Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:18, 20 February 2013

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mexico Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Possible Conflict of Interest editing

Given the wealth and influence of La Luz del Mundo, I'm concerned that we may be experiencing a campaign of edits by a few passive-aggressive and overly-sympathetic editors, hence compromising the quality of this article per WP:COI (I'm particularly concerned about users Ajaxfiore and Fordx12, and notices will be sent out to them).

I will not rule out that these editors are being compensated somehow (spiritually and/or financially) by higher-ranking associates of LLDM, nor will I rule out the possibility of bribery of outside editors.

I would therefore suggest that from this point forward, any possibly contentious changes made to this article by these users (or anyone who appears suspect) be explained on the talk page in advance and given ample time for discussion before proceeding with their contributions (this includes removal of content in the Controversy section). Repeated failure to do so will likely result in being implicated in the Conflict of Interest noticeboard (note that this applies to the Spanish version here, as some editors here are also involved in that version of the article; I will also translate this notice and post it there).

Please do not take this notice lightly. In the best of interests, RidjalA (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In absence of concrete evidence this kind of accusation is useless and in conflict with the policy against personal attacks. If you have evidence take it to the COI notice board, if not take your insinuations elsewhere. Posting this is an obvious attempt at intimidating the other parties in a discussion in which you are in the minority. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:COI, the COI noticeboard "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." It should be noted that the entire "Discrimination" section here is a direct consequence of what I'm talking about (this section improperly synthesizes sources, like insinuating that a woman was the victim of an "assault" when in fact she was pushed by another woman on the bus; that's just an outright exaggeration, and I doubt warrants notable mention on the article). Also, Ajaxfiore has been repeatedly deleting the same information here and I've implored for the user to discuss contentious changes in the talk page, and to date has ignored my requests. Note that this user is stirring quite a ruckus in the Spanish version of LLDM here. And I don't have a problem making concessions if I were ever the minority viewpoint, I'm just not comfortable with editors with apparent conflicts of interests tipping the scales when we establish a consensus. Best, RidjalA (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveling unfounded accusations against fellow editors is not the way to use the talkpage. If you are not comfortable with your fellow editors the solution is for you to stop editing where they do - not for you to insinuate they have conflicts of interest without a shred of evidence to support the accusation. I think it would be becoming for you to apologize, but at the very least I can tell you that if you keep leveling unsupported accusations, I will report you for personal attacks at ANI.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be best if I stated the evidence that I have, since maybe that's what's confusing us. That way we can ascertain the existence (or nonexistence) of a conflict of interest, and how we may all proceed from here.RidjalA (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1. To date, Ajaxfiore has refused to answer if he/she believes that Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God, and if he/she is affiliated with La Luz del Mundo. In fact I asked the user three times, and my questions were repeatedly sidestepped; unless this specific editor has something to hide, I don't see a problem with answering these two simple questions.
2. Fordx12 has in the past declared their affiliation with LLDM and has deleted content from the Controversy section without discussing it in advance to conform with WP:COI for potential conflict of interest editors (in all fairness, this user's edits have lately been more constructive to the page, primarily related to the History section).
3. Ajaxfiore has gone to great lengths to try and remove content like so (I've stated for Ajaxfiore to utilize the talk page, which the user never did) from a book from Jorge Erdely and Lourdes Arguelles that studies religious sects and their unfavorable plights, including alleged human rights abuses by LLDM. Here, in this RfC Ajaxfiore repeatedly rejects users' opinions who don't find anything questionable about this source. To date, Ajaxfiore has continued to remove content from this book both in the English and Spanish versions of this article using a multitude of reasons (for the record, the book's findings are backed up by LA Times), which further raises a flag of possible conflicts of interests.
4. Both these users have a vetted interest in getting me reprimanded for obstructing their progress in deleting content from the Controversy section; they even jointly issued an extensive (and exhaustive) Request for User Conduct against me here (one admin in response stated in the RfC's talk page that this RfC was an overreaction).

I don't know where to go from here, but I certainly would not want to discourage these editors from contributing to this article. I do however have legitimate concerns over the nature and the intent of some of their contributions, especially when these users are overly sympathetic towards this sect, yet they proceed to make "Bold" controversial edits.

I've implored for these users to utilize the Talk page and to declare any possibly contentious edits in advance like I've done so myself here, but these users refuse to do so, and unless they have something to not want to discuss with the community, then I don't see why they shouldn't be utilizing the talk page to discuss contentious edits with foresight. It is because of this that I reserve convictions of COI taking place. So the simple solution is: discuss in advance. Unfortunately, that is not happening and we're left with few other options. If you have a better approach, please let me know. In the best of interests, RidjalA (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No editor owes any other editor answers about personal beliefs or faith. Beliefs and faiths never constitute a conflict of interest, which the policy WP:COI states very clearly. Biased editing is something else entirely, and something that can be handled through several[REDACTED] channels (I would suggest the POV noticeboard). Now, there is nothing that suggests to me that these editors have a stronger positive bias than your own quite apparent negative bias towards lldm. You are absolutely right that the talk page is for discussing contentious edits, it is NOT for speculating about beliefs and motivations of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Maunus is right in every one of the points he makes above. WP:COI specifically relates to individuals promoting their personal beliefs or opinions, not those of groups to which they belong. FWIW, I would myself, as a rather staunch Catholic, would also refuse to answer the question whether Flores is an Apostle of God, because I think the latter term is potentially much broader than some might think, and I myself don't know enough about the subject to say anything one way or another. I also personally think that perhaps Buddha, Muhammed, Gandhi, Bahuallah, and others might also qualify as "Apostles of God" in some way, given the frankly vague nature of that term. That would not reasonably be used as either a basis for a claim of POV or COI against me. I would remind all editors involved that the article talk page is primarily to discuss the article itself, not other editors. Other venues exist for such comments. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@RidjalA: I concur with Maunus and JohnCarter. Look at it this way: Just assume that all "pro LLDM" editors are affiliated with the church; assume that they do want to see "pro LLDM" material added to the article. So what? All editors have their own biases: there is no WP rule against Manchester United fans editing the Manchester United article. It becomes a problem only when the behavior of the editors is crossing the line. Have the editors introduced material without sources? Have they misrepresented sources? Have they maliciously deleted material? Those are the kinds of specific behaviors that are problems. My advice is just to ignore the personal beliefs/interest of other editors and focus like a laser beam on the content & sources of the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm taking close note of all your comments and advice. I'll stick to working like a laser beam, in spite of the pro lldm floodlights. Cheers RidjalA (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@RidjalA I am grateful for others who have clarified WP:COI. The Catholic Church, for example, is a massive organization with wealth that LLDM could only dream of and whose power is rivaled by none in many nations (Like Mexico), yet I would consider it highly unlikely that they'd pay or otherwise entice editors (Catholic or none-Catholic) to edit on Misplaced Pages. I have always striven to make sure that my edits had some sort of wiki policy to back them up. I even stated to you before what I want to do with this article, and I have been doing so (Expanding the History, and beliefs sections etc...). I have asked you before to please stop attacking me, I hope this is the last time. Fordx12 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this matter has already been settled, and I appreciate the comments by other editors. However, I think it's necessary to clarify some things in case this ever comes up again.

1. I do not believe the quality of the article has been compromised by Fordx12 and me. Here is a comparison of the article as it was before Fordx12 and I became involved and as it is now. Note: I am not attributing all of this to Fordx12 and me, as many editors have also contributed.
2. I am not being compensated spiritually and/or financially or otherwise bribed for editing this article.
3. I also contribute to the Spanish wiki, and have contributed to the Spanish version of this article. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, considering RidjalA has also contributed to it.
4. I have not stirred a ruckus in the Spanish version of this article. I made my first edits in the beginning of November and asked the main contributor to the article to revise my edits which he did. The article was later nominated for deletion, and it remained but some editors raised certain issues with the article. I then addressed these specific issues, but unfortunately an antivandalism editor perceived one of edits as vandalism. After a few reverts and discussion my edit remained but another editor reverted it, but then reverted his reversion so that my edit was upheld. You can ask the main contributor to the Spanish wiki to verify this: User_talk:Abajo_estaba_el_pez. Note that I have also contributed to other articles in the Spanish wiki.
5. Regarding the phrase "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades." It was being discussed when RidjalA reintroduced it, I had also already proposed to replace it with a quote from the LA Times due to issues mentioned here. This problem has now been solved by Audacity.
6. Regarding the Rfc on Erdely's book, in which I "repeatedly users' opinions who don't find anything questionable about this source," RidjalA's accusations are false. I admit I was rude to one editor, Jonund. However, I think this has also already been solved.
7. I believe I have properly utilized the talk page for any "possibly contentious edits".
8. As for the question "Do you believe Samuel Joaquin Flores is an Apostle of God?", I have said it is irrelevant. As John Carter has said the "term is potentially much broader than some might think"; it's not a simple yes or no question. Either answer is not favorable to me. Both answers imply that I believe in the Christian God, which may or may not be true. If I had said yes, RidjalA and perhaps other editors could try to use this against me; if I had said no, other editors might have also used this against me. There's no easy way to answer this question, whatever I say will end up being used against me. Going back to what John Carter said, I have noticed outsiders address Joaquin Flores as apostle, and I have also noticed other Christian groups use the term as synonymous to minister. Furthermore, answering this question might have opened the door to editors inquiring more about my personal life, which I like to keep separate from WP. I'm willing to admit that I am a big believer in religious freedom, and when speaking with lldm members I "prepend" Apostle to Samuel Joaquin Flores in the same way I append pbuh to Prophet Muhammad when conversing with Muslims. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Having just noticed this comment, I have to acknowledge that you show more sensitivity on this subject than I do regarding Muslims, and I've worked closely with Muslims in the past. Honestly, that last statement, insensitive as I am, never occurred to me to do so. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As for point #5, the issue was not solved since the line only states what one source states while ignoring the other (i.e. explains distrust of Mexico system (first source), but doesn't explain impunity of the church (source 2)). Audacity correctly suggested that we implement both sources, and I am following his logic by re-introducing data from the second source.RidjalA (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on reverting of content in Controversy Section

The lldm lobby has not been very receptive of the full version of this article, and its content has repeatedly been replaced with "better" alternatives (in a minute I'll explain why they're not "better"). Given that my edits to restore and incorporate all POV's in this article are increasingly reverted by Ajaxfiore and Fordx12, I'm going to explain here what is wrong with their version (it's actually quite a simple error). Hopefully it will ease misunderstandings, and open discussion if necessary.

The problem is one-fold: exclusion of data.

For instance, Ajaxfiore/Fordx12 took this line:

"Meanwhile, authorities said that because of the victims' distrust of the Mexican legal system they were not being fully cooperative"

and replaced it with this:

"Meanwhile, authorities said that the dissidents were not being fully cooperative"

Here's what the source states:

"Authorities are investigating the attack and several others that have been reported. But judicial authorities say the victims haven't been fully cooperative.

For their part, the former members are suspicious of the legal system, complaining that it favors the politically influential church." (LA Times)}

The problem with their version is that

1. it leaves out that the source refers to them in this line as "victims" and not "dissidents", and
2. it leaves out that the victims were being uncooperative because of their distrust of the legal system in Mexico.

In another part of the article Ajaxfiore/Fordx12 had for the nth-time removed a quotation from Erdely and Argüelles which stated:

"the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades."

And replaced it with:

"Dissidents were suspicious of the Mexican legal system arguing that it favors the politically influential church"

Ajaxfiore reasoned that this was a "better" alternative to Erdely and Argüelles ' quotation (whether it constitutes a "better" alternative is totally subjective, and I disagree with Ajaxfiore's logic on this one) One admin (Audacity) had kindly suggested for us to use both sources instead, which I concur with, and changed the article so that it reads:

"Dissidents and critics Jorge Erdely and Lourdes Argüelles were suspicious of the Mexican legal system, arguing that it favored the church"

The problem here is that although the intention was to use both sources, this version makes use of only one source with the exception of having Erdely and Argüelles' names attached to it. I suggest that if we are to use both sources, then we should in fact use both sources so that it reads as such (this is the current version):

"Dissidents were suspicious of the Mexican legal system arguing that "it favors the politically influential church"; critics Dr. Jorge Erdely and Dr. Lourdes Arguelles say that "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades."

So the problem in all these cases is simple; the problem is that they exclude of valuable data from sources. I have already fixed this problem, and if there's any disagreement please discuss it with the community here. Peace be with you, brothers/sisters. RidjalA (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@RidjalA First of all, please provide proof that I did any such thing beyond my one sole edit regarding your little disagreement with Ajaxfiore. This diff is my one sole act I reverted to the edit that John Carter left here in his edit summary he said "Why not cite both?" I don't recall Audacity ever saying anything on this matter, could you provide me with a diff? Other than that, I have done nothing else. My edit was an attempt to stop your constant reversions. I thought you agreed to the "Edit-revert-discuss" method, see the following diff . You boldly edited, Ajaxfiore reverted you, yet you did not discuss. Infact, you reverted a reversion...more than once. You continue to lump me with Ajaxfiore even though I have asked you to stop. What will it take for you to stop that? Fordx12 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fordx12, that edit was done by Audacity (who is also an admin). RidjalA please stop pairing me with Fordx12 and calling us "the lldm lobbby", this is a violation of Misplaced Pages's No personal attacks policy. You have received several warnings in your talk page, and the next time you will be reported.

The source does not say that "Meanwhile, authorities said that because of the victims' distrust of the Mexican legal system they were not being fully cooperative", so inserting this into the article would be not be correct. The LA Times says "But judicial authorities say the victims haven't been fully cooperative. For their part, the former members are suspicious of the legal system, complaining that it favors the politically influential church." This is completely different from what you are trying to introduce. The dissidents could have had other reasons, the source does not say "because" or even implies it.

The source may claim that an individual committed a crime, but according to Misplaced Pages BLP policies "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty", therefore any "victims" become "alleged victims"; in this case "dissidents" is fine.

The admin said "why not cite both?", please seek clarification if you want. There is no need to include Erdely's diatribe against the LLDM. The quote "Dissidents were suspicious of the Mexican legal system arguing that it favors the politically influential church" is equivalent to Erdely's accusations, therefore including Erdely's is redundant and unnecessarily. Furthermore, titles such as Dr. are unnecessary per MOS. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?

The source in question is the book titled "To Live and Die in The Light of the World Polygamy, Politics and Human Trafficking Inside La Luz del Mundo: Mexico's Most Secretive Religious Sect" edited by Lourdes Argüelles, specifically "Chapter IV Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México" by Jorge Erdely. The book was meant to be published the spring of 2009 but never was; only two chapters exist from it in this website. The website itself has not been updated since April 28, 2009. Note that Erdely is not included among the authors, yet he is the author of a chapter.

Of the three editors who work in this article, two (Fordx12 and I) believe the source should not be used, while the other editor (RidjalA) believes it should be used. RidjalA has even made false attributions to the source, and copied chunks of text from it and has refused to paraphrase it. RidjalA also tried to eliminate another source claiming it was being used as an antithesis to Erdely's work. The argument for including it has been that it is coauthored by Lourdes Argüelles.

Authorship

The top of the website mentions Lourdes Argüelles and Jorge Erdely as the authors. However I compared writings by Argüelles and Erdely, and determined that Erdely is the sole author of the webpage. This can also be seen by sentences such as:

In 1997, I interviewed Guadalupe Avelar, who told me that she had a son who was indeed fathered by the founder of LLDM

I quote Amparo: “Ana Medina was in charge of the girls, and I was one of them...

Karem has expressed to me her concern about her safety for sharing this information with researchers, and she had to change residency shortly after the interview.

It must be stated that all key narratives were collected directly from the primary sources by me in an appropriate setting before the persons involved decided to go public with their stories. This article cites only a number of relevant testimonials, not all of them.

Furthermore mistakes such as

The case of La Luz del Mundo in México

These are short, somewhat fluid statements that change depending on whatever public controversies or political scenarios the sect is going thorough.

This view has lead to a de facto institutionalization of diverse types of sexual abuse by Joaquín of mainly female LLDM minors, utilizing religious justifications.

make it very difficult to believe there was any editing before posting it online.

Academic background

• Unfinished degree from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

He was expelled for punching a professor during class. With his influences he also managed to get the professor fired.

• BS in biology from University of Mary Hardin–Baylor
• Lacks a master's degree
• Online Ph.D in Philosophy from Newport University

In his personal website he claims to have a PhD in philosophy, but does not mention his alma mater, fortunately it is mentioned elsewhere. Newport University was an unaccredited, very well known diploma mill, until it changed it's name to Janus University to clean its bad reputation. In fact the Mexican government issued an alert listing several institutions (including Newport) that were unaccredited in Mexico and declaring all degrees conferred by these institutions invalid.

Currently Janus University does not offer philosophy degrees.

• Postdoctoral research in theology in The Graduate Theological Foundation at Oxford University in 2000

The Graduate Theological foundation is another distance learning, unaccredited, diploma mill. Erdely claims to have gone to Oxford to study, yet according to one of his former followers, Erdely did this online and never went to Oxford.

He begins appending Dr to his name in 2000, which means he completed his doctoral degree in the same year he completed his postdoctoral research. In his books and personal website he never mentions Newport University or the Graduate Theological Foundation, he only mentions Oxford University. In fact he often claims to be affiliated with Oxford University, and often presents himself as "an Oxford-educated Mexican doctor in theology". Sometimes he even claims to be a "doctor in philosophy and theology from Oxford University."

Erdely is a very wealthy man, as he is the main investor of the family run Kola Loca (Spanish for crazy glue) company. His family became extremely wealthy when, according to Japanese investors who sued for theft, the family stole the secret formula to the glue. It is not difficult for Erdely to buy academic degrees.

Instituto Cristiano de México

In the words of journalist Gastón Pardo, the Instituto Cristiano de México is a cult that in 1997 launched a smear campaign against various religious leaders in the Mexican media, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of slander and defamation. After being expelled from the Centro Cristiano Calacoaya (for harmfully influincing the teens of the congragation) Erdely founded his owned restorationatist movement called Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada. He subsequently created this fictitious institution (it is not registered before the Mexican Secretariat of Governance) called Instituto Cristiano de México, composed of his faithful followers. The institute claims to be composed of renowned academics, yet no one knows the identity of these "academics".

Besides Erdely, the only other member of the Instituto Cristiano de México whose identity is known is César Octavio Mascareñas de los Santos, who has a psychology degree from Newport University. This man is currently serving prison time charged with organized crime and trafficking of minors.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). On 27 March 1997 (one day after the mass suicide of Heaven's Gate), Erdely declared in the press, radio, and on television that members of the Luz del Mundo church were willing to commit suicide if their leader demanded it. For two years the Luz del Mundo church and Erdely clashed in the media, each time Erdely intensified his attacks calling the church a cult, a destructive cult, and ultimately political-religious mafia. In order to give credibility to his claims he called upon Hugo Elizalde from the Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos, who claimed to have no connection to Erdely. Nonetheless, Erdely is the founder of the Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos, and Hugo Elizalde was one of his faithful followers.

Casitas del Sur

In the words of journalist Lydia Cacho "the international network of the Iglesia Cristiana Restaurada 'Los Perfectos', headed by the powerful millionaire Jorge Erdely, was caught trafficking children rescued from Latin America and Asia for illegal adoptions to families in the congregation." The Mexican government is currently after Erdely who has been identified as the mastermind behind the international ring of child trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, illegal adoption, and organ trafficking. He is still at large and his location is unknown.

The list goes on...

I could go on and on about how Erdely's former followers accuse him of being a "spiritual dictator" who promoted misogyny, child abuse, among other things. Regarding his Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México, I could go on about how Erdely takes his sources out of context, misinterprets them, and sometimes make outright false attributions to those sources. I could also go on about how he contradicts the sources currently in use in article, but I'll leave it at that.

References

1. Erdely, Jorge. "Chapter IV Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México". In Argüelles, Lourdes (ed.). To Live and Die in The Light of the World Polygamy, Politics and Human Trafficking Inside La Luz del Mundo: Mexico's Most Secretive Religious Sect. Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones. Retrieved 2012-11-19.
2. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 79. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
3. Erdely Graham, Jorge. "El maestro al que corrieron de la UNAM". El Universal. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
4. Erdely Graham, Jorge. "Dr. Jorge Erdely - Acerca de". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
5. Erdely Graham, Jorge. "Dr. Jorge Erdely - Acerca de". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
6. "La Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones". Instituto Cristiano de México. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
7. "Announcement of Newport University to its current Students and Alumni". Janus University. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
8. "Programas sin Validez". Sistema de Reconocimiento de Validez Oficial de Estudios. Secretaría de Educación Pública. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
9. "Programs". Janus University. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
10. Erdely Graham, Jorge. "Dr. Jorge Erdely - Acerca de". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
11. "Oxford Foundation Fellowships". The Graduate Theological Foundation. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
12. Lara Klahr, Marco (31 March 2009). ""Los Perfectos, un mito"". El Universal. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
13. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 99. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
14. "Oxford Foundation Fellowships". The Graduate Theological Foundation. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
15. Erdely Graham, Jorge (2000). "Ritos y creencias del nuevo milenio: Una perspectiva transcultural" (PDF). Revista académica para el estudio de las religiones. 3: 178. Retrieved 15 January 2013. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help)
16. Erdely Graham, Jorge. "Dr. Jorge Erdely - Acerca de". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
17. Erdely Graham, Jorge. "Contenido - Sectas Destructivas". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
18. "RITOS Y CREENCIAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO - UNA PERSPECTIVA TRANSCULTURAL". La Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
19. Tuckman, Jo (11 May 2012). "Abuser priests go to Mexico for sanctuary". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
20. "Sectas destructivas". Instituto Cristiano de México. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
21. "EL MANTO SAGRADO COBIJA A LOS ABUSADORES". Instituto Cristiano de México. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
22. "EL YA BASTA DE LAS MONJAS". Instituto Cristiano de México. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
23. Martínez, Sanjuana (2 March 2009). "Pese a denuncias, el DIF nacional envió niños a los albergues de Los Perfectos". La Jornada. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
24. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 76. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
25. Pardo, Gastón (13 August 2005). "Los responsables están avalados por el gobierno". Voltaire Network. Retrieved 12 January 2013. A lo largo de 1997, una secta denominada Instituto Cristiano de México lanzó ataques en los medios informativos en contra de líderes religiosos, a quienes intentó desacreditar con el empleo sistemático de difamaciones y calumnias.
26. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 79. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
27. Expediente 0000400054408 (PDF), Comité de Información de la Secretaria de Gobernación, 2008, p. 2, retrieved 18 January 2013
28. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 101. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
29. "SOBRE EL CIICM". Instituto Cristiano de México. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
30. "Agenda". Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
31. Masferrer K., Elio (2004). Es Del Cesar o Es de Dios?: Un Modelo Antropológico Del Campo Religioso. Plaza y Valdés, CEIICH-UNAM. p. 158. ISBN 9707223162, 9789707223165. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
32. Barranco, Bernardo (18 February 2009). "Interrogantes sobre Jorge Erdely, el pastor de la denuncia". La Jornada. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
33. Masferrer K., Elio (2004). Es Del Cesar o Es de Dios?: Un Modelo Antropológico Del Campo Religioso. Plaza y Valdés, CEIICH-UNAM. p. 161. ISBN 9707223162, 9789707223165. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
34. Masferrer K., Elio (2004). Es Del Cesar o Es de Dios?: Un Modelo Antropológico Del Campo Religioso. Plaza y Valdés, CEIICH-UNAM. p. 159. ISBN 9707223162, 9789707223165. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
35. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 101. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
36. Martínez, Sanjuana (2009). Se venden niños. México, D.F.: Temas de Hoy. p. 87. ISBN 978-607-07-0162-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
37. Lydia Cacho (1 May 2011). Esclavas del poder. Grijalbo. ISBN 978-607-31-0417-3. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
38. Martínez, Sanjuana (22 April 2012). "Persiste impunidad sobre secuestro de niños de los albergues conocidos como Las Casitas". La Jornada. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
39. Gutiérrez, Noemí (3 April 2009). "PGR evalúa atraer caso Casitas, dice ONG". El Universal. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
40. "Ven insuficiente captura de líder de 'Casitas'". El Universal. 23 June 2009. Retrieved 18 January 2013.

Comments

• It seems straightforward that Erdely is not an expert or authority regarding Luz del Mundo. It seems equally straightforward that his opinion regarding Luz del Mundo is not notable, and that the specific source is not notable as it is neither published nor has it received mention in other sources. In short do not use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Responding to the RFC. Per WP:SOURCES a source is considered published if it has been "made available to the public in some form", which, being on a web-page, this clearly has been. So it isn't "unpublished" in the sense used by WP. Not being able to read Spanish, I'm very reluctant to comment on the broader issue of the source's reliability (for example, whether it's self-published or not). Anaxial (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend using a machine translation service such as Google Translate for the Spanish-language links. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely a questionable source. The ICM and academic sections are particularly disconcerting. My opinion is that we should not use it for such a contentious claim. Perhaps there will be others we can use. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the information provided above, I would also be disinclined to use this source, especially for contentious claims.TheBlueCanoe 06:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the information provided, this is a source which would probably best be used only regarding the opinion of Erdely himself, to the extent that that opinion might be notable or relevant, such as, for instance, a biography article on him or articles on his works. But there does not seem to be at this time any good reason to believe that he is sufficiently notable enough or reliable enough for any more than the most basic mention in this article, and probably would best be not mentioned at all, pending discovery of other sources or other material on the matter. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the above, I don't see reasons why the material by Erdely on a website would constitute a reliable source on this topic. According to Google Scholar Erdely seems in fact to have published something, but not in journals, rather websites and the odd conference. Therefore, his views don't seem to be reliable in their own right. The book section on the website doesn't seem to have gone through editorial control of a reliable organization. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Aside from what everyone else has mentioned, I would also like to point out that this source in question is used to make contentious claims about a living person. This source is questionable WP:QS, appears to be self published WP:SPS which would violate BLP policy WP:BLPSPS, and according to WP:BLPSOURCES if this source is questionable (Which it is) it should not be used to provide content about living persons. Self published sources, as noted in WP:BLPSOURCES must be done by individuals in relevant fields. The source does not meet that criteria either. Fordx12 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• I should point out that this is the second or third time that this exact same rfc has been issued by Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 after the first ones failed to sway opinions. In fact, I should point out that if you follow the link I provided, Ajaxfiore takes some flak from me and other users for his repeated attempts at discrediting this source. This discussion has been past closed and from what I recall, Erdely's publications were deemed acceptable. To be safe, I would encourage that we use reliable secondary sources. For this case, the L.A. Times independently reiterates the existence of widespread sexual abuse that Erdely reported (in case you haven't followed the news, the L.A. Times has proved exceptional at uncovering cases of large scale sexual abuse, including The Boys Scouts of America and most recently the Catholic clergy).

So that there is no confusion, the book is also found in libraries like UC Berkeley does here. So for the nth time, Erdely's publications are reliable and substantiated by reliable sources. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA please be honest when posting comments. The link you provided is for an RfC on Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones where Erdely worked as an "editor". In that RfC editors concluded that the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones meets minimum WP:RS requirements, "but should perhaps be used with attribution". I have requested input from the editors involved in that RfC. Furthermore I have used the Los Angeles Times as the main source for that section, but you deliberately replace the Los Angeles Times with Erdely's false claims despite pending discussions. I must also point out that the Los Angeles Times does not support Erdely's claims and even says the following: "He is Jorge Erdely, the former pastor of a small church and head of an anti-cult group that has single-mindedly attacked La Luz del Mundo." Erdely contradicts Los Angeles Times by saying that Padilla claimed to have been drugged and raped, while the Los Angeles Times reported that Padilla accused the church leader of "forcing him to have sex when he was a teenager." Erdely does this with several other sources, takes sources out of context, and makes outright false attributions to sources. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I must also point out that the fact that a book (which by the way is not the book in question) is held at a library does not make it a reliable source. Ajaxfiore (talk)

Response to Ajaxfiore: "Ridjal please be honest when posting comments."

Please refrain from making such a rampant accusation against me. I would hate for you to get blocked from editing (last time you were blocked you weren't even warned).

"I must also point out that the fact that a book (which by the way is not the book in question) is held at a library does not make it a reliable source."

Not to be pretentious or anything, but that's a pretty pseudo-academic thing to say. I'd expect to hear something like that out of Big Brother, or Our Ford. We might have different notions for what we deem "reliable" in this case. From my POV you guys (fordx12 and ajaxfiore) are bent on launching a smear campaign against Erdely and against the victims of sexual abuse (read the section on Moises Padilla in this article and how the church responded to his stabbing), and your guys' exhaustive research on debasing Erdely seems eery and obsessive, and makes me suspicious that you guys are working with and for LLDM. That's my POV. Salutations. RidjalA (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the "Book" in the library is not the book in question here. It's the first volume of Revista Academica...acording to google anyway. RidjalA as for your issues with the content, please see my suggestion on your talk page.Fordx12 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insight, Fordx12. I've replied to you on my page.

Ajaxfiore, I forgot to respond to something else you wrote:

"Erdely contradicts Los Angeles Times by saying that Padilla claimed to have been drugged and raped, while the Los Angeles Times reported that Padilla accused the church leader of "forcing him to have sex when he was a teenager."

That is not a contradiction; it's supplementary. One source states that there was foul play (L.A. Times), the other expands on it (Erdely). For it to be contradictory there would need to exist solid counter-evidence to his first statement of having been raped (say if in Erdely he stated he was raped but in the L.A. Times he stated that there was never any wrong-doing). Point being, Erdely is still a reliable supplementary source, and the following line from Erdely stays: "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades." Best, RidjalA (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"forced" means it was "obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power", which is what all the reliable sources imply. Erdely however states that he was drugged and therefore there was no need to use force. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We might need to tweak the logic a bit there, Ajax; it's slightly faulty. For instance, if Padilla was drugged during the abuse then that doesn't automatically imply that Samuel Joaquin's abuse was not coerced (that's where the logic fails), in fact there's no source that states that the abuse was not coerced (one says he was raped, the other it was "forced sex").

Certainly we can make an infinitude of assumptions (albeit unproven) about what transpired after the drugs: it might have made the abuse more tolerable for the victim (perhaps even enjoyable?), we can assume that the drugs made him put up less of a fight, or even assume that the drugs made him want to sing Dr. Greenthumb. Without a source, we really don't know.

I'll close by saying that Padilla being drugged and forced into sexual relations are not two mutually exclusive ideas. Thus we should include that Padilla was drugged and forced to have sex as a minor, which if we're going by the sources, is the most correct thing to do. The stories don't contradict each other: they supplement each other. If any minor discrepancy should arise between our sources, then we should include what both sources are saying, as opposed to quarreling between ourselves over who's got it right. Saludos RidjalA (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User AjaxFiore altering information with citations not

The user AjaxFiore is editing sections putting citations that do not reflect a true investigation with prove that the rape accusation were made up, all the links and editions made by the user are based on speculations, which for the church to do, the user is altering completely the spanish version and English version in order to favor the church, by giving the readers notions of defamation against the church WikiNuevo (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

please check on user AjaxFiore

The user is editing competently the page, misleading the readers in order to promote a perspective of defamation against the church, He is putting irrelevant citations that give nothing more than speculations against the rape accusations, can I also put my name on the sections and write my speculations about the leaders without any reliable proof or investigation? he is also accusing me of vandalizing. which makesWikiNuevo (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) no sense at all

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who feels that way. I agree that the user is being unconstructive and uncooperative in the Spanish article. Maybe someone should look further into this, but I do know that this user was recently blocked. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Both WikiNuevo and I were blocked for violating WP:3RR in this article, something RidjalA frequently does (eg he did this just a few days ago) but I have opted not to report him. In my defense, I had misunderstood Wiki policies and believed disruptive editing constituted vandalism, fortunately the admins have corrected me. Furthermore, unlike WikiNuevo, I received no warning for violating 3RR and was blocked 20 minutes after my last contribution to this article, meanwhile I was busy editing other articles as can be seen in my contributions.

RidjalA, you have been asked several times to stop attacking editors, yet you have done so here, in my talk page, and in WikiNuevo's talk page. This is your last warning, next time I will seek dispute resolution. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Hello,

It is incredibly difficult to summarize and link the months of dispute resolutions, RfC's, Third Editor Opinions, consensus building discussions, removal of text and headings that violated either WP:BLP or WP:NPOV and edits done by several other editors over the past several months concerning the controversy section. Even now there is an RFC on content regarding one source that was heavily used to cite the controversy section in the format that the new user WikiNuevo left it to (which resembles highly the format that existed months ago, he/she might as well copied and pasted it back). WikiNuevo's edit can be seen here in its latest incarnation .

Now the issue here is, for example, the content reads 2004 for TV based accusations, when sources say it is 1997/1998. It also includes new content from a none reliable source that seems to lack notability. It has removed several sources, and the content they support. Restored sections that consensus had removed (regarding the 1942 schism). Restored badly made subsection headings that violate neutrality rules, as discussed in the past on this talk page. Talking about neutrality, WikiNuevo removed virtually all the different POV's that exist concerning the church's "controversies." Content cited to secondary and primary sources, some of which are scholarly, has been deleted to favor a source that is currently being deemed unreliable and unusable by the RFC located above this section.

There is even a copyright issue with the first sentence of the "Rape Accusations" subsection in WikiNuevo's edit. It copies Erdely's source verbatim and cites it to an organization whose name appears to be that of a government agency, but if you read the RFC above, you'll see that it is in fact one of Erdely's groups, which begs it's reliability.

It is for these reasons, that WikiNuevo's edit can not be allowed. If he or she wishes to contribute, it is best for them to do so within wiki policy, and to realise that the "altered drastically and rewritten" (as he/she said in their first edit summary ) controversy section was drastically altered and rewritten because that is what happens over time to a wiki article. Sources are added, judged, removed. Content gets edited over time to add more information, points of views, and to correct any issues of reliability. Fordx12 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disseminating latest addition (needs special attention)

The following sentences from my POV need some attention so that they stay on-topic. The topic is Sexual Abuse Accusations Against the Leader. This latest addition goes off on a tangent as such: starts off responding to rape accusations, and goes off on a discussion about quarrels between church and christian group (among other random information that is weakly associated with the main topic):

The accusations against Joaquín Flores were never proven before a court. According to anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro, the Mexican government opted not to take action because there was no legal basis for a sanction, and this would open the door for sanctions against the Catholic clergy. However, Garma Navarro criticized the fact that the accusations were brought before the mass media instead of a judicial court, "because they cannot operate as an alternative judicial court, and their aim is to maintain and increase their audience." According to Garma Navarro, it is very likely that the researchers involved were being manipulated by groups opposed to the church that sought to give the church a bad image. Garma Navarro believes it is very likely that these accusations were made in a "desire for revenge by intolerant extremist groups." He also reported that members of the church were harassed due to their religious affiliation during what they perceived to be a lynching campaign against their leader.

Religion specialist Bernardo Barranco, said the controversy between La Luz del Mundo and Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de México seemed like a religious war "that was very well exploited by the media in their fierce struggle for ratings." According to Barranco, there were many doubts regarding the alleged sexual accusations and the academic character of Erdely's group. Due to a lack of information and a rigorous treatment of the case, it was the media that judged the permissibility of the religious organization. This, according to Barranco, "creates a precedent that is downright dangerous, because the media are the least qualified to do it."

Catholic prelate Girolamo Prigione demanded that truth be sought without making false accusations since "it is very easy to falsely accuse, slander, or defame", which Prigione believes is also a crime.

According to journalist Gastón Pardo, the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.

Save for the first three sentences, this entire section is unnecessarily verbose and should be scaled down to not only be less wordy, but more relevant. Otherwise, it's just a semi-coherent ramble and it should be removed. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that paragraph. It may be possible to make it more concise, but all the information seems relevant. It discusses how the accusations were never made in the actual legal system, just in the media, and what possible motives may be behind such actions which include rivalry, and persecution. These are different POV's about the accusations, and as a rule regarding neutrality and controversial content, all POV's from reliable sources must be presented.Fordx12 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

If an article contains non-neutral language, one does not place a copyediting tag on it. I have changed the tag accordingly. I haven't examined the article in depth, but the lead section itself reads like a press release for the church and needs to be completely rewritten. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a recent edit by an IP user. I attempted to revert, though his/her edits started to pose problems for that (Mostly 3RR rule related...the definition seems to be more fluid than I thought and didn't want to risk it). I have restored the article lead to it's previous incarnation. Fordx12 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the IP once, but decided to stop lest RidjalA accuse me of article ownership and edit warring. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN Case

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Mexico articles
• Low-importance Mexico articles
• WikiProject Mexico articles
• C-Class Architecture articles
• Low-importance Architecture articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles