sources, and the content they support. Restored sections that consensus had removed (regarding the 1942 schism). Restored badly made subsection headings that violate neutrality rules, as discussed in the past on this talk page. Talking about neutrality, WikiNuevo removed virtually all the different POV's that exist concerning the church's "controversies." Content cited to secondary and primary sources, some of which are scholarly, has been deleted to favor a source that is currently being deemed unreliable and unusable by the RFC located above this section.
There is even a copyright issue with the first sentence of the "Rape Accusations" subsection in WikiNuevo's edit. It copies Erdely's source verbatim and cites it to an organization whose name appears to be that of a government agency, but if you read the RFC above, you'll see that it is in fact one of Erdely's groups, which begs it's reliability.
It is for these reasons, that WikiNuevo's edit can not be allowed. If he or she wishes to contribute, it is best for them to do so within wiki policy, and to realise that the "altered drastically and rewritten" (as he/she said in their first edit summary [11]) controversy section was drastically altered and rewritten because that is what happens over time to a wiki article. Sources are added, judged, removed. Content gets edited over time to add more information, points of views, and to correct any issues of reliability. Fordx12 ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The following sentences from my POV need some attention so that they stay on-topic. The topic is Sexual Abuse Accusations Against the Leader. This latest addition goes off on a tangent as such: starts off responding to rape accusations, and goes off on a discussion about quarrels between church and christian group (among other random information that is weakly associated with the main topic):
The accusations against Joaquín Flores were never proven before a court.[141] According to anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro, the Mexican government opted not to take action because there was no legal basis for a sanction, and this would open the door for sanctions against the Catholic clergy.[135][141] However, Garma Navarro criticized the fact that the accusations were brought before the mass media instead of a judicial court, "because they [the media] cannot operate as an alternative judicial court, and their aim is to maintain and increase their audience."[141] According to Garma Navarro, it is very likely that the researchers involved were being manipulated by groups opposed to the church that sought to give the church a bad image.[141] Garma Navarro believes it is very likely that these accusations were made in a "desire for revenge by intolerant extremist groups."[142] He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader.[141]
Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco, said the controversy between La Luz del Mundo and Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México seemed like a religious war "that was very well exploited by the media in their fierce struggle for ratings."[143] According to Barranco, there were many doubts regarding the alleged sexual accusations and the academic character of Erdely's group.[144] Due to a lack of information and a rigorous treatment of the case, it was the media that judged the permissibility of the religious organization. This, according to Barranco, "creates a precedent that is downright dangerous, because the media are the least qualified to do it."[145]
Catholic prelate Girolamo Prigione demanded that truth be sought without making false accusations since "it is very easy to falsely accuse, slander, or defame", which Prigione believes is also a crime.[146]
According to journalist Gastón Pardo, the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.[147]
Save for the first three sentences, this entire section is unnecessarily verbose and should be scaled down to not only be less wordy, but more relevant. Otherwise, it's just a semi-coherent ramble and it should be removed. Best, RidjalA ( talk) 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If an article contains non-neutral language, one does not place a copyediting tag on it. I have changed the tag accordingly. I haven't examined the article in depth, but the lead section itself reads like a press release for the church and needs to be completely rewritten. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
La Luz del Mundo → La Luz del Mundo Church – Relisted. Favonian ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC). Requested by Ajaxfiore Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I moved the page from "La Luz del Mundo" to "La Luz del Mundo Church", but it was moved back due to lack of consensus. I believe the latter is a more descriptive title and it is the name used in the sources for the article (e.g. "Origins, Development and Perspectives of La Luz del Mundo Church" by Patricia Fortuny). I apologize for not starting a discussion but it seems that I am the only editor left. What do other editors think? Ajaxfiore ( talk) 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Ajaxfiore's recent deletion of some bible versus is the subject of this inquiry. While I do agree that there is a limit into how much an article like this should go into using versus from the bible to illustrate the Church's interpenetration of the bible, I think there is merit in including some examples. Any thoughts? The edit in question is this one [13]. Fordx12 ( talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the clause "speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring" from the sentence "Journalist Gastón Pardo, speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring, said that the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander." This is for a couple of reasons:
1.) The source referenced is from 2005. The Casitas del Sur case happened in 2009. Clearly the source used cannot speak "after Erdely became implicated."
2.) The source doesn't speak to the human trafficking ring or Erdely being associated with the ring.
3.) Most importantly, Erdely was never implicated in the trafficking ring. This is the third page I've found where user Ajaxfiore has inserted such language. It's simply not true. To cut and paste from my talk page entry on the Jorge Erdely Graham BLP:
"The allegation that 'Erdely is wanted by the Mexican government charged with being the intellectual mastermind behind the Casitas del Sur child trafficking ring' is very, very poorly sourced and problematic. Sources 13-16 do not support the allegation at all. Neither source 12 nor 17 quote a member of the judiciary, police or attorney general in Mexico.
Someone was arrested as the mastermind of the child trafficking ring: Antonio Domingo Paniagua. News articles talking about Paniagua’s arrest mention Paniagua’s connection to Erdely (Paniagua was Erdely’s personal secretary), but do not talk about Erdely being the leader of the ring nor being an international fugitive, as one might expect. ( http://www.elporvenir.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=500836, http://www.elmanana.com/diario/noticia/nacional/noticias/dictan_formal_prision_a_lider_de_casitas_del_sur/1167485) Why would they mention Erdely but not the most newsworthy piece of information relating to Erdely’s connection to the ring (i.e. he is wanted as the leader of the ring)? In fact, a news article from the same source from source 12 (El Universal) ran an interview with Erdely on the subject without any mention of a warrant ( http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/588070.html). Further, it makes no sense that INTERPOL would be involved in Paniagua’s case but not the alleged leader of the trafficking ring.
I have found absolutely no proof that Erdely is a wanted fugitive. Any assertion that he is wanted should be supported by multiple high-quality sources. wp:exceptional There are only two sources, and neither source is from the judiciary (who issue warrants) or police (who enforce the warrant). Even if he were a wanted man (which, again, the balance of evidence suggests he is not), there is also a strong argument that the information should not be included anyway. wp:blpcrime
--Snip--
AbuRuud (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)"
AbuRuud ( talk) 13:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a case at WP:DRN regarding content disputes in this article. I suggest all involved editors temporarily stop editing and help out with the discussion at DRN. Once we have a discussion at DRN and come to a consensus, we should resume editing the article. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 14:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest an intro that contains this information: "On March 27, 1997, one day after the bodies of the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate that had committed mass suicide were found, anticult activist Jorge Erdely accused La Luz del Mundo on national TV of being a "destructive sect" with the potential for mass suicide. This accusation unleashed a two year controversy in the Mexican media which later spilled into the US and involved members and supporters of LLDM who defended the integrity of the church, intellectuals and academics who demanded a climate of tolerance for religious minorities, and Erdely's ICM and church dissidents". Ajaxfiore ( talk) 22:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That's just it, space. I mean, each subsection in the History section covers about ten years (more or less) worth of information into only one paragraph. The sections about the accusations against the Church and its leader covers only one year yet it is bigger than two history Subsections combined. How much detail do we really need to add?
A lot more happened in, for example, Aaron Joaquin's early ministry, yet it is not all included. Same thing with none-controversial events relating to Samuel Joaquin's ministry. Do we really need to detail each event of the controversy? Another issue is including all points of view. Contentious information must also include other points of view, and that is what inflates the size. Couldn't we just do something like this (Of course we'll have to place the citations at the right spots, but all the content is based on current sources that are used in the article):
In 1997, in the wake of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, Jorge Erdely went on National TV in Mexico and accused the Church of having the potential to commit mass suicide. These accusations were supported by his anti-cult organization "Instituto Cristiano Mexicano" and another NGO group led by Elizade, the "Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos." This led to a controversy where former members of the Church also claimed to have been sexually abused by Joaquin Flores. One member, Moses Padilla, was attacked by what he claimed was a group of police and church members in an attempt to silence him. Dissidents were uncooperative, according to authorities, and they were also suspicious of the Mexican legal system claiming that it favored the Church. After four individuals initiated a formal investigation through the Religious Affairs Department of Mexico's Interior Ministry and a state prosecutor, Mexican authorities said that investigation wouldn't go forward due to the statute of limitations.
Several Mexican scholars and intellectuals, including Patricia Fortuny, defended the Church against the accusations. A state prosecutor stated his belief that the accusations were unfounded. Gordon Melton and David Bromley say that the suicide accusations were fraudulent. The church pointed out that none of them were ever presented to authorities and that Padilla probably orchastrated his attack to validate his accusations. Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro questioned the motives and methods used by the Church's accusers stating that it is possible that these actions may have stemmed from intolerant groups seeking revenge and that some researchers who supported the accusations may have been manipulated. He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader. Others questioned Erdely's academic integrity, and that of his anti-cult group. Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco believes that this was more of a religious "war" exploited by the media for the sake of increasing ratings while journalist Gastón Pardo believes that Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.
We could have this for now, and then later integrate it into the History section as "The Church and the Mexican media in 1997" or something else, perhaps include a small paragraph about the issue in California to show how it "overspilled" into the states. After that, we can include information about "Samuel Joaquin's ministry in recent years" (Starting from the 1990's to today) and edit the current section into "Samuel Joaquin's early Ministry." We could easily include the Silver Wolf Ranch in that last subsection (a shorter version). There's no need for a controversy section. RidjalA keeps using the Scientology page as an example, however since it is a C-class article, it is not a suitable role model. All A Class and GA class articles on religion don't seem to have these sections, and those ARE supposed to be models for other articles. What do you think? Fordx12 ( talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, this Talk section, and parts of the article, seems to be turning into Erdely bashing. Neutrality is needed. Highly reputed Mexican scholars like anthropologist Elio Masferrer have endorsed Erdely's academic rigor and professional integrity, both on La Luz del Mundo research and on the field of pedofile priests within the Catholic Church. There are Jorge Erdely books on human rights and religious studies published by Random House and Ediciones B in 2005 and 2008. Obviously, circumscribing Erdely to anti-cult activism is reductionism and to attempt to disqualify his research citing ad hominem opiniones of rival scholars is fallacious. I suggest linking Erdely's works on La Luz del Mundo, available on-line, to this section so that readers can read both sides. Also, allegations of criminality against Erdely have not been proven in court and could be generated or blown out of proportion by interested parties. I want to point out that Claremont University Gender professor Sylvia Marcos and Mexican Anthropologist Paloma Escalante have done their own research on La Luz del Mundo reported sexual abuse cases and published relevant works validating many of the claims made by the alleged victims. Escalante and Sylvia Marcos are not being quoted anywhere in the article or bibliography and are sorely needed to add balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.179.99 ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
In this edit editor Fordx12 added an {{undue-section}} tag to the "Silver Wolf Ranch" section, which was originally written by editor RidjalA. In response (see this edit) RidjalA placed the same tag on the "Discrimination" section, which had been written by Fordx12. RidjalA's edit summary reads "This section reads too much like a person's vent rather than an academic/research based finding." After some reverting back and forth, only the Discrimination section remained with the tag.
Should the tag be removed from the Discrimination section? If not, how can that section be improved? Ajaxfiore ( talk) 03:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor keeps adding the following sentences to the article:
" Gender Psychologist and Anthropologist Sylvia Marcos, however, performed her own research and published that the women had indeed been raped by Samuel Joaquin Flores in ritualistic contexts."
"Gender Psychologist and Anthropologist Sylvia Marcos, however, performed her own research and published that the women's allegations of rape by Samuel Joaquin Flores were legitimate and that they happened in ritualistic contexts."
The anon acknowledged that the first one was a violation of BLP and "Changed wording to comply with BLP". [14] However, both sentences, in sum and substance, say the same thing and are a violation of BLP. The word "however" serves to discredit the previous sentence while giving undue credibility to this sentence.
The sentence contains an assertion of culpability while Wikipedia policies state that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Sylvia Marcos is not a court of law and cannot be used to declare a person guilty of a crime.
The other problem with the source is its reliability. The article was supposedly written by Sylvia Marcos. I say supposedly because Marcos does not list it in either of the two curricula vitae she has on her blog. [15] [16] The article begins by labeling La Luz del Mundo a "destructive sect" and its director a "cultic leader". The basic assumption of the article is that Joaquín is guilty. This assumption is neither questioned nor supported because it is assumed to be true by the author. The article does not attempt to determine the "legitimacy" of the accusations, it merely accepts them as fact. The article claims that the parents think the leader "does them a favor by choosing their children for his intimate service", but never interviews any of the parents. The article does not include point of view of any church members. The article was published in 2000, and claims that Joaquín "has so far refused to give explanations to the Mexican society". Here we see the same tactics employed by Erdely: accuse and judge in the media instead of resorting to the pertinent authorities. Yet in that same website we find a 1997 letter by Joaquín in which he denies the accusations and condemns sexual abuse. [17] I think it is clear that the article is not a reliable source, especially not for assertions of culpability. Ajax F¡ore talk 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the article and the newspaper version. The article is just the newspaper version with footnotes. Not very economic. Apparently Sylvia Marcos also made "paper" on Islamic connections to the idea of an "Apostle." Funny, I didn't know Gender Anthropologists knew so much about religious history. The editorial board seems more like a board for a medical journal, not on that deals in social sciences (which is lacking in Phd's in the social sciences). What's even more bothersome is the use of the word "Cult" (Secta in Spanish) by so called anthropologists when in fact, the anthropological community has disowned such claims as a profession. While Mexicans may consider Masfarer as a "TV expert" I honestly can't say that I have run into many papers or books written by him when compared to other anthropologists. Then again, my field is history, not anthropology. He is barely ever quoted or referenced in papers done by other Social "Scientists" (Anthropologists, Historians, Sociologists) regarding La Luz del Mundo. His bias, is in fact, pointed out by another anthropologist and his writings ignored by one of the very few historians who have written about the Church. Just my thoughts. Fordx12 ( talk) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)