" 

 == Proposed Revisions == 

 In the interest of improving La Luz del Mundo while at the same time avoiding another long dispute and edit war with Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, I'm notifying the community in advance of the revisions I anticipate to make so that they are reviewed by independent opinions (Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, you're more than welcomed to comment, the same for anyone else). If there are any irreconcilable objections, then we'll open it up for discussion through Rfc. 

  
 Proposed changes: 

 :1. Controversial content 
 I don't think that LLDM Wiki looks like the balanced page it once was now that its overall content has doubled in size in the past few weeks using such few sources, while content in the controversy section continues to be removed at an even faster rate (courtesy of Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore) and replaced with 'counter' arguments (I'll explain in a minute why they are not counter arguments). The following are the proposed changes specific to the controversy section: 
 

 (a)Changing ""Controversy and Criticism"" header back to ""Controversy"" 

 -This section discusses controversies (accusations), not criticism (criticism deals primarily with issues that are faith-based, like critiques of religious practices, or criticisms of ceremonies and such) 

  
 (b)Removing 'counter' arguments in Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy 

 -I don't agree that this source   was written as a response to this source  Doing so is an argumentum ad lapidem and pushes a position which did not originate from the source. It would have to state something to the effect of""LLDM has been accused of accumulating private wealth, but in fact it is not true because of such reasons"". The article is an informative piece (i.e. not persuasive) and never went as far to establish that type of position, and doing so would be a WP:SYNTHESIS issue. 

  
 (c)Reintroducing deleted content that was cited from Revista Academica 

 -Now that it has been further established that Revista Academica is a valid source , its sourced information will be reintroduced. 
 

 (d)Reintroducing ""Allegions of founder's exploitation of underage women"" 

 -this entire subsection was backed up by Revista Academica, and should not have been removed, its focus altered, and its title changed to ""Schism of 1942"". 

 -the 'counter' arguments found in ""Schism of 1942"" are backed up by a PhD dissertation (Dormady), which like most dissertations, did not go through the proper channels for commercial publishing. Thus the info cited by this source should not be deemed acceptable.  

  
 (e)Reintroducing synopsis of Controversy section (don't know why this was removed in the first place) so that it reads: 

  

  
 :2. Membership numbers:  
 One source states: 

  

 I propose for the 'Members' in  the info box to state ""5 million according to the church{reference}, but significantly less per outside sources {references}"" or something like that  
 - 
 :3. ""The LDM"" vs ""LLDM"" 
 All mentions of ""the LDM"" should be changed back to ""LLDM"". Even if a reference or two has it as ""the LDM"", that is not the most popularly accepted acronym, and it is certainly not the most well-known acronym of the two.  

 To show how unreliable ""The LDM"" is in comparison to ""LLDM"", do a quick Google/Bing search for both acronyms. Here were my results: 

  
 Query results for ""LLDM"" using Google: 

 1)Wikipedia La Luz Del Mundo  

 2)LLDMusa.org (La Luz Del Mundo's official site) 

 3)TheTruthAboutLLDM.blogspot.com (a site which compares La Luz del Mundo teachings to  
 biblical sciptures) 

 4)lldm.org (another official La Luz del Mundo page) 

 5)Android apps