Misplaced Pages

Talk:La Luz del Mundo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:44, 6 October 2012 edit (Username or IP removed) →Dr. Jorge Erdely: Added comment regarding the notability of Erdely.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:34, 5 December 2024 edit undo2601:18a:807c:1c40:bcb3:489:e500:8e85 (talk) →Please do not indiscriminately revert edits 
(697 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blpo=yes|1=
{{Pronunciation requested audio}}
{{WikiProject Mexico|class=C|importance=low}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=GA|listas=Luz del Mundo, La|
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|charismatic-christianity=yes|charismatic christianity-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Mexico|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=24th October 2013}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{censor}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 5
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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 2

|algo = old(30d)
:That's already been taken care of to the fullest extent. Any further edits are being closely monitored for their validity. V3ritas ] (]) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:La Luz del Mundo/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
== This Articles is a good work ==
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}
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.
{{Old peer review|archive=1}}

{{GA|02:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1|oldid=588910869}}
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/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 Misplaced Pages 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.

== "Controversy" section ==

I have removed the "Controversy" section for the time being, until we can work out whether the sources are ]. It is the burden of the editor who adds the sources to demonstrate that they are reliable by Misplaced Pages's criteria. Please leave comments here for now before engaging in another ]. <font color="DarkGray">...</font> ] <sub>]</sub> 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


hello
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/Catholic_church
http://en.wikipedia.org/Mormons
http://en.wikipedia.org/Pentecostalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/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.] 17:48, 10 December 2009 (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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:One of the websites used in references and external links, , does not appear to be a collection of "academic research articles" as stated here and on that website. It looks more like an ] 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 ]. Also, since many of these sources seem to be self-published, and refer to a living person, they might not be appropriate per ].
: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.&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;] 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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.
] (]) 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, Misplaced Pages 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?] (]) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
:As with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages because he was found innocent of any wrongdoing (good luck with that one).
::] (]) 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.] (]) 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Masferrer K.|first=Elio|title=Es Del Cesar o Es de Dios?: Un Modelo Antropológico Del Campo Religioso|year=2004|publisher=Plaza y Valdes|isbn=9707223162, 9789707223165|pages=158|url=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}}</ref> 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. <ref name="L.A. Times">{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/10/news/mn-27361/6 |title= A Growing Faith and Outrage |publisher=latimes.com |date=1998-03-10 |accessdate=2012-09-07}}</ref> 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."<ref name="La Jornada">{{cite web|url=http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/02/18/opinion/021a2pol |title="Interrogantes sobre Jorge Erdely, el pastor de la denuncia" |publisher=lajornada.unam.mx |date=2009-01-18 |accessdate=2012-09-07}}</ref> 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.<ref name="El Universal">{{cite web|url=http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/587735.html |title= "Jorge Erdely, un “dictador espiritual”" |publisher=eluniversal.com.mx |date=2009-03-31 |accessdate=2012-09-07}}</ref>. ] 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cacho|first=Lydia|title=Esclavas del Poder|year=2011|publisher=Grijalbo|isbn=6073104170, 9786073104173|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hTRReYtjeZkC&dq=jorge+erdely&q=mundo#v=onepage&q=erdely&f=false}}</ref> 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.<ref name="El Universal">{{cite web|urlhttp://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/166751.html |title="Los Perfectos, un mito" |publisher=eluniversal.com.mx |date=2009-03-31 |accessdate=2012-09-07}}</ref> 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.<ref name="El Universal">{{cite web|urlhttp://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/166751.html |title="Los Perfectos, un mito" |publisher=eluniversal.com.mx |date=2009-03-31 |accessdate=2012-09-07}}</ref>. 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.<ref name="Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada">{{cite web|urlhttp://iglesiarestaurada.com/ |title="POSICIÓN DE LA IGLESIA CRISTIANA RESTAURADA SOBRE LA REVOCACIÓN TEMPORAL DEL REGISTRO COMO A.R." |date=2010-09-22 |accessdate=2012-09-07}}</ref>

::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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] (]) 03:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the only objection is an issue of notability. According to ] 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. ], 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 ]'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/Sanjuana_Mart%C3%ADnez ] (]) 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 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<ref>{{cite news |title=Va otro a prisión por caso Casitas |page=6 |date=5 May 2010 |work=Reforma |location =Mexico City }}</ref><ref> {{cite news |author=Agencia el Universal|title=Niños-Abusos |date=4 May 2010 |work=El Universal |location =Mexico City }}</ref>). 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. ] (]) 16:44, 6 October 2012 (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. <font color="DarkGray">...</font> ] <sub>]</sub> 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::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. ] 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. ] 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.--] (]) 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 ] 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 ] (]) 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/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
:::::::] 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.] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:"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 ] or you will be reverted. ]* <sup>] ]</sup> 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.
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::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.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


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

== Edit request from 0MXZeroSectasMX0, 20 April 2011 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
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

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} for several reasons, including the fact that you are blocked, and edits by ] of blocked users are not permitted. ] (]) 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 ] ] (]) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

<!-- Begin request -->
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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->

: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. ] (]). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit request from , 10 October 2011 ==

{{tn|edit semi-protected|answered=no}}
<!-- Begin request -->
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

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not sure exactly what you are asking to be changed, or why; {{xt|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, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 01:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

== Not Millenarian, Not Charismatic, Hardly Chrisitian ==

Misplaced Pages 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 ]. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:What ] can you cite to back these claims up? —''']''' (]) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.sectas.org/Articulos/luzdelmundo/laluz.asp <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. ] (]) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

== Revista Academica ==

<!-- Begin request -->
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. Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
: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/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States)) ] (] 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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.] (]) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

== Edit reversions ==
===Rape accusation reversion===
<!-- Begin request -->
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/search/?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.] (]) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->

: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." ] (]) 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/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/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?] (]) 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/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


== Relevance vs Editorializing vs Facts ==
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.
, I was initially worried (and still am worried) that it was tangential, if not irrelevant, given that we're talking about LLDM church, not the Catholic church. I'm okay if we make a one or two sentence mention about how the Catholic church in this section relates to LLDM church, but I'm worried that anything beyond that can create a slippery slope (how much information on the Catholic church is too much information? How much do we omit?) after I tried to add more important information in the interest of adding more complete context.


I've reverted this last part given that this is factual information that is , and does not constitute editorializing. (you can use google translate to verify that the information comes directly from the source)
There are also article title policies to consider such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NDESC


I hope this reversion represents a reasonable way for us to compromise (i.e. my preference is to minimize information from the Catholic church to avoid the page sounding tangential and dismissive of the topic at hand, but others may prefer that mention of the Catholic church not be omited).
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".)


Thanks so much! I'm open to discussing this further, and if necessary, getting additional opinions from the community.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/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? ] (]) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
-RA <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:That part (originally added by ]) is a clear violation of ]. The second source cited () doesn't even mention this article's subject at all. Regards, ] (]) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


::Hi HaeB. Thanks for bringing ] to my attention. My use of NYT as a source was just for that one sentence "Only Mexico City newspaper La Jornada and small Mexico City television station Canal 40 reported on the Maciel sex abuse scandal in Mexico where most of his victims were from and where he enjoyed the support of the Mexican elite." As the sentence has nothing to do with this article's subject, I didn't think I was violating ]. The Spanish source says something similar, but I chose to use NYT for that sentence only for English speakers. If it's in violation of Misplaced Pages policies I don't object to rewording to ensure compliance. As for whether this part is relevant, I believe it is because both religious leaders were accused of similar crimes, at the same time, in the same country. Reliable sources have written juxtaposing the two. ] (]) 18:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:Firstly, thanks for your concerns in these matters.
:So I think I mentioned previously that ] 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.


:::Hey HaeB and BadHombres. So can we agree that its safe to remove the line "Only Mexico City newspaper La Jornada and small Mexico City television station Canal 40 reported on the Maciel sex abuse scandal in Mexico where most of his victims were from and where he enjoyed the support of the Mexican elite" on grounds that the source makes no mention of LLDM church (which is what this page is all about)? The remaining second half of the paragraph is still not my favorite, and frankly neither is a large portion of that section. (the sub-header is "Sexual Abuse Accusations" not "Sexual Abuse Discussions from the Academic Community", therefore the threshold for including all detailed points of view is very low given the original purpose of this section. Any thoughts, feedback? ] (]) 05:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 06:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


::::I disagree. I've updated the source to address WP:SYNTH concerns. The section needs some work, but I believe some outside POVs are necessary, otherwise the section becomes a game of he said, she said. ] (]) 05:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
::Consensus is can change as time goes on (Refer to ] ) 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 ( ] ) that you missed that exception.
] '''] 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, --] (]) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


::::: Hello, although there will be lots of disagreeing, I'm hoping we could find some common ground so that we could work together in improving the Controversy section. A safe way to go about that is to try modeling that section after similar sections, such as ] and ] pages (and other similar pages), which set the precedent for what the LLDM controversy section should look like. For example, to date, the abuse allegations section in the Bill Cosby page contains about 25 sentences that support the claim that Cosby committed a crime and 7 sentences that dismiss the accusations (mostly from Cosby and his spokesman); for Weinstein there are 14 sentences and 1 sentence, respectively. In comparison, with the exception of the latest developments, the LLDM controversy section contains about 10 sentences affirming accusations, but 14 do not affirm accusations. It's quite obvious then that content that dismisses allegations of abuse is drowning out the claims of abuse. This can be quite problematic because by the same standards, should it also be okay to "balance" (or drown out?) the sections on ] by adding secondary and tertiary opposing religious viewpoints, and hence dismissing the beliefs of LLDM adherents?
::::: Lastly, this whole section that (but got reverted) can be really confusing to readers if we do not remove it. For example, how does the suggestion that the Catholic church initially got off easy from abuse allegations vis-a-vis allegations in LLDM help readers to better understand the two main arguments i.e. that the abuse accusations are true vs that the accusations are not true? It is for these reasons that I'll be removing that section again. Moving forward, and as I mentioned, I'd like to clean up the controversy section so that it's more in line with what other concise controversy sections look like. Please reply with any feedback, concerns, questions, or thoughts. Thanks! ] (]) 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


::::::I'm all for working on improving the controversy section and have worked toward that in my edits. As far as precedent setting articles, I do not think such a thing exists in Misplaced Pages. If anything this article is a Good Article (probably needs to be reassessed) and would be the one setting the precedent. The case in this article is far different from the others. Harvey Weinstein was arrested and Bill Cosby was found guilty, whereas no formal charges were brought against Samuel Joaquín Flores. Also, Cosby and Weinstein have dedicated articles dealing with their sexual abuse accusations; they're hardly concise as you seem to believe.
== Plagiarism (original research) ==
::::::I object to your characterization that there are only "two main arguments i.e. that the abuse accusations are true vs that the accusations are not true." The case was complex and adding some background information helps the reader. I think there's value in presenting well-sourced similar accusations against another Mexican religious leader made at the same time, in the same country, but originally had different outcomes. ] (]) 13:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
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 ].
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)." (Misplaced Pages 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 (Misplaced Pages 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)


== Use of Quotes ==
The rest of the section continues in that same pattern of translating and copying. Misplaced Pages 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" (Misplaced Pages 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)


My edit removing the "megalomaniac" quote was reverted. The word is found in the source cited, but the source cited does not directly attribute it as a quote to Fortuny. It may very well be the author summarizing Fortuny's description of Joaquin in one word. I'm worried about using quotes to introduce non-neutral, loaded language. I think the quote is unnecessary. It's sufficient to quote Fortuny saying she believes the accusations. ] (]) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thus by inductive hypothesis, there is a strong likelihood that the rest of the edits done by the aforementioned user must violate ]. 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. ] (]) 04:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


:Hello, thanks for the feedback. You're right, the source does not quote Fortuny directly, and yes it could be that the author is simply summarizing Fortuny's description in one word. I've removed the quotation marks to reflect that, so hopefully that takes care of it. Keep up the good work!] (]) 05:27, 6 June 2019 (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 Misplaced Pages 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/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.


::I still find the use of megalomaniac troubling; it's not in the spirit of ] and it's frankly unnecessary. The guy might have been a megalomaniac, but it's not Misplaced Pages's job to provide ready-packaged insults. Readers can form their own opinions about a man claiming to be the only path to God. ] (]) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 20:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


:::Could you be more specific about what you mean by "the spirit of ]"? From what I understand in ] under ] it states that "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), ''although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity''" (italicized for emphasis). I included that Fortuny described Joaquin as a megalomaniac because she mentions that she believed the abuse allegations to be true, but if we omit that she described Joaquin as a megalomaniac, then we lose clarity as to why she believed the allegations to be true. Furthermore, as far as its usage goes, the word "]" is less an insult than it is a psychological disorder. ] (]) 06:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


::::See ] "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Misplaced Pages's own voice." You're calling someone a megalomaniac without having a quote. Your statement that Fortuny believes the accusations are true because Joaquin is a megalomaniac is unsupported by the source. The source says
::::Hi Fordx12. There's one significant caveat to that rule, and it goes as follows:
::::"Still, when I asked Fortuny whether she believed that Samuel was guilty of sexual abuse, she did not hestitate. “I am sure these allegations are true,” she said. (Our conversation took place before it was clear that Samuel was dying). Fortuny, who has met Samuel, describes him as a megalomaniac; at once a charismatic leader and a scandal-tainted liability. “He’s the strength of the church, but at the same time he’s the weakness of the church,” she said."
"Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem."
::::The word megalomaniac is found in a completely different sentence and no implication is made that it's the reason why Fortuny finds the accusations credible. Your wording doesn't add clarity; if anything it misleads the reader to something unsupported by the source. Moreover, if ] is a psychological disorder as you say, the use of it in this article is even more troubling. I don't think you can label someone a megalomaniac without a medical diagnosis, which does not exist in this case. ] (]) 13:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


:::::There's also the issue of consistency and balance in terms of representing the views and opinions of third parties commenting on La Luz. If 'megalomaniac' is an NPOV issue, then so are the claims of "persecution by obscure interests" and "dirty war". Quite frankly I don't think any of these charged opinions serve this article - I would recommend editing it down to the following:
::::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.
:::::Anthropologist and longtime researcher of La Luz Del Mundo, Patricia Fortuny, mentioned that "I am sure these allegations are true". Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro criticized that the accusations were first brought before the mass media, and thought it was very likely that the accusations were an attempt to give the church a bad image. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Recent Edits Without Summary and Use of Acronyms ==
::::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.


User SebastianDrawsStuff has made several changes to the article without providing ], including wholesale deletion of sourced material. It's hard to parse through all these edits without understanding the reasoning for them. A lot of the edits seem to be to change La Luz del Mundo to LLDM, which to my knowledge is used informally inside the organization. I looked at several English and Spanish language sources (particularly news media) and did not find many using the acronym. I did find other acronyms beyond LLDM though, such as LDM, LLMC, and TLOTW. With that in mind, this article should not use acronyms. ] (]) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
::::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.
:::::] (]) 02:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


== Please do not indiscriminately revert edits ==
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).


BadHomres, I hate to sound like I’m reprimanding you or anything but you basically reverted ALL of my contributions to the “controversy” section. Everything I wrote on this page so far is in the sources, no original research, including the mention of “mega cities” (in fact “mega city” is in the title of one of the sources). And as far as BLP go, what part of its policy are you citing? As far as I know, BLP states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion“. If you Google Naason Joaquin Garcia's name you’ll find the internet replete with news about accusations of child rape, and two dozen other crimes.
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).] (]) 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


I’d really like to avoid an edit war, and I really want to collaborate with you. If there’s something we can definitely agree on is that we want to improve the page. I’m happy to chat anytime on this page to iron out any kinks.
== 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.


Respectfully, ] (]) 05:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC))
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:


:I'm all for improving the page, but your single-minded focus on the controversy section certainly makes it feel like you have an agenda against the church. Looking at your previous accounts I see you've been around since 2010, involved in multiple disputes on this page, and even got banned for sockpuppetry. While the church and its leader Naasón Joaquín García may be controversial, it is not Misplaced Pages's policy to catalogue every single criticism and controversy as you seem intent on doing. Regardless of accusations and court trials, Joaquín is a living person who has not been convicted of crime, and as such we need to abide by Misplaced Pages's BLP policies.
http://www.co.guadalupe.tx.us/Appraisal/PublicAccess/
:Please don't misuse sources. It feels like you deliberately introduce quotes from sources to give a negative spin to the page. I don't know what's the obsession with labeling these developing projects mega-cities based on a sensationalist headline (it is not used anywhere else in the source). It's unnecessarily misleading. 272 is not a mega-city by any sense of the word, especially not a stone throw away from Atlanta or seven minutes away from El Salvador's international airport. ] (]) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


:I've removed the sentence you've tried to introduce twice. The first time it was unsourced, the second time it was poorly sourced. You've tried to push this claim that the California AG "states that the church has "brainwashed" families." This is not supported by the AG's press conference (skip to 24:30) in which the AG's verbatim words are "some people will probably call this a case of brainwashing." ] (]) 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
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.
] (]) 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


== no crosses? ==
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.
somewhere in the HBO doc i noticed one lone cross in an outdoor gathering. not up at the altar but off in some side aisle.


so is it not a hard and fast rule? ] (]) 03:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
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.] (]) 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<references> <references/>

Latest revision as of 03:34, 5 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the La Luz del Mundo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
It is requested that one or more audio files demonstrating correct pronunciation of this article's title be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Misplaced Pages:Requested recordings for more on this request.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about La Luz del Mundo. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about La Luz del Mundo at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArchitecture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Charismatic Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconMexico Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 24th October 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

La Luz del Mundo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articlesLa Luz del Mundo has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 3, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Relevance vs Editorializing vs Facts

On this part, I was initially worried (and still am worried) that it was tangential, if not irrelevant, given that we're talking about LLDM church, not the Catholic church. I'm okay if we make a one or two sentence mention about how the Catholic church in this section relates to LLDM church, but I'm worried that anything beyond that can create a slippery slope (how much information on the Catholic church is too much information? How much do we omit?) Which is precisely what happened after I tried to add more important information in the interest of adding more complete context.

I've reverted this last part given that this is factual information that is included in the source, and does not constitute editorializing. (you can use google translate to verify that the information comes directly from the source)

I hope this reversion represents a reasonable way for us to compromise (i.e. my preference is to minimize information from the Catholic church to avoid the page sounding tangential and dismissive of the topic at hand, but others may prefer that mention of the Catholic church not be omited).

Thanks so much! I'm open to discussing this further, and if necessary, getting additional opinions from the community. -RA — Preceding unsigned comment added by RidjalAbdullah (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That part (originally added here by BadHombres) is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. The second source cited () doesn't even mention this article's subject at all. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi HaeB. Thanks for bringing WP:SYNTH to my attention. My use of NYT as a source was just for that one sentence "Only Mexico City newspaper La Jornada and small Mexico City television station Canal 40 reported on the Maciel sex abuse scandal in Mexico where most of his victims were from and where he enjoyed the support of the Mexican elite." As the sentence has nothing to do with this article's subject, I didn't think I was violating WP:SYNTH. The Spanish source says something similar, but I chose to use NYT for that sentence only for English speakers. If it's in violation of Misplaced Pages policies I don't object to rewording to ensure compliance. As for whether this part is relevant, I believe it is because both religious leaders were accused of similar crimes, at the same time, in the same country. Reliable sources have written juxtaposing the two. BadHombres (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey HaeB and BadHombres. So can we agree that its safe to remove the line "Only Mexico City newspaper La Jornada and small Mexico City television station Canal 40 reported on the Maciel sex abuse scandal in Mexico where most of his victims were from and where he enjoyed the support of the Mexican elite" on grounds that the source makes no mention of LLDM church (which is what this page is all about)? The remaining second half of the paragraph is still not my favorite, and frankly neither is a large portion of that section. (the sub-header is "Sexual Abuse Accusations" not "Sexual Abuse Discussions from the Academic Community", therefore the threshold for including all detailed points of view is very low given the original purpose of this section. Any thoughts, feedback? RidjalAbdullah (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I've updated the source to address WP:SYNTH concerns. The section needs some work, but I believe some outside POVs are necessary, otherwise the section becomes a game of he said, she said. BadHombres (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, although there will be lots of disagreeing, I'm hoping we could find some common ground so that we could work together in improving the Controversy section. A safe way to go about that is to try modeling that section after similar sections, such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby pages (and other similar pages), which set the precedent for what the LLDM controversy section should look like. For example, to date, the abuse allegations section in the Bill Cosby page contains about 25 sentences that support the claim that Cosby committed a crime and 7 sentences that dismiss the accusations (mostly from Cosby and his spokesman); for Weinstein there are 14 sentences and 1 sentence, respectively. In comparison, with the exception of the latest developments, the LLDM controversy section contains about 10 sentences affirming accusations, but 14 do not affirm accusations. It's quite obvious then that content that dismisses allegations of abuse is drowning out the claims of abuse. This can be quite problematic because by the same standards, should it also be okay to "balance" (or drown out?) the sections on Beliefs and Practices by adding secondary and tertiary opposing religious viewpoints, and hence dismissing the beliefs of LLDM adherents?
Lastly, this whole section that I tried removing (but got reverted) can be really confusing to readers if we do not remove it. For example, how does the suggestion that the Catholic church initially got off easy from abuse allegations vis-a-vis allegations in LLDM help readers to better understand the two main arguments i.e. that the abuse accusations are true vs that the accusations are not true? It is for these reasons that I'll be removing that section again. Moving forward, and as I mentioned, I'd like to clean up the controversy section so that it's more in line with what other concise controversy sections look like. Please reply with any feedback, concerns, questions, or thoughts. Thanks! RidjalAbdullah (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for working on improving the controversy section and have worked toward that in my edits. As far as precedent setting articles, I do not think such a thing exists in Misplaced Pages. If anything this article is a Good Article (probably needs to be reassessed) and would be the one setting the precedent. The case in this article is far different from the others. Harvey Weinstein was arrested and Bill Cosby was found guilty, whereas no formal charges were brought against Samuel Joaquín Flores. Also, Cosby and Weinstein have dedicated articles dealing with their sexual abuse accusations; they're hardly concise as you seem to believe.
I object to your characterization that there are only "two main arguments i.e. that the abuse accusations are true vs that the accusations are not true." The case was complex and adding some background information helps the reader. I think there's value in presenting well-sourced similar accusations against another Mexican religious leader made at the same time, in the same country, but originally had different outcomes. BadHombres (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of Quotes

My edit removing the "megalomaniac" quote was reverted. The word is found in the source cited, but the source cited does not directly attribute it as a quote to Fortuny. It may very well be the author summarizing Fortuny's description of Joaquin in one word. I'm worried about using quotes to introduce non-neutral, loaded language. I think the quote is unnecessary. It's sufficient to quote Fortuny saying she believes the accusations. BadHombres (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. You're right, the source does not quote Fortuny directly, and yes it could be that the author is simply summarizing Fortuny's description in one word. I've removed the quotation marks to reflect that, so hopefully that takes care of it. Keep up the good work!RidjalAbdullah (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I still find the use of megalomaniac troubling; it's not in the spirit of WP:NPOV and it's frankly unnecessary. The guy might have been a megalomaniac, but it's not Misplaced Pages's job to provide ready-packaged insults. Readers can form their own opinions about a man claiming to be the only path to God. BadHombres (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what you mean by "the spirit of WP:NPOV"? From what I understand in WP:NPOV under WP:WIKIVOICE, it states that "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity" (italicized for emphasis). I included that Fortuny described Joaquin as a megalomaniac because she mentions that she believed the abuse allegations to be true, but if we omit that she described Joaquin as a megalomaniac, then we lose clarity as to why she believed the allegations to be true. Furthermore, as far as its usage goes, the word "megalomaniac" is less an insult than it is a psychological disorder. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
See MOS:QUOTEPOV "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Misplaced Pages's own voice." You're calling someone a megalomaniac without having a quote. Your statement that Fortuny believes the accusations are true because Joaquin is a megalomaniac is unsupported by the source. The source says
"Still, when I asked Fortuny whether she believed that Samuel was guilty of sexual abuse, she did not hestitate. “I am sure these allegations are true,” she said. (Our conversation took place before it was clear that Samuel was dying). Fortuny, who has met Samuel, describes him as a megalomaniac; at once a charismatic leader and a scandal-tainted liability. “He’s the strength of the church, but at the same time he’s the weakness of the church,” she said."
The word megalomaniac is found in a completely different sentence and no implication is made that it's the reason why Fortuny finds the accusations credible. Your wording doesn't add clarity; if anything it misleads the reader to something unsupported by the source. Moreover, if megalomaniac is a psychological disorder as you say, the use of it in this article is even more troubling. I don't think you can label someone a megalomaniac without a medical diagnosis, which does not exist in this case. BadHombres (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
There's also the issue of consistency and balance in terms of representing the views and opinions of third parties commenting on La Luz. If 'megalomaniac' is an NPOV issue, then so are the claims of "persecution by obscure interests" and "dirty war". Quite frankly I don't think any of these charged opinions serve this article - I would recommend editing it down to the following:
Anthropologist and longtime researcher of La Luz Del Mundo, Patricia Fortuny, mentioned that "I am sure these allegations are true". Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro criticized that the accusations were first brought before the mass media, and thought it was very likely that the accusations were an attempt to give the church a bad image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edits Without Summary and Use of Acronyms

User SebastianDrawsStuff has made several changes to the article without providing edit summaries, including wholesale deletion of sourced material. It's hard to parse through all these edits without understanding the reasoning for them. A lot of the edits seem to be to change La Luz del Mundo to LLDM, which to my knowledge is used informally inside the organization. I looked at several English and Spanish language sources (particularly news media) and did not find many using the acronym. I did find other acronyms beyond LLDM though, such as LDM, LLMC, and TLOTW. With that in mind, this article should not use acronyms. BadHombres (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not indiscriminately revert edits

BadHomres, I hate to sound like I’m reprimanding you or anything but you basically reverted ALL of my contributions to the “controversy” section. Everything I wrote on this page so far is in the sources, no original research, including the mention of “mega cities” (in fact “mega city” is in the title of one of the sources). And as far as BLP go, what part of its policy are you citing? As far as I know, BLP states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion“. If you Google Naason Joaquin Garcia's name you’ll find the internet replete with news about accusations of child rape, and two dozen other crimes.

I’d really like to avoid an edit war, and I really want to collaborate with you. If there’s something we can definitely agree on is that we want to improve the page. I’m happy to chat anytime on this page to iron out any kinks.

Respectfully, RidjalAbdullah (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC))

I'm all for improving the page, but your single-minded focus on the controversy section certainly makes it feel like you have an agenda against the church. Looking at your previous accounts I see you've been around since 2010, involved in multiple disputes on this page, and even got banned for sockpuppetry. While the church and its leader Naasón Joaquín García may be controversial, it is not Misplaced Pages's policy to catalogue every single criticism and controversy as you seem intent on doing. Regardless of accusations and court trials, Joaquín is a living person who has not been convicted of crime, and as such we need to abide by Misplaced Pages's BLP policies.
Please don't misuse sources. It feels like you deliberately introduce quotes from sources to give a negative spin to the page. I don't know what's the obsession with labeling these developing projects mega-cities based on a sensationalist headline (it is not used anywhere else in the source). It's unnecessarily misleading. 272 is not a mega-city by any sense of the word, especially not a stone throw away from Atlanta or seven minutes away from El Salvador's international airport. BadHombres (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence you've tried to introduce twice. The first time it was unsourced, the second time it was poorly sourced. You've tried to push this claim that the California AG "states that the church has "brainwashed" families." This is not supported by the AG's press conference (skip to 24:30) in which the AG's verbatim words are "some people will probably call this a case of brainwashing." BadHombres (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


no crosses?

somewhere in the HBO doc i noticed one lone cross in an outdoor gathering. not up at the altar but off in some side aisle.

so is it not a hard and fast rule? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:BCB3:489:E500:8E85 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: