Talk:La Luz del Mundo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Abel Joaquín Avelar

Regarding this sentence

 To settle the discord, Eusebio registered himself as the father of Abel Joaquín Avelar, the child of Guadalupe Avelar.

The "researcher" Jorge Erdely provides no proof of this other than the testimony of Guadalupe Avelar, and her son Abel Joaquín Avelar. It is worth mentioning that LLDM members deny this. However the current version of the Wikipedia article states this as fact. I have written a lot about why Erdely is not a reliable, but allow me to rant about him a bit more. Erdely states that Mr. Joaquín Avelar "keeps a low profile out of fear for his life" when he is in fact the leader (apostle) of two religious movements, Iglesia de Jesucristo and Camino al Cielo (http://www.asociacionesreligiosas.gob.mx/work/models/AsociacionesReligiosas/pdf/Numeralia/AR_por_SGAR.pdf). Erdely also states that "he fled LLDM after his father’s death in 1964," however another source states that he left LLDM in 1965 to form his own group (http://esnuestrahistoria.wordpress.com/historia/las-cuatro-vertientes-del-pentecostalismo-mexicano/). Erdely also states that "to try to settle the inner rift, the sect’s founder, Aarón Joaquín, eventually recognized the infant and registered him as his own son." Notice the use of the word "infant." However in the other source already mentioned, Joaquín Avelar claims that he was raised in El Buen Pastor Church and started preaching in 1957, but in 1959 he was called by Aarón Joaquín and became a minister of LLDM (by this time he was already a grown man, not an infant). Erdely also claims that Ms. Avelar has remained as a member of LLDM. Who raised Joaquín Avelar then? His real father, one of the men who left LLDM in 1942? Why didn't Joaquín Avelar return to El Buen Pastor, whose teachings are nearly identical to LLDM's (besides the lack of apostle)? Joaquín Avelar clearly sought apostleship for himself, could it be possible that he fabricated this in order to legitimize his apostleship? Lastly, Erdely claims that "Mr. Abel Joaquín Avelar, now a grown man, has corroborated this account." Why does he need Joaquín Avelar to corroborate the account. This would make sense if it was Joaquín Avelar making the accusation, and Guadalupe Avelar confirming it, not the other way. Did Erdely really interview Guadalupe Avelar, or was he merely basing everything on rumors? Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this information should be added to the article? One can easily find Youtube videos of Abel Joaquin Avelar preaching as an apostle to his followers. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7XPM4HfVAg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwr0uCicsK4 And there is more. Since his church isn't really notable, it is hard to come by many academic sources about it. Eitherway, I'd hardly call this "keeping a low profile" because he "fears for his life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting what is written in the subsection on alleged exploitation of underage women. As noted there, historian Dr. Jason H. Dormady has stated that during this time dissidents and sympathetic individuals only reported accusations. The Revista Academica doesn't even cite legal court documents or public records about the supposed registration of Abel as the founder's son. It just has the accusations reported on a newspaper which Dormady cited and knows about. It is odd that after giving a detailed analysis of the 1942 incident, a historian would omit such information unless that information isn't even reliable to begin with. Of course this analysis of the sources cannot be included in the article, but the information in the non historical source should be scrutinized and questioned. At the end of the day, who is to be believed? A philosopher/theologen working with an retired education professor who deal with what happens today? Or a Historian who deals with what happened in the past? Fordx12 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the section on Samuel Joaquín Flores

Most of the first paragraph lacks sources. It also states that Joaquin Flores was baptized when he was 14, which is incorrect and shows how sometimes editors make false assumptions. Certainly, most teens in LLDM are baptized at age 14. However, in the case of Joaquin Flores, he was baptized when he was 16. As shown in the official LLDM website. http://www.lldm.org/2007/pagina.php?id=50 I wonder whether the age of his baptism has any relevance to the article. The current Wikipedia article also states that he "took control" of the church at 27. I believe this wording to be biased, as to take control is generally used in the following sense:

• "the United States took control of the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico"
• "Which spanish conquistador took control of the Inca empire in Peru?"
• "Nikita Khrushchev takes control in the Soviet Union by orchestrating the ouster of his most serious opponents from positions of authority in the Soviet government."

Clearly, there is a certain negative connotation to the wording.

The second paragraph uses Joaquin Flores' son as a source. I am not sure if we consider that a reliable source. I do not have access to the source, and therefore cannot say much about it.

In the third paragraph, the first two sentences (both need a citation) are completely unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph states that Joaquin Flores received the honorary degree for his work, but does not specify what kind of work. There is also a certain bias to this paragraph as the editor decided to include only the controversial award from CIHCE. There is no mention of the following honorary degrees, among others

• Doctor of Administrative Sciences by the École supérieure internationale de Bruxelles
• http://www.el-mexicano.com.mx/informacion/editoriales/3/16/editorial/2012/05/29/578457/labor-educativa-digna-de-reconocimiento.aspx
• Themis Award 2012 ad honorem by La Confederación de Abogados Latinoamericanos AC
• http://www.oem.com.mx/eloccidental/notas/n2749824.htm
• Key to the city of Goodland, Kansas by Major Richard Billinger
• http://www.lldmusa.org/imagess/2008/HP/2008-02-15_llaves.html
• Commendation by Governor Gray Davis
• http://www.luzdelmundo.net/reclalabhumr.html
• Awards by Andrés Manuel López Obrador and by Emilio González Márquez
• http://www.lajornadadeoriente.com.mx/2009/06/22/puebla/edu310.php
• http://www.informador.com.mx/jalisco/2011/312012/6/la-luz-del-mundo-desconoce-detalles-de-homenaje-a-su-lider.htm
• Award by the governor of Guanajuato
• http://www.lldmusa.org/2012/entregareconocimiento-3-25-2012.html

How does an editor decide which award(s) to include? Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Theological tenets

Christology

The current version of the article states that LLDM

 teaches Nestorianism, dividing Jesus into two persons: Jesus (man) and Christ (God)

and also

denies the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ all together

The former is taken from www.thecenters.org, and the latter from Wyatt (who took it from Gonzalez & Gonzalez). www.thecenters.org states that LLDM

"denies the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divides Jesus into two persons: Jesus (man) and Christ (God)."

Wyatt states that LLDM

"rejects the eternal divinity of Jesus, instead believing that it was his baptism that made him the Christ and therefore divine."

Gonzalez and Gonzalez state that LLDM

"rejected the very notion of the eternal divinity of Jesus. It was at his baptism that he became Christ and therefore divine."

However, Gonzalez and Gonzalez state their source to be none other than http://www.sectas.org/Articulos/luzdelmundo/laluz.asp, the website of Erdely's Instituto Cristiano de Mexico. If you read the link you find the following

"La Iglesia La Luz del Mundo niega la doctrina de la Trinidad. Dividen a Jesucristo en dos personas. Jesús = hombre; Cristo = Dios. Reclaman que Jesús NO era Dios, sino hasta que fue bautizado. Después del bautismo, Jesús vino a ser el Cristo y Dios."

That is

"La Luz del Mundo church rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. They divide Jesus Christ into two persons. Jesus = man; Christ = God. They claim that Jesus was NOT God, not until he was baptized. After the baptism, Jesus came to the Christ and God."

The rest of the page goes on to try to prove that LLDM's beliefs are incorrect. It is clear that the page at www.sectas.org does not constitute a reliable source. It is also clear that www.thecenters.org, and Gonzalez and Gonzalez (and therefore Wyatt) all draw their information from that page. Furthermore nowhere is it mentioned that LLDM teaches Nestorianism, which does not simply consist of dividing Jesus into two persons. Also www.thecenters.org is clearly not a reliable source since their main goal is "to equip Christians in the developing world for discernment, the defense of the faith, and cult evangelism."
Given that no reliable source exist to support the aforementioned sentences, they will be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Millenarianism

At various places in the article it is stated that LLDM is millenarian, however none of the sources cited to support this claim make such assertion. WP:UNSOURCED Again, given that no reliable source supporting this claim was found, it will also be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.revistaacademica.com/ToLive/luz-del-mundo-mexico.asp#_ftnref42. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Fordx12 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Source reads

Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member who in 1997 and 1998 was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. Among a wealth of valuable data he provided was a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín

Content deleted read

In 1997 and 1998 Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member of LLDM, was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. Among other data, he provided a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín

Content is not paraphrased from the source. Fordx12 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape accusations

The following sentence has several problems

Additionally in 1998, a handful of women went public with similar accusations of being raped by Samuel Joaquín.

What exactly is meant by a "handful"? According to Merriam-Webster a handful is "a small quantity or number." However the word handful seems too vague. I am aware only of the accusations made by Karem León, aka Isabel (oral) and Amparo Aguilar (vaginal). El Universal also circulated an article Eva Ambriz had been the subject of physical violence and sexual abuse and as a result ended up in a psychiatric hospital. Ms. Ambriz would later deny everything and sue for defamation of character. Therefore we have two counts of sexual abuse, which are not "similar" to Padilla's accusation. In fact these three accusations seem a bit contradictory, as each describes a different modus operandi. For example, León states that Joaquín had "oral sex, este (hmm?), all types of sex, except penetration," which contradicts Aguilar and Padilla's accusations. Therefore, I believe this sentence needs to be rewritten.

I also have a problem with the source used to support the following sentence:

Among other data, he provided a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín.

The source is a personal interview with Moisés Padilla by the Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos. I am sure we can all agree that this a primary source. Furthermore I seriously doubt one of the editors has accessed the archives of Departamento de Investigaciones Sobre Abusos Religiosos. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide a source I can use, this information could be inserted as a short term solution until the Revista Academica is reviewed for its reliability. The source in question tends to omit contextual information and deduce serious conclusions from minute information. Patricia Fortuny is considred the leading expert of La Luz del Mundo ( http://www.osea-cite.org/about/ab_people.php#patricia ), it is interesting that she does not repeat any of Revista Academica's claims.

As a Result I am deleting the phrase "Handful of women" to "Three women" since this is a biography of a living person and adding accusations that are poorly supported/sourced result in sanctions if reported to administrators.

I am also deleting the following:

In 1997 and 1998 Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member of LLDM, was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. Among other data, he provided a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín.

Aside from a few implications, such as the report only citing two anthropologists and no psychologists, this is as has been stated a primary source. Primary sources can only be used to state facts WP:PRIMARY and may not be used to state assertions about living persons WP:BLPPRIMARY

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

Fordx12 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sexual abuse accusations were circulated by El Universal. Copies of some of the articles have been mirrored at www.sectas.org. I think in the case of Moises Padilla it is worth mentioning what the LA Times article says: "Authorities are investigating the attack and several others that have been reported. But judicial authorities say the victims haven't been fully cooperative."

Additionally a paper written by Argüelles, Erdely, and Barcenas-Mooradian states that Padilla received political asylum in the US, http://www.21stcenturysociety.org/L+J+M.html

This might agree with LLDM's claim that Padilla orchestrated the attack on himself, to get political asylum in the US. I find it silly to simply move from Mexico to the US, where there is a large number of LLDM members.

I believe we can also include LLDM's response to the accusations made by Argüelles in the LA Times article. Despite the LLDM churches being built in the US, Argüelles concentrated on the one in Ontario. According to this site http://www.sectas.org/bajoelyugo.asp, Argüelles' efforts paid off and the temple was not built. However, Google Maps shows that the temple was in fact built. Anyway, it appears that after the temple was built, Argüelles seems to have gone quite about LLDM. Was she not concerned for vulnerable recent immigrants? Why concentrate all the efforts on preventing the construction of a single temple? And when she failed, she apparently gave up on protecting the powerless people.

Carlos Montemayor, director of public relations for LLDM wrote a letter to the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/30/local/me-34191) in which he stated that "The real problem in Ontario is the Mountain Avenue property; we brought [sic] a gold mine without knowing it." Montemayor refers to the fact that the church was to be built in a commercial zone as stated in the LA Article ("...while considering the permit necessary to operate a church in a commercial zone.")

In the LA Times article Argüelles only mentions that she fears the church's "totalitarian control of powerless people." However in the L+J+M paper previously mentioned, she claims that children were working in the temple's construction for over 12 hours without food. She also told Masferrer Kan (http://www.revistaacademica.com/tomouno/cap4.asp) that there were children and teenagers working there over night, in dark precarious conditions. She also claims she received death threats. It seems highly unlikely that such things could occur in a commercial zone without anyone ever noticing it. Furthermore it seems that there were no charges against LLDM for supposedly exploiting children and teens. Once more, Argüelles did not seem to care about the powerless people, her main objective was to prevent the construction of the temple.

I have much to rant about the methodology, and the sweeping generalizations and assumptions that can be found in the articles she has co-authored with Erdely, but these can be easily noticed by reading their writings. I have so far questioned the credibility 3 of the 5 members of the Revista Academica (http://www.revistaacademica.com/consejo.asp), César Mascareñas de los Santos, Jorge Erdely, and Lourdes Argüelles. I think this is sufficient to show that the Revista Academica is not a reliable source.Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your contributions.

Unfortunately, I have reverted your edits per the following reasons:

"Handful" of women is used to paraphrase (something Fordx12 is pretty familiar with).

Fordx12, the actual interviews/transcripts that Moises gave to anthropologists are not used as a source. Instead, this was something that was stated in Revista Academica.

FYI Co-author of Revista Academica Lourdes Arguelles was at the time of its publication a professor at Claremont College (which yearly ranks in the top 10 nationally, http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/2013-best-colleges-preview-top-10-national-liberal-arts-colleges )

Where is anyone's proof that Revista Academica is not reliable? If you dislike her or Erdely's work for having scrutinized your church, then I understand. You're more than welcomed to feel resentment and even wish to burn their books. But this source is suitable for wikipedia.

Ajaxfiore, without any sources, it is difficult to prove your point that Moises Padilla orchestrated his own attack to gain legal entry into the states. That's strictly speculative, which won't get us very far if it originated from your keyboard.

On a side note, I feel that I need to mention my concerns regarding recent attempts to delete information in the controversy section (primarily fordx12) using a multitude of explanations, none of which I think were valid enough to warrant deletion (please see the third opinion on Silver Wolf in the talk page to get the idea). Please be mindful that this is not a publicity page for lldm. It's a balanced page for its readers for the purpose of offering the full scope and history of lldm for the sake of their research. Please do not be offended by my efforts to ensure that this page is a neutral as possible, which I do neither by promoting nor denouncing your beliefs in lldm. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom you were referring in the beginning, RidjalA, since I did not make those edits. Unfortunately, I have reverted your reversion per the following reasons:

There is no need to paraphrase when it comes to quantities, that's just intentionally being vague. According to your logic we should totally edit the Demographics section to something like: "According to INEGI in 2000 LLDM had a lot of members, and by the year 2010 it had nearly tripled in size and now has a lot more members."

Regarding this sentence: "Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member of LLDM, was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists..." This sentence seeks to make the article "readable enough to impart wrong or biased information, but confusing enough to prevent readers from questioning the reliability or factuality of the article." The sentence makes it seen as though several anthropologist and psychologist from all of Latin America interviewed Padilla. However, the obscure source cited, the archives of the DIAR, states two Mexican anthropologists, Laura Collin and Masferrer. The whole sentence is dressed with authority, but with no substantial basis.

Since "the actual interviews/transcripts that Moises gave to anthropologists are not used as a source," why are the archives of DIAR still stated as a source?

Regarding Argüelles, the fact that she was a professor at Claremont does not automatically make her a super human with unquestionable academic integrity. Individuals from more reputable institutions have come under fire for fabricating research. The link you provided lists Claremont McKenna College as being in the top ten national liberal arts colleges for 2013, (Where did you get "yearly"?). FYI, she was a professor at Claremont Graduate University not Claremont McKenna College, although they both belong to the Claremont Colleges consortium, they are different entities. You completely disregarded what I wrote about Argüelles and simply provided this argument.

To answer your question, "Where is anyone's proof that Revista Academica is not reliable?" The Revista Academica has been discussed in several parts of this talk page, please read them.

And lastly, I was not trying to prove that Padilla orchestrated the attack on himself, I was merely questioning the Revista Academica. They portray Samuel Joaquin as a deranged individual with a dangerous paramilitary group that kills anyone who speaks out against LLDM. Supposedly this group killed Castañeda Contreras and nearly killed Padilla, for which he sought asylum. Yet elsewhere, they mention Guadalupe Avelar who openly spoke out against LLDM and its leaders, yet she was still living happily as a member of LLDM. Cheers, Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To conclude our discussion on the credibility of Ms. Arguelles and Mr. Erdely, if there is any publication you'd like to present at this point to prove the validity (or lack thereof) of Revista Academica, then please do so.

I have again reverted what you deleted; here's what Revista Academica states:

"One ex-member reporting torture treatment in LLDM is Moisés Padilla, a young dissident member who in 1997 and 1998 was interviewed by several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. Among a wealth of valuable data he provided was a detailed account of having been drugged and sexually abused as a minor by Samuel Joaquín[42]. Padilla also says that his 13-year-old sister had been victimized.

After part of this information was published in several scholarly articles, Moisés was kidnapped and tortured on February 9, 1998, allegedly by unconditionals aided by state police in Jalisco[43]. He was later found naked in the outskirts of Guadalajara and was taken to the Antiguo Hospital Civil with 69 knife wounds that left permanent damage to nerves and muscles in his back. During the ordeal, Moisés lost two liters of blood; he barely survived the assault[44]. To this day, however, Padilla’s mother and most of his siblings remain staunch members of LLDM. "

I hope I am not usurping what the source states, and if at any point you feel that I do please contact me and let me know. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA, due to your constant reversions of what other editors do, I fear that you are trying to take ownership of this page. Two editors (including me) do not consider Revista Academica a reliable source, neither do scholars (e.g. Fortuny, Dormady) who have written about LLDM. You are the only one that believes Revista Academica is actually reliable. I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring what has been discussed about Revista Academica or if you have not seen it. Please have a look at this Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#RfC:_Is_Revista_Academica_a_reliable_source.3F. We do not need to look further than Revista Academica itself to conclude that it is not a reliable source. But anyway, you might also want to read Erdely's writings in which he clearly states his intentions to destroy all those who do not conform to his ideology. You can also read Sanjuana Martinez's book, as well as the vast number of articles published in Mexican newspapers about Erdely and about Mascareñas. Now regarding Argüelles you can read what she has written about LLDM to see her lack of academic integrity, please also read what I have written and follow the links I have provided. Lastly, Revista Academica clearly exaggerated stating that Padilla received 69 knife wounds, when LA Times reports 57 wounds with a dagger. At this point, it is you who has to prove that Revista Academica is reliable. I have reverted the page to a previous version, although another editor removed what you wrote due to copyright issues. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply ensuring that you two (Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore) don't go too far in turning this into a promotional page for LLDM. I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't as dedicated to wiki lldm, the entire controversy section would be nonexistent by now, or skewed beyond recognition. So no, I am not trying to take ownership of this page, rather I'm trying my best to be fair and balanced so that this page doesn't turn into a lopsided page used for promotional purposes.

Let me also say that you two don't comprise a consensus given that you both consistently reflect each others' opinions. Perhaps you both are adherents to the church and believe that SJF is an apostle of God, but that's my guess (I'm pretty sure fordx12 is).

If we get a better understanding of what Wikipedia is NOT, then I hope we could close this discussion on the reliability of Revista Academica. Wikipedia is not a place to create our own independent investigation. Especially not on the reliability of sources in the way you're trying to debase Revista Academica by stating that the author is a despicable man. You would need a solid piece of published work to prove your point that Revista Academica is flat out wrong. Even so, this would not suffice to remove content from Revista Academica. All that would happen is that your new anti-Revista Academica article would go alongside it as an antithesis.

As for the discrepancy on the number of stab wounds Moises Padilla received (Revista Academica states 69, vs 57 on L.A. Times), this ignores the entire premise that Moises Padilla was stabbed in the first place. It's a trivial discrepancy. But even if this was a crucial mistake, how do you know that it wasn't the L.A. Times who erred on the exact number? I'm inclined to say that your dislike of Revista Academica is personal for having shed light on your religious leader's acts of sexual abuse against young women and boys. Regardless, minor details like these do not prove your point that Revista Academica is not suitable for wikipedia in bringing light to these rape accusations.

I hope to issue a third opinion to clear things up. RidjalA (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again you make unbased accusations that make me uncomfortable simply to discredit my views. I am neither trying to turn this into a promotional page for LLDM, nor am I trying to completely remove the controversy section. I am here to ensure that this not turn into an anti-LLDM page that promotes religious intolerance as does Revista Academica. I have provided published material on Erdely and Mascareñas (both members of Revista Academics) which you chose to ignore. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring everything. Are we supposed to blindly believe everything a source says without questioning it? Btw, your request for a third opinion is redundant since one has already been made. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I believe it's better to be safe than sorry. So I've requested a third opinion anyway. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that to my defense, I think it's fair to say that I cannot rewrite the first two sentences you and fordx12 deleted in Rape Accusations without negatively affecting the sway and effect that the source intended to convey. Revista Academica states it best, and I cannot do it justice if I were to rewrite it. These are only two sentences, not an entire paragraph. Which was why I wrote the rest of the paragraphs in my own words and used other sources like the L.A. Times. I really do think that the rape accusations should be reverted back to this, which was just prior to Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 complicitly tinkering with it. I did not in any way copy and paste entire paragraphs, and I certainly hope to continue contributing to wiki lldm in a careful manner. RidjalA (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the original two sentences with the exception that I gave credit to Revista Acedmica in the opening line. I hope this settles the issue. Third opinion is still pending for its approval. Thanks RidjalA (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

HI ! One of you 2 warring editors has requested a 3rd Opinion. Since a request was formally made, and at the present time I seem to be the only editor around for "3O", how can I assist BOTH of you ?. I have absolutely no interest in this subject nor do I want to read the content you are fighting over or even your prior rants on this talk page. Please BOTH of you INDIVIDUALLY state in not more than 2 very short paras (with links to disputed content) what the real problem is for you. You may not reply to each other or dispute the other's statement. You may, however, modify your own 2 short paras taking into account the other's statement. AFTER THAT, I shall step in. Adios. RobertRosen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, user RidjalA requested the third opinion, I'm not sure why though. Since you told us to bring this back to the talk page, I will discuss the issues from there.

RidjalA has shown bias against the church, which is fine, but sometimes this bias spills over into the article. The user has added material which is not neutral. It also seems RidjalA wants ownership of the article, since the user constantly reverts edits by other editors. The user sometimes deletes sourced content, and insists on keeping unsourced content or content that violates wiki copyright policies. RidjalA also constantly accuses me of being a church member in order to discredit me, and also lumps me with editor Fordx12 in order to deny consensus.

I would like all this to stop. Although, in all fairness I do admit that recently I was the one that inadvertently violated the 3 revert rule. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am responding to this because of your post in the RfC on user conduct. I believe that I may have gotten carried away in trying, in my own mind, to bring balance to the controversy section which brought about fears RidjalA has about church members trying to "censor" (my words) this page to give it a good image. I have recently attempted to aliviate his fears here [1]. RidjalA has stated that he has a goal of using this wikipedia to keep the church leadership "on check" here [2]. The situation is very complex and it involves unfortunate mistakes from all three of us which has led to edit warring type behavior. RidjalA has added unsourced content here [3] The source used to cite the content is bogus, it does not contain membership information on the church. It was challenged time and time again. RidjalA instintly removes unsourced (and sourced) content that doesn't shed the church in bad light. This is a double standard that has caused much contention.

It is that sort of behavior that led me to overreact at times. Since I share Ajaxfiore's viewpoints, our edits tend to coincide. It is true that RidjalA and I almost exclusively edit here alone. However I have ventured to two other articles Birthday and Jehovah's Witnesses in an attempt to correct this mistake. Ajaxfiore is the only one of us who actually edits several other pages. This gives RidjalA the impression that we are team tagging. This leads to accusations which have turned to counter accusations which turn to what we have now. I do believe that RijdalA's bias is causing a conflict of interest. I would like for him to keep editing this article. Many times I removed or deleted or modified his edits, and content, using wiki policy to back me up. RidjalA has read this as my attempts to delete controversial content using a "multitude of excuses." He feels assaulted on multiple fronts and not sure of what he should do. I cannot speak for Ajaxfiore's actions. But I may have come on to strongly and been reluctant to warn Ajaxfiore about his conduct, that has now changed as mentioned on RidjalA's talk page. I appreciate your assistance and I hope all three of us can proceed to edit this wiki in peace. Fordx12 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary view. It is fairly obvious that User:Ajaxfiore is a WP:SPA for disruptive editing on this page. It is also admitted who controls the account {"Ajaxfiore is the only one of us who actually edits several other pages. This gives RidjalA the impression that we are team tagging. "}. The only solution WP:BOLD at this point is for me to rewrite the section to conform it to the LA-Times source. After that if any genuine editor wants to amend it without edit warring that's fine with me. RobertRosen (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I seem irritated, but I am utterly confused, and I'm having trouble believing what I just read. Not even editor RidjalA would make such far fetched assumptions, you didn't even wait for RidjalA to make a case. You seem to have incriminated me based on the opinions of another editor, i.e. Fordx12. I you see here, I was the one who had rewritten that part to conform to LA Times, before you made corrections to it. Could you please elaborate on your preliminary views? How am I a single purpose account? What is my purpose? Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

RobertRosen I feel that you have made a personal attack against me in clear violation of WP:NPA. If you actually believe what you have said, I suggest you go through the formal wikipedia processes, e.g. sock puppet investigation... Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify one thing. When I said "We" and "Us" I meant the three editors of this wiki. Ajaxfiore, RidjalA, and me. I really don't know how to respond to your recent edits on this page... Fordx12 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate RobertRosen's third opinion insight and recent revision of Wiki LLDM, and I stand by his contributions. In regards to the 3O request, the issue was whether or not I could use Revista Academica as a source (link here). For years no one seemed to have an issue with it until just a few weeks ago when Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore removed content that was backed up by this source. I wanted to request a 3O to close discussion and appease doubts, since I really don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to cite Revista Academica. Anyway, in all fairness I've included a my list of my reasons for its inclusion:

1. WP:SUBPOV allows for articles like Revista Academica to be included, even if they're introducing their own POV; this source cites victims of abuse, but ensures to include a church response.
2. Revista Academica was co-authored by a professor, now Emeritus. She received her PhD from NYU. Her page is here.
3. The book itself is found at university libraries, just as Berkeley does so here

So I feel that this book is legitimate for use in academia, and in Wikipedia as well. But I want to be fair and inclusive to Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore and open this up for discussionRidjalA (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on Revista Academica here: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#RfC:_Is_Revista_Academica_a_reliable_source.3F. I wanted to leave the easy way, but now I might seek resolution through wikipedia processes. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is Revista Academica a reliable source?

Is the Revista Academica edited by Jorge Erdely a reliable source?

The source in question is unquestionably anti-lldm and contains accusations not supported by leading experts on the Luz del Mundo church such as Patricia Fortuny. Jorge Erdely and his co-editor have unreliable degrees and they also have questionable ethics and history. the structure of the cited papers are questionable. For example, when discussing accusations of exploitation of underage women by the founder Erdely fails to mention information on his sources such as the details of the origins and styles of the accusations. As cited in this wiki article as of today, Dormady (A historian) mentions how the accusations were just newspaper reports of dissident members who were breaking away from the church, not court proceedings. The Revista Academica often cites itself, or obscure primary sources that they claim to have. It is not created by any university and remains ignored as a source by notable Mexican scholars such as Patricia Fortuny. Erdely has even expressed his bias against organized religion in general. Religious historian Jason H. Dormady does not include this as a source in his list of sources, however he mentions that he has not included anti-lldm sources. One could infer that he meant Revista Academica.

Also, the controversy section is saturated (more so in the past) with this one view point that adds undue wieght to it and it's accusations read as fringe theories WP:FRNG such as paramilitary groups of "unconditionals" ritualized practices that Fortuny somehow missed in her many studies of the church, Political conspiracies such as proping up the church. This talk page has several sections that voice in detail (some with better writting than others) various issues about this source. These sections are the following

Jorge Erdely subsection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Dr._Jorge_Erdely Revista Academica section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Revista_Academica Rape accusations section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Rape_accusations Abel Joaquin Avelar section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Abel_Joaqu.C3.ADn_Avelar Fordx12 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the source html for www.revistaacademica.com, and found the following in its keywords attribute:

<meta name="Keywords" content="revista, academica, estudio, religiones, religion,  journal, legionarios de cristo, legionaries
of christ, luz del mundo, light of the world, cesar mascareñas, jorge erdely, lourdes arguelles, sylvia marcos, elio masferrer,
derechos humanos, mexico, sectas, samuel joaquin flores, hermosa provincia, marcial maciel, legionarios, legion de cristo, legion,
benedicto XVI, iglesia, protestante, protestantismo, britney spears, narcotrafico, chiapas, catolicos, islam, jihad, guerra santa,
santa muerte, narco, terrorismo, fundamentalismo, psicologia, sicologia, fe, virgen maria, juan diego, sociologia, vaticano, opus
dei, evangelicos, prd, pri, pan, free, gratis, download, tv, google, youtube, gol, 11 de septiembre" />
<meta name="description" content="Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones. The Journal of Religious Globalization in
Latin America" />

Notice how they unscrupulously place false keywords into their meta elements in order to draw people to their site, this says a lot about their honesty and professionalism. Notice the keywords "britney spears", "tv", "google", "youtube", "gol." I have yet to go through every single keyword, but I believe these are sufficient. Also notice how in English they present themselves as The Journal of Religious Globalization in Latin America instead of Academic Journal for the Study of Religions (Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones). They also appear to be inactive, as they still have a coming soon page for "El Caso de Maciel," dated March 2009. Perhaps because César Mascareñas de los Santos has been arrested and Jorge Erdely is wanted fugitive. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the "research" of the Revista Academica is based solely on the accounts of former members. However, they make no effort to verify whether these individuals were actually members of the church in the past. They also draw a lot from rumors. They present a one sided view of everything, in which LLDM has no voice. One can only wonder how reliable is the testimony of an apostate. Dr. Lonnie D. Kliever (The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements) writes

"By contrast, there is a much smaller number of apostates who are deeply invested in discrediting if not destroying the religious communities that once claimed their loyalties. There is no denying that these dedicated and diehard opponents of the new religions present a distorted view of the new religions to the public, the academy, and the courts by virtue of their ready availability and eagerness to testify against their former religious associations and activities. Such apostates always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group."

The Revista Academica itself mentions that the family of these dissidents still belong to LLDM.

One case worth mentioning is the case of Ignacio Castañeda Contreras, a very respected figure in LLDM as can be seen in LLDM's websites. According to Revista Academica, LLDM's paramilitary group beat him to death for speaking out against Samuel Joaquin. However his death certificate states that he died as a result of a stroke and hypertension: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-21253-2232-4?cc=1918187&wc=MMBB-2T7:419384259

The Castañeda family (widow and children) wrote a letter to El Universal clarifying that Mr. Castañeda died as a result of hipertension. "Castañeda Contreras murio a causa de hipertension arterial". El Universal, 26 May 1997. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Revista Academica violated Mexican law by wiretapping a conversation between Samuel Joaquin and Rogelio Zamora, http://www.revistaacademica.com/tomouno/cap10.asp

See Código Penal para el Distrito Federal en Materia de Fuero Común, y para toda la República en Materia de Fuero Federal, CAPITULO II, Violación de correspondencia, Artículo 177, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c2252,4565c25f11,3ae6b5c50,0,,,MEX.html

"A quien intervenga comunicaciones privadas sin mandato de autoridad judicial competente, se le aplicarán sanciones de seis a doce años de prisión y de trescientos a seiscientos días multa."

Which states that whoever intercepts private comunications without judicial authority will face 6 to 12 years in prison, a 300 to 600 days of fine.Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Revista Academica is co-authored by an established scholar, Lourdes Arguelles. Normally, that means it is an RS. It could be dismissed only if there is a valid reason to doubt her reliability. I'm not able to find any such reason. Other scholars have also contributed.

The quote dismissing apostates as witnesses, above, is from a scientology website and has to be deemed very suspect. Objective scholars of religion use testimonies of apostates, using their own judgement to sort out bias.

Castañedas death certificate and his family's letter are not necessarily thrustworthy. If the sect is as totalitarian as is claimed, and if corruption is rife in Mexico, he may well have died for other reasons. (I'm not saying that this is what happened.) Boosting Google search results by using dubious key words is a very minor offense.

Unless evidence of their unreliability can be adduced, claims of Revista Academica should be mentioned in the article, along with RSs which make opposite claims. --Jonund (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Jonung, thanks for contributing. Did you the follow and read the links that were provided? It seems you have simply disregarded the violation of Mexican law, and other points raised elsewhere on this talk page. Revista Academica is not co authored by Lourdes Arguelles, even if she were, this still does not satisfy WP:RELIABLE. She is simply a member of the Editorial Board, she joined on September 2002, before the release of Tome IV. The Tome about La Luz del Mundo was Tome I. Additionally, there it seems there is no peer reviewing going on as they clearly state: "The content of the articles published in the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, is the sole responsibility of their respective authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Editorial Board nor that of the other collaborators." Please read the links provided and also this one Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#a_note_about_revista_academica.27s_reliablity were Revista Academica is discussed. Thank You. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have stated the following:[4]

"It is pretty strange for an academic journal to put the words "Britney Spears" in its metadata, and some of the content from the article in question reads like a tabloid. On the other hand, the editorial board appears to have legit credentials. Maybe a good litmus would be to see whether libraries or academic databases like JSTOR subscribe to this journal. Alternately, see what other, more established scholars have to say about it. That would be my suggestion. Sorry I don't have time to look into it in greater depth." - TheBlueCanoe

"Well it seems like a minefield with accusations and counter accusations flying everywhere. You need further comments from editors who are completely uninvolved in the area". - Itsmejudith

JSTOR does not appear to subscribe to this journal, neither do the universties I have looked at. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not simply disregard an official death certificate and the testimony of a whole family as not being necessarily trustworthy. Also inserting false keywords in the metadata is not a minor offense, it is indicative of RA's lack of professional ethic, which can be seen throughout their website. I also doubt LLDM wields such political power. The controversy was fought out in Mexico's biggest media outlets, on TV, radio, and the press. This would mean that there is not one competent politician in Mexico because all of them are supporting LLDM, including the pro-Catholic National_Action_Party_(Mexico). Note that LLDM's number one rival is consider the Catholic church. Also the DIAR even sued the Director de Normatividad y Sanciones de la DGAR-SG, claiming that he had failed to act on the case. Hugo Elizalde (director of DIAR) would also denounce the Direccion General de Asuntos Religiosos de la Secretaria de Gobernacion before the Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Interamerican Comission of Human Rights) of the Organization of the American States (America = North+South America) and the Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos (National Comission of Human Rights). Elizalde never proved anything, and Samuel Joaquin was never called before any court. This implies that the whole Mexican government, and even the whole world is corrupt and incompetent, they're all under LLDM's rule. Also, I'm not sure why we should suspect someone simply because he is a Scientologist. Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up Revista Academica with the paper Erdely and Arguelles wrote about secrecy and sexual abuse. RS is indexed in Sociological Abstracts. Here is a book review of an other of Erdely's books in Cultic Studies Review, published by the International Cultic Studies Association, which says that RA is peer reviewed. It also notes that "Dr. Erdely is a member in good standing of the Latin American Association for the Study of Religions, the regional chapter of the International Association for the History of Religion (IAHR)." Peer review does not mean that the reviewers (who usually are anonymous) assume responsibility for the content.

From an academic point of view, wiretapping in no way impairs the credentials of a scholar, however illegal it is. The ethical aspects may be judged in different ways, depending on wether you have reason to think Joaquin is a dangerous person or not.

Inserting irrelevant keywords in order to boost Google searches is a very minor offense - and probably done by the webmaster, not by the editor. It seems that your ties to the church makes you loose perspective.

Bribing a physician doesn't require very much political power, nor does it imply corruption or incompetence on the part of the Mexican government. (Again, I make no claims, I merely consider various possibilities.)

Scientology is a dangerous cult and notorious liars. --Jonund (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jonund but looking at your opinion, your talk page, and your contributions, I think we need input from more editors.　I'm not comfortable with your implication that I have ties to the church and with your claim that "Scientology is a dangerous cult and notorious liars." Certainly we need further comments from editors who are completely uninvolved in the area. Note that Erdely is discussed here. You also provided a link to an anti-cult organization, the International Cultic Studies Association. According to Mexican media, Jorge Erdely is the leader of a dangerous cult, the mastermind behind the kidnapping of several minors, and a notorious liar. Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For the love of God, Ajaxfiore, please just drop it and accept that Revista Academica is reliable. RidjalA (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I too notice the almost incredible lengths one editor seems to be going to in the above comments to attempt to establish that it is not, but so far as I can see none of the lengthy attempts to impugn the source really do anything to indicate that it does not meet WP:RS criteria. If anything, the effort might be seen as being indicative that the editor in question has made a personal conclusion regarding the matter, and might even dispute any conclusions to the contrary. Jonund's statement that Scientology is a group of notorious liars above is actually rather clearly supported by multiple independent reliable sources, as is indicated in the article linked to. Calling it a "dangerous cult" is, admittedly, to my eyes maybe a bit of a stretch, but that has been alleged by numerous people as well, and supported by some evidence. The quote provided by Ajaxfiore to indicate that the journal is not peer reviewed does not in fact even remotely say that. Peer review does not in any way necessarily mean that the reviewers necessarily agree with the content or the conclusions, as can be seen by the peer review article we have and the sources and external links it indicates. Therefore, the quotation provided above in no way can be seen as indicating it is not peer reviewed.

It should be noted that calling a source "reliable" does not necessarily mean "perfect" - a senior editor some time ago told me he thought "acceptable" would be preferable as it is less ambiguous. There are times, and have been in the past times, when peer reviewed journals dealt with theories or beliefs which have later been found to be baseless. And, yes, history notes that the Washington Post and other leading publications whose status as reliable sources is, in general, not all questioned have in the past printed what was later revealed to be outright fabrications. So, getting things wrong once in a while does not necessarily mean that nothing the publication produces can be accepted as being from a reliable source.

Based on what I saw, looking over the website of the journal in question, I would have to conclude that the journal does in fact meet minimum WP:RS standards. That would indicate that I have no reason to believe that the source cannot be used in general. If there are differing opinions, as Jonund said above, from other reliable sources, they could reasonably be included as well. But I see no reason to rule out material from the Revista Academia based on WP:RS standards. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem, Ajaxfiore? "Looking at your opinion" - do I simply have the wrong opinion, and you prefer to try again until you find somebody who shares your opinion? That's not the point with an RfC. "...your talk page" - it indicates that I have edited Personal Freedom Outreach. Is that what makes you suspicious about me? "...your contributions" - can you explain what you mean? Yes, I provided a link to an anti-cult organization, the International Cultic Studies Association. Do you feel that anti-cult organizations generally are suspect?

As for the need for uninvolved editors, I had never heard about LLDM before a request for comment turned up on my talk page. But I have no objections to seeking input from more editors. As it happens, we already got one, above.

My assumption that you are affiliated with LLDM was based on your contributions, which concern LLDM to more than 90%.

Your uncomfortableness with my characterization of scientology makes me wonder what you are after. I suggest that you read Hugh B. Urban: The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion

I'm not able to comment on the discussion about Jorge Erdely, since I don't know Spanish. --Jonund (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jonund, if you see here, I closed the Rfc after John Carter commented. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• My feeling is it satisfies RS, but should perhaps be used with attribution. Andreas JN466 12:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Issues

Hi, I think things are starting to get out of hand and we need to stop editing this page (that is edits that may be challenged) to prevent any edit warring. Please allow time for dispute resolution to take place. This may take more than a day, so that means we all need to spend some time away from making controversial edits until dispute resolution tactics play out. Fordx12 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start. I think the main issue here is that our own personal views are preventing us from seeing what is here.

1. A controversy section is not something that is against wiki policy. It may be discouraged in most instances, but in this case it is something I can live with as long as all viewpoints are expressed.
2. Unsourced content must be deleted after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed. To not do so would be against wiki policy. WP:NOCITE
3. We must wait until responses for the Request for Comment on the source reliability of Revista Academica before continuing any action or discussion in regards to its reliability.
4. Tagging the article as a whole for having uncited claims and possible copyright violations and NPOV issues may be best for the next few days to prevent edit warring until proper dispute resolution tactics are used to resolve conflicts
5. We must refrain from further accussations not already made unless we are asking another editor(s) whether or not our conduct is X accusation.
6. We must refrain from controversial edits related to this possible war which include material in Rape Accusations section, and membership numbers in the infobox.

Can we agree on doing these things for the next few days until we sort things out? Fordx12 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my disruptive behavior. I will now refrain from making further edits. I am ok with what you have outlined. Regarding the membership numbers I believe an unreasonable amount of time has passed, over two years. It used to have a source, but the source did not mention what was attributed to it. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, Fordx12. If you'll allow me to explain, I don't believe my actions are disruptive at all. In fact, it is Ajaxfiore who has gone off on a mini-rampage deleting information. I don't think that the user is demonstrating good civility nor good faith. I also don't think we should allow the Rape Accusations section to remain in the current state that Ajaxfiore left it in. It doesn't make sense in how it reads anymore: Ajaxfiore just deleted a huge chunk of it so that it now starts off with "According to the L.A. Times Moses Padilla was kidnapped and stabbed 57 times with a dagger", which fails to explain how it ties in with rape accusations. Prior to Ajaxfiore deleting the introduction, the section mentioned how the stabbing was a result of him speaking out against him being raped. Not anymore. So in a sense, Ajaxfiore blanked information that was sourced and already there.

I firmly believe that the Rape Accusations information needs to be reverted back to how it was until an outside third opinion offers their insight, which is still pending. I think that this is the most sensible option since it will prevent the Rape Accusations section from remaining an unrecognizable mess for the time being. So we have a choice: 1)leave it a mess, or 2)revert it back so it is comprehensible until a third opinion is reached. It's simple. Not vandalism, not war. Just for the sake of comprehension until a neutral third opinion is presented. I know that if you dislike the controversy section, you'd obviously opt for the first option so as to render it useless. But again, we must ensure we act in good faith, because regardless of there being a serious copyright issue or not, I don't think it should be removed until enough time has elapsed and or an outside opinion has been provided.

As far as the membership information goes, it was tagged on September 2012, not years ago. I believe it would also be fair to reintroduce that information, instead of deleting it, until a source is found. In good faith and respectfully yours, RidjalA RidjalA (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have so far abstained from using ad hominem arguments against other editors, which is something RidjalA keeps doing. I do not think I have gone on a mini-rampage, the edits on the Theological tenets were justified, and I simply reverted RidjalA's reversions, and I removed the unsourced content on membership information (Wikis of other churches use official church numbers). I believe RidjalA is trying to take ownership of this article, due to his constant reversions. Also, I believe RidjalA does not act in good faith when adding sentences dressed with authority, but with no substantial basis, such as the recent addition: "Guadalajara's leading newspaper El Occidental reported that the founder of La Luz Del Mundo, Eusebio Joaquín González, was accused of exploiting underage women." This sentence is clearly highly subjective, El Occidental may be the "leading" newspaper now, but when it reported about LLDM it was barely 3 months old (Founded August 5, 1942 and reported about LLDM on November 20, 1942). Also the following sentence "As a result of this ordeal, Abel Joaquín has kept a low profile out of fear for his life." There is irrefutable evidence that Abel Joaquin Avelar is the leader of two religious movements, acting as Apostle of Jesuschrist. I have also already mentioned the sentence on several Latin American anthropologists and psychologists. But then again, most of that is simply copied and pasted from Revista Academica. Regarding the membership information, it has been there for over 2 years with a source that did not support it, and the tag has been there since September. I do not see why I should remain, why can't an editor simply add it when a source is found (if any)? Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps RidjalA would be happier if I added the former source, and then removed the sentence all together with the following explanation "I didn't find this information in the source." Note that this is the explanation RidjalA provided for recently removing this phrase: "however this as well as other claims were not true." RidjalA is happy to delete information that is not anti LLDM when a source is not found or it is not in the source cited, however when another editor follows the same procedure on a controversial section, RidjalA is quick to revert it. I would do this now, but I have already stated that I will temporarily refrain from further editing. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA has clearly demonstrated that he/she has double standards. RidjalA has accused me of going off on a mini-rampage, and of demonstrating neither good civility nor good faith, when my actions are no different from his/hers. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA, you have yet to take responsibility for your actions. In this diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=prev&oldid=356359256, you said that most reliable recent research pointed towards those numbers. Now what is that research? Or did you make it up to defend that figure? And on this Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=prev&oldid=356284067 you inserted a bogus source with that information. What is your source or are you misrepresenting sources and insisting on reverting any justified deletions? You had two years to find a real source for that addition of yours, where is it? This is one of your earliest edits which shows a pattern of disruptive editing on your part. You seem to be the only one that refuses to admit that you are wrong when it comes to unsourced information that you added. Also you continually add information after a justified deletion. You have done that many times these past few days. I have not forgotten how you removed sourced content (discussed else where in this talkpage) and accused me of misrepresenting the sources when the content came from said sources. That is only but the tip of the iceberg of your behavior. Blanket accusations of plagerism, offensive remarks about my person's integrity due to my faith, baseless accusations of sock puppetry against me mainly because my opinions coincide with another editor at times, a pattern of relentless reversions of contributions that I have made when said contributions are backed up by sources and wiki policy, all of these point towards article ownership and that is my concern right now.

The last thing I want is for you to be blocked or sanctioned. Aijaxfiore has already acknowledged (rightfully so or not) and apologized for his behavior. I too apologize for mine, and have done so in your talk page. You have yet to show any good faith. You even refuse to accept the terms to a temporary "truce" until others are given the opportunity to intervine. Perhaps it is time for me to invite outside opinions to user conduct.

Your bias, and you clearly are biased, is not the issue. The issue are your adversarial and disruptive actions and consistent accusations. Perhaps if another editor points these out to you, and us, we may be more willing to cooperate. Therefore in interest of that goal I am inviting outside input to this matter. This is not an attack or an attempt to "get back" at anyone, just a tool available to wiki editors when such situations as this present themselves. Fordx12 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Look you two, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, you and I know that there are major discrepancies in the actual number of adherents in lldm. Some sources state that Mexico (which is where we find the largest pool of adherents) contains 200K people, whereas the church states that they have millions of adherents in Mexico. If I used a source that stated 200K followers in Mexico, then I was pretty sure that the worldwide numbers couldn't possibly reach more than 1 million.

The leadership in LLDM wants to appear grandiose, and I'm merely keeping them on check (like the completely spurious notion that SJF is a "doctor" for having received a doctorate degree from CIHCE, which is an unaccredited organization and was called out for selling their degrees (http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/hay-premios-fantasmas-para-educacion-superior-380106.html)). And you seem to resent me for that. So I cannot seek penance for my actions, because I'm afraid I've done nothing wrong in balancing this page. I hope to continue working with you guys. Have a wonderful day. RidjalA (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's about time you show some honesty RidjalA. My issues with you are your constant edit reversions and refusals to collaborate. You finally admit that you improperly used a source to contradict LLDM's official numbers. I think it is no longer disputable that there is no source supporting your claim, and it should be removed. There are major discrepancies in the number of adherents of all congregations, which is why I think the US Gov does not ask for religious affiliation in its census. Here I present another discrepancy: LLDM has not claimed explosive growth over the last decade, while according to INEGI the church nearly tripled in size from 2000 to 2010 in Mexico. Again, the wikis of other churches use official church numbers. You have clearly shown your religious intolerance. Regarding the honorary degree that is pretty much irrelevant, assuming it is fake, Samuel Joaquin could have likely been a victim. Dr. Maya Angelou has been heavily criticized for appending Dr to her name, but it seems Joaquin Flores does not append Dr to his name (http://lldmjn.org/web/publicaciones/4828). Samuel Joaquin Flores has received other awards and at least one more doctorate as stated elsewhere in this talk page. I have found no evidence of delusions of grandeur of LLDM leaders, that's just opinion. I find it interesting how you accused me of slandering Erdely when I provided evidence that his degrees are a sham from unaccredited institutions. Fordx12 I think you can remove the membership numbers now, as I will continue to abstain from making edits to the page. And RidjalA, please stop blatantly accusing people without evidence. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added some context to the information in the rape accusations section from the LA times. That should suffice the need for an introduction to the section.

As for the church numbers, RidjalA I asked a simple question, what sources say that the church has less than 1 million members? The leading expert on LDM, Patricia Fortuny, says that the church is 7 million strong. That's a number I have not seen in any church website and it is absent in the latest version of the hymn book which always used to contain church membership. See this source on page 15 first column first full paragraph found here [5] There is a link to a PDF file that downloads, that is her paper. Who am I to believe here? As for the descrempacies in the church numbers of Mexico and the Mexican census, I already posted that information in the demographics section along with US state department statements (one of which you unceremoniously deleted) state that it is not unusual for membership numbers of a church to be different to that of the Mexican census. I also included the estimate that an anthropologist came up with in 2000, and the opinion of another expert that says that membership numbers given by the church are at least plausible. Experts in this case seem to disagree with you and your invisible experts. As for the doctorate, only one nation (and not the most stable one at that) has launched unofficial concerns which really doesn't affect SJF as Ajaxfiore mentioned.

As for me editing the infobox, why don't we just compromise and use Fortuny's numbers instead of the church's numbers and the numbers of the invisible outside sources that RidjalA talks about? Fordx12 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As of this edit [6] done ignoring past discussion, and the readition of content deleted for copyright issues without significantly rewording it here [7] and not properly citing the source, RidjalA has demostrated his/her desire to not cooperate. I tried to do this through cooperation. I tried to wait for a reference on user conduct (which is finished and will be linked to RidjalA's talkpage), I tried to come up with a compromise and even edited the section in question to include information from LA times on Padilla. However collaboration does not seem to be RidjalA's goal. As RidjalA stated above, his/her goal is to keep the church leadership "on check." Fordx12 (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I still believe official church statistics should be included. According to this [8] LLDM has a Ministry of Statistics which I suppose keeps track of the number of baptized members. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of quotations

I am concerned with the use of quotations, particularly in the Controversy section. I fear the quotations are not used in accordance to wiki policies, and are instead being used to bypass certain policies. Certainly, using quotations solves copyright problems, as these are allowed under fair use. Until recently a great deal of the controversy section was a mirror image of Revista Academica (a highly biased, unreliable source in my opinion). Quotations are being used to insert bias to the article, and this must be avoided according to Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines

Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can
be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject,
and should be avoided.

I now cite examples of such quotes:

lavish private zoo-themed family retreat for their father's enjoyment

has been taking his vacations at [this] lavish ranch... built in part on the labor and tithings of his fanatically devoted minions.

Notice the use of pejorative words "lavish," "fanatically devoted minions"

several Latin American anthroplogists and pscyhologists,

This one has been discussed elsewhere, so I'll just restate it here: This sentence seeks to make the article "readable enough to impart wrong or biased information, but confusing enough to prevent readers from questioning the reliability or factuality of the article." The sentence makes it seen as though several anthropologist and psychologist from all of Latin America interviewed Padilla. However, the obscure source cited, the archives of the DIAR, states two Mexican anthropologists, Laura Collin and Masferrer. The whole sentence is dressed with authority, but with no substantial basis.

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.

This sentence uses the contentious label "sect," see WP:LABEL. It also implies several accusations against LLDM.

Unquoted

 In one woman's case who claims she was raped and abused, authorities were suspiciously reluctant to investigate, and the file 
of the case eventually went missing.

This one was unquoted but taken nearly verbatim from Revista Academica. I recently removed "suspiciously" from the sentence.

Please note that quotations are to be used when quoting "biased statements of opinion" or when "using a unique phrase or term created by a given author." Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem if quotes are being used in violation of Wikipedia guidelines to circumvent the neutrality policy. Some of the quotes you give above do seem like clear violations, like calling people fanatical minions. Just totally unnecessary. If there's some valuable information there, then just paraphrase and present the information in a neutral way.TheBlueCanoe 21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

These quotations are not being used to replace or expand on content contained in any of the general information sections. This is why the controversy section exists in the first place; to allow a space for an anti-thesis (accusations of wrongdoing, etc) , and because of that, I don't feel that quoting the sources in their entirety should be treated as being out of place. Furthermore, if we look at the whole picture, one can see that ample rebuttals are offered to the aforementioned quotations, thus establishing neutral ground. Cheers(RidjalA (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I had reintroduced the quotation "has been taking his vacations at this lavish ranch... built in part on the labor and tithings of his [fanatically devoted minions]" but replaced the content in brackets with "adherents", to settle this. I don't understand why this was removed by ajaxfiore again. Discussion? BTW, you reverted me 4 times in a span of a few minutes. Not cool.RidjalA (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As a said: Redundant as it has already been said "for their father's enjoyment," also "donations from the faithful go into the nonprofit and do not benefit the family." Additionally, I have looked at the original article on LexisNexis and the quote does not exist. I'm assuming the quote was added by Bensman on his blog, which is not reviewed before being published. Given that the source is the article published on The San Antonio Express-News, not Bensman rendition of it on his blog, the quote is not present in the source. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

seeking clarification

The final section in this article says "According to Gordon Melton and David Bromley the church La Luz del Mundo became subject to fraudulent accusations of planning acts of violence or mass suicide against its members as a result of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide." So, just to be clear, there was no plan for mass suicide or violence, and this was just a false accusation. Is that right? If so, then I suggest someone need to edit the first paragraph under criticism clarifying that these were unsubstantiated or false accusations.TheBlueCanoe 20:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, thanks for noticing. I'll try to do that over the weekend, but if another editor is available, be my guest. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

a note about revista academica's reliablity

I really don't think that it is necessary to delete content on the basis that Revista Academica is not a valid source. In fact, this book can be found in university libraries, just like Berkeley does here. I should also point out that the co-author Lourdes Arguelles received her PhD at NYU and is Emeritus Professor at Claremont Graduate University. You could see her official profile here. I hope that this should suffice to clarify its validity. RidjalA (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Revista Academica has been extensively discussed in this talk page. It has been concluded that it is not a reliable source. I'm sure you can see that, but insist on using it for all the anti LLDM things you write to keep the leaders "on check." There is no need to use this source when we have reliable sources to support the Criticism section. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mien Kampf can be found in plenty of universities including Harvard and Yale, that doesn't make it a book of truths. The reason why it would require deletion is because of BLP issues. If it is not a valid source, then its accusations against SJF become a serious legal liability for Wikipedia as a website/organization. More can still be added into the Criticism/Controversy sections without it. I suggest, RidjalA, that you do some research to find more information from reliable and valid sources. You may wish to amplify more from Dormady's source. The book the church published even contains a bit more info about the 1942 schism. If you can find statements from El Buen Pastor church they could be added to the Criticism section. De la Torre might have a few things you can add. Fortuny does record a controversy that predates Jorge Erdely. And if you wish, you can voice Erdely's claims that the Church fabricated accusations against him (though expect said addition to also include more background information with Erdely's dealings with the church). My point is, that you do not need to rely on a bad source to maintain those two sections. Fordx12 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It has not been concluded that Revista Academica is unreliable. In fact, the L.A. Times backs up their claims that there exists valid accusations of sexual abuse in La Luz Del Mundo here. I don't feel that your claims of comparing it to Mien Kampf are justified (I doubt Hitler's book was co-authored by a professor and peer reviewed). I'm presenting links with supporting evidence in favor of Revista Academica's credibility, and it is for these reasons that I don't agree that deleting content based off of claims against revista academica is justifiable. Cheers RidjalA (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that Revista Academica (RA) is not a reliable source. There are substantial differences between what LA Times reports and what Revista Academica claims. The fact that the LA Times reports accusations of sexual abuse, does not mean the LA Times is backing up their claims. The LA Times presents the story from an objective, neutral point of view, while Revista Academica presents the story from a highly subjective, anti LLDM point of view. Given that LA Times reports this, there is no need to introduce RA. Ample evidence has been provided that Revista Academica is not reliable, all of which I doubt you have read. Revista Academica is certainly not peer reviewed by the a wider academic community, and I doubt there was even some significant peer reviewing within RA itself. RA clearly states "El contenido de los artículos publicados en la Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, es responsabilidad exclusiva de sus respectivos autores y no refleja necesariamente el criterio del Comité Editorial ni el de los demás colaboradores." It is not considered a reliable source by scholars who have written about LLDM. Even Elio Masferrer Kan, under whose shadow Erdely sought credibility, has tried to distance himself from Erdely. But Erdely's days of pretending to be an academic are over, he is currently hiding in New York City, because the Mexican government is after him. I have found something short for you to read here. Anyway, wiki policies and common sense state that Revista Academica is not a reliable source. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, it's merely Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore (pro-lldm) vs me (pro-controversy). Consensus is always reached through an independent third opinion. Common sense? We must have a different sense of what constitutes 'common sense', because as I've mentioned, Revista Academica was co-authored by a credible Emeritus Professor and the book itself is found in university archives (as I showed in my previous comment).

All that aside, I'd like to propose a solution. I think that the way for us to proceed is to include RA data along with anti-RA data on lldm wiki. That way, I get to show the points that RA presents, and you too get to offer your counter arguments to RA. My goal is to be fair to both sides. Would you agree to this? RidjalA (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get that explanation of consensus? I don't know about other wikies, but According to WP:CONACHIEVE third opinions and dispute resolution are treated more like the end result of the failure to reach consensus in the English wikipedia. Independent third opinions are not needed for consensus, as per cited policy. Your compromise isn't really a compromise, it's going back to the status quo, unless you mean that my proposed subsection on Jorge Erdely ought to be added to the article including Ajaxfiore's government document, and RA writers must be used to attribute their claims (The name of the source can't be used for attribution). That is a compromise I am willing to live with. We can revise this again if RfC determines that RA is not realities. What do you think? Fordx12 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am "pro religious tolerance." That aside, RidjalA, Argüelles is known for her work on Cuban refugees and for her work on feminism and homosexuality. However, when it comes to LLDM, she clearly has a personal grudge against the denomination as I briefly showed here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Rape_accusations. As shown here [9] Argüelles joined Revista Academica before the release of Tomo IV on September 2002. Which means your argument is invalid for the previous 3 tomes, the first one being about LLDM. Notice how her only articles on the subject have been co-authored with Erdely. See [10] [11] [12]. One finds Erdely's stamp on all of these, i.e. I suspect most of the content was written by Erdely, not Argüelles. Argüelles might have simply translated what Erdely wrote. As I stated earlier, Argüelles' credentials do not make her a scholar of unquestionable academic integrity. Even if it were so, the articles in question were co-authored by a fugitive. I have scoured the internet looking for the book "To Live and Die in The Light of the World," (where the articles are found) edited by Argüelles, but it seems to be non existent. How is it that you found it in university archives?

That being said, I oppose the use of this unreliable source. Fordx12 perhaps you could make an article for Erdely or Las Casitas del Sur incident, which can then be linked to the LLDM article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA it seems to me that you want to preserve the section on Guadalupe Avelar, even if it means using an unreliable source. However, there is no need to use Revista Academica when Dormady provides an account of the events of 1942. Recently I found a reliable source that mentions Guadalupe Avelar here. RidjalA are you ok with these two reliable sources instead of Revista Academica? Ajaxfiore (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

controversy vs critique/criticism

I've reverted "criticism" back to "controversy" on the subject header to be more in line with religious pages citing similar issues.

Whereas "critique" or "criticism" should be more fitting for subjective issues involving doctrines or practices like those in the Seventh Day Adventists page here, the subject header "controversy" is more fitting for other more objective issues, such as those surrounding Catholics ("Sexual Abuse Controversy" here) and Scientology ("Controversies" including physical abuse and fraud here). Thus I feel that because the issues surrounding lldm involve both sexual abuse and fraud, it should not be out of line for the header to read "controversy".

If our ultimate goal is for the improvement of lldm's wiki page, then there should be no better guide than for us to model this page after the pages of more well-known religions. Cheers. RidjalA (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Catholic priests have been found guilty of sexual abusing children; the Church of Scientology has also been found guilty of some of the charges against it. However, LLDM and its leaders have not been found guilty of anything. I have also discussed how the Silver Wolf Ranch does not constitute Controversy and therefore does not belong under a controversy section.[13] A criticism section encompasses all the points discussed and is therefore an appropriate title. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The current setup is acceptable from my point of view. With the Silver Wolf ranch and the past criticisms recorded by Dormady fitting into the "critism" section. I think the controversy section can stay since the objectionable source has been removed. The difference between a "controversy" and a "critism" is the amount of attention a subject is given and how scandalous it is. The accusations of rape due fit the bill for a "controversy" however I disagree with RidjalA that the difference has to do with the content being subjective v.s. objective. Both can be equally subjective such as the accusations of having the potential for mass suicide. They turned out to be bogus (based on subjective opinions), however they were a controversy. Dormady seems pretty objective, yet his information fits in the criticism category. Having both sections works just fine in my book.

I have been using the articles of the LDS church (Mormons), the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses as models for this article. RidjalA, do you agree in including the Jehovah's Witnesses as a model? My rationalization for it is due to some parallels that I believe exist between LLDM and the three named churches. Fordx12 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I must explain my rationale for placing the Schism of 1942 under the criticism section. It was not a "state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view," i.e. not a controversy. This was an internal conflict that was reported in a struggling, virtually unknown newspaper of time. According to what I have read in the Occidental, on November 1942, 250 members deserted La Luz del Mundo to form El Buen Pastor. These dissidents appeared to be discontent with having to pay 5 pesos monthly, and not being allowed to go to parties, use ties, drink alcohol, and profess polygamy. These dissidents accused Joaquin Gonzalez of having impregnated Guadalupe Avelar and of teaching members to shun those who challenged the church. They tried to get the temple shutdown but did not succeed. However the reporter is not objective at all, and clearly sides with the dissidents. According to Dormady, the church responded that the dissidents were only using this as a pretext for leaving LLDM. From my own research, it appears LLDM also responded by accusing the dissidents of wanting to keep the tithe money, and in response El Buen Pastor abolished the practice of tithing.

Anyway, even if we take into account Erdely (i.e. Revista Academica) there is still no evidence of controversy. Erdely simply restated some things from 1942 and added some things of his own. But LLDM seems to have simply ignored Erdely's accusations on the matter, supposedly because Guadalupe Avelar denied everything and returned to the church asking forgiveness. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really important for me to voice my two concerns. The first one being that I don't know if this is being done intentionally or not, but outside third opinions are being ignored (primarily this one and this one ]). Also, I really don't think it's necessary to split the controversy section into two distinct sections as "criticism" and "controversy". This will confuse readers, and if our overall objective is to make lldm an excellent page, then we should avoid splitting the controversy section as such.

Ajaxfiore: For the record, an outside person offered their third opinion and stated "it does seem that there's a genuine controversy over the Church's accumulation of private wealth" here. So the Silver Wolf Ranch controversy belongs in the controversy section, not some place else.

Also, for the recent addition of "Schism of 1942", I think that the title should be brought back as "Accusations of founder's exploitation of underage women", as another independent Third Opinion stated here I don't see why this article was moved out of the controversy section either, since it discusses accusations of the founder having impregnated a minor.

Also, the aftermath of one victim of sexual abuse (Moises Padilla being kidnapped and stabbed 57 times), warrants for it further to be called "controversy", and not just simply call it a "critique" or some thing else. So it is these accusations of sexual abuse along with the violent retribution against the victims (the objective) which I again reiterate as being controversial, and not just issues involving lldm faith or doctrine (the subjective).

Fordx12: I don't agree that the current setup is an acceptable form. As I stated, splitting the controversy section might confuse readers. I think that using as many other popular and credible pages as models for this page is important, including but not limited to Jehova's Witnesses. Though where disagreements may arise, we should use as many wiki pages as references to guide us and always utilize outside third opinions. But for the meantime, I feel that the most recent revisions need to reflect the opinions of outside admins and users, and should be changed. Best, RidjalA (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

Wiki policy here [14] states that GA class articles can serve as models. Here is an explanation of different classes [15]. The articles you proposed as a model that have a "controversy" section are not "Good Articles." Seventh Day Adventists article was marked as GA but has been downgraded to B-class. The Catholic Controversy section is rated "C-class," the Scientology article is also rated "C-class." LLDM article is also rated "C-class." Guess what the other C-class articles have in common with LLDM? A controversy section. However, the articles that lack such a section such as LDS Mormon church and the Seventh Day Adventist articles are B-class articles (still not good enough, but really close since they were higher quality articles). The Jehovah's Witnesses article is a GA class and thus suitable as a model. You can see the class designation in their talk pages.

We should refrain from using C-class and lower articles as models, and be cautious about B-class articles. GA, and Featured class articles can serve as good models. Jehovah's Witnesses is my model (With some input from LDS and Seventh Day Adventist articles). This is why I have added the organizational change to the beliefs and practices sections and amplified the history section.

As for the naming of the section or whether or not the sections should be one, I honestly don't see what the issue is. How is this current setup confusing? Why should it be criticism or controversy? Wiki policy states that Controversy sections ought to be avoided and can constitute as POV forking. Read WP:CRITS and the advise about religious articles is to label it "criticism, read [16]. The same policy article provides that the ideal is to avoide these sections all together [17]. The accusations of abuse during the 1940's can easily be integrated into the history section, as well as the mass suicide subsection. Silver Wolf Ranch can also be included in the history section. The accusations of rape section might also fit in the history section. The suggested format for religious articles is a "criticism" section.

I want this page to be a B-class page. It can be done with a Controversy section. However I doubt that the article will ever be a GA class article with such a named section. All Wiki articles should gravitate to GA class to increase Wikipedia's image and reliability. We should not be content with the LLDM article or any article getting stuck in C-class.

As for the third opinion issues, allow me to address them. I don't see how they have any bearing on this current situation. No admin has even made a related opinion (they seem to be ignoring this article).

This issue [18] had to do with whether or not to omit the phrase "allegations" or "accusations." RidjalA was against adding either phrase. I was for it. The third opinion came on "my side" it has little to do with subsequent edits. If you want to, I can go ahead and ask the user via the talk page to elaborate what his or her third opinion was. In fact, I might just do that. I doubt they'll agree to elaborate, but who knows.

As for this one [19] The third opinion dealt with content that you, RidjalA, wanted to keep in yet I felt that it was unsourced and a result of source synthesis. The third opinion agreed with me on that matter. The disagreement between me and the third opinion was the removal of the information about the Silver Wolf ranch, which I ended up supporting the third opinion. At that time there was no "criticism" section so obviously the third opinion cannot be limiting. Shall we also ask them to elaborate?

However, I do offer a compromise. Merge both sections and call it "Controversy and Criticism" section and allow readers the chance to decide if each topic is a criticism or a controversy. Later on more editors willing to opine on the matter can cause it to change. I'm afraid that this discussion doesn't qualify for a third opinion since we are now three editors discussing it. An RfC on content or a notice board can be used, would you prefer that? Fordx12 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Integrating the content of the Criticism and Controversy sections into the main article seems like an onerous task. If you are willing to do it, be my guest. Until then, I believe the current setup should remain; I believe most people know the difference between controversy and criticism. Ajaxfiore (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to clarify my opinion with regard to the controversy and/or criticism section. Since the information in question is neither positive nor at all proven, that seems the best section to put it in. As to what the section should be called, I think that's less important. The claim is obviously a criticism (it's not positive) and it seems to be controversial as well (given that you're debating it), so either section title would be appropriate, to my mind. I don't see that one stands out above the other. Obviously, we must avoid implying that the accusations have been proven, because they haven't, but I don't see that the word "controversy" necessarily implies "true" or "likely to be true". Anaxial (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked the third opinion editors if the current setup ignores their third opinion. Anaxial has just clarified his/her opinion. The name is inconsequential to them and their opinion (I agree, which is why I made my proposal). The other editor whose opinion was mentioned responded on my talk page [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fordx12&diff=522238958&oldid=521996702] The editor stated that the current setup is okay on his/her part. So it seems that RidjalA's concerns have been answered. We are not ignoring their third opinions. My proposal still stands though. Perhaps I should just be bold WP:BOLD and make the edit? Fordx12 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)