Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-11/Sodalitium Christianae Vitae
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Sodalitium Christianae Vitae |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 04:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Anibal06 (talk) |
| Mediator(s) | Ronk01 (talk) |
| Comment | May need future reopening, seems to have settled down |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
See the last section, called Criticisms. (Sodalitium Christianae Vitae)
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
I, Anibal06 have started editing in March. Jorgecatolica1 has been editing since long before. He had put claims against SCV, some of which have proven to be misinformed. I corrected them according to verifiable sources. Compare article's last revison before I entered (15:53, 27 March 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae&oldid=352351045) with the sourced information in current revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae#Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae_.28SCV.29_as_a_conservative_movement), especially about Marka and the mother of a supposedly kidnapped daughter. Check also my last comment on the Talk section (About recent edits by Jorgecatolica1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae#About_recent_edits_by_Jorgecatolica1).
When those issues were resolved, Jorgecatolica1 added subtitles to the criticism section and expanded the paragraph regarding the claims of psychological and similar abuses (Check the revisions from the night of May 10, 2010). I would thank the opinion of a third party on whether that part shoud be kept concise as before, or not. I would also like to have a third party opinion on the subtitles: whether it is better to put them or not, and how to have them adhere to NPOV policy.
The issue with regard to Jorgecatolica1 stating that former peruvian prime minister would have been a member of SCV (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae&oldid=361276302#Criticisms_and_Public_Relations_Issues) seems to have already been resolved (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae#Solari_is_not_a_member_of_SCV and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae#Response_to_Anibal_and_Unsigned).
What would you like to change about this?
I would like the section to state the disputed facts clearly and concisely.
How do you think we can help?
I just don't want to let Wikipedia's article be used as a platform for spreading misinformation about SCV. I would like some help on which parts of the current revision are appropriate and which are not for a Wikipedia article.
Mediator notes
The disputed section seems to have some serious POV issues (see
My biggest concern here is the fact that this is an article regarding religion, which, needlesss to say, is a sensitive topic that often comes with built in POV violations. Upon review of the article history, it is clear that that editors have made substantial effort in regards to the neutrality of the article, however, I would like to see more sourcing, much like we have for the other controversial articles like medical cannibis (to which I myself did some source editing a few weeks ago under an IP). I also would like the pedoplillia scandal inforamtion moved to the appropriate article, with a link on the SCV page.
Reccomendations
Just remember to use reliable, publically avalible sources, and avoid POV, otherwise, the article sees sound.
Administrative notes
Discussion
Opening statements
Please note that I have produced references for all statements made in the criticisms section. When those references have been contradicted by better reasoning and evidence, I have accepted it. This has not been the case with many other editors.
I personally find that subtitles are only fair as this section is full of references and has a lot of content. If the neutrality of the subtitles themselves are of question I am open to seeing them changed. However, I am concerned that it becomes unreadable if multiple paragraphs are featured without any order. Likewise, other sections of the wiki page have subtitles and their content is much shorter in length.
Please note that no complaints have been made against those who do not source their content by the soliciting party. If this is to be a just process I think that it is only fair we consider that there have been issues with neutral language and citation in the rest of the article. I have tried to fix this and I am not sure how successful that has been. I would hope that ensuring consistency with sourcing and neutrality throughout the article be a finding or conclusion of this mediation.Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to add that prior to Anibal's arrival, I had made concessions with previous editors to add their rebuttals without references. This led to a lot of language of "deeming", "claiming" and "according to". If there are any remnants of that sort of language I apologize. If you follow historical edits you will see that I had to negotiate this page with individuals who were willing to remove sourced content but unwilling to add sources to their contents. Without negotiation it would have been an all-out editing war. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that the criticisms section should be concise, and give references for the reader to check if he/she is interested. The subheadings inside the section appear to be necessary only because the section has grown too much for what it I think would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
I would propose to reduce the section substantially:
- Removing the third paragraph (the one regarding Marka and Pena) which reproduces clearly biased, misinformed and refuted sources.
- Reducing substantially the 'sectarian behaviour' part to something along these lines: In November 2001, a report in Peruvian media exhibited ex-members making claims of psychological abuses and questionable recruiting practices {keep the references}. The report was followed by other media responses against it {references}. Also in 2003, an article about the Sodalitium in Caretas Magazine shows SCV members denying such claims {reference}.
- Removing the 2003 kidnapping case, which, as documentation shows, was completely unfounded (the young woman not only had no connection to any SCV-related organization, but was not even a practicing Catholic).
- Moving the current redaction of the pedophilia case to the
- I would also remove the paragraph on Concerns of Power and Misinformation. It is based on one source which, as it happens to be, is written by one of the most activist leftist politicians in Peru, who tries to use the grave sex abuse scandals in other countries, and especifically Fr. Maciel's scandalous case, to insinuate that: (1) other 'conservative and anti-leftist' orders, such as Opus Dei and SCV, are also close to power; and (2) other similar scandals in Peru have been covered up. Regarding (1), he does not give any substantiation about SCV. He does about Opus Dei, but not regarding SCV, it seems he just thinks they are the same. Regarding (2), he does not give substantiation either. And, in fact, the only such demand about SCV was the pedophilia case, which was not covered up, but instead very public. Needless to say the article is neither a neutral nor an academic source.
- As said above, according to my proposal, subheadings in the section would be unnecessary.
- I would change the section heading to just 'Controversies'
My opinion about the rest of the article: It is very poorly sourced and edited. It clearly needs a lot of work. Until now I have not edited any part of it that I recall, but I could start working on it too. I have just been focusing on this criticisms section which I found had many claims I know for sure have been badly misinformed and misinforming.
Anibal06 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Anibal, you have not shown yourself to be a disinterested party unrelated to the SCV. I find your recommendations to be an attempt to remove content entirely.
1. Please note that Marka made the claims, Figari denied them. There is no actual proof except a claim and counterclaim. I fail to see how this is not relevant as a "controversy". Pena is merely the source reproducing the Marka claim, but she details in her book and in an article that the SCV is a conservative movement using other sources unrelated to the Marka claim.
The Ruiz book also highlights SCV as a conservative movement without using the Marka article, either.
2. The claims alluding to "unorthodox", "unethical" and "psychologically manipulative" practices were made by people who were ex-members of the SCV in both the Caretas and the Agencia Peru articles. The one ex-member, who received a knife to the throat, was forced to sleep on marble stairs, and had to hide in the bathroom, is a very serious and elaborated case that shows, indeed, these claims of manipulative practices are quite severe.
Furthermore, I find that because all of these concerns are in spanish it is important that some details are maintained. This is an english wiki and thus the contents of these claims are not accessible in any detail if we change it to: "In November 2001, a report in Peruvian media exhibited ex-members making claims of psychological abuses and questionable recruiting practices {keep the references}." (Notice that Caretas is even removed, as an ex-member also made a claim in Caretas similar to that made in Agencia Peru)
Furthermore, this proposed replacement is entirely problematic: "The report was followed by other media responses against it {references}." Both of the authors of the recent article additions responded via media, they aren't media responses. Both authors were also long-time friends or acquaintances of SCV co-founders, which they admit in the articles. Furthermore, one is a "letter to the editor" and the other an "opinion" piece.
"Also in 2003, an article about the Sodalitium in Caretas Magazine shows SCV members denying such claims {reference}." I dislike this as it is inaccurate, as I have stated above.
Keep the Knowles issue as it is a claim with a Police Report refuting the claim. I don't know why police reports have such authority to nullify any claim made as "unreal" or "wrong". Is the PNP in Peru not one of the least trusted institutions in the country, as suggested by Ludwig Huber in his book "Romper la mano: una interpretacion cultural de la corrupcion"?
4. In its base operation in Lima, the SCV can be articulated as a movement of predominantly whiter members, who are recruited from wealthy families. This was stated in the articles. Their parishes are in very exclusive districts of the city, their "home centres and headquarters are too, as well as the schools that they operate. Their charity programs are not, obviously. This is shown in the links on the familia sodalite page, which can be found here: http://www.familiasodalite.org/ , and by looking at the addresses of contact information for their movement. Lastly, the claim stands as is, and Anibal, your have caught yourself in a double standard. These are claims by Diez Canseco that you claim are unsubstantiated. Ironically, you have suggested that the opinion and letter written that basically state that the denouncements against the group were bad and inaccurate, without proving why, are to remain.
I don't think Diez Canseco's suggestion as a long-time politician who knows the country very well is necessarily uninformed. It may be "disinformation", but then we have to consider his claim about economic power. Are SCV members not economically powerful based on who the members are and where they are located? I think the answer to that is hard to refute. Could he be embellishing about their political power? Perhaps. But Rafael Rey is Defense Minister and Opus Dei, one of the claims he made. Solari's relationship to the SCV is still nebulous. The archbishop of Piura, SCV, is getting meetings with the president of Peru to talk abortion. I don't think this is something that can be thrown away as wrong but yet another claim. As a matter of fact, nothing here is anything but a claim.
Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It would seem Jorgecatolica1 is trying to disqualify me for being related to SCV. I think that until now that has meant that my revisions have happened to be much better informed, as I am sure any third party can verify on his own. Once again, compare the story told by Jorgecatolica 1 according to the last revision before I entered (15:53, 27 March 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae&oldid=352351045) with the sourced information in current revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae#Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae_.28SCV.29_as_a_conservative_movement). I also think it is fair to say he is not a disinterested party either.
In any case, if I am related to SCV and I happen to know for sure many claims in the article are badly misinformed and misinforming, I think it is only fair that I have the right to produce documents to the contrary and to demand that unfounded and biased claims against SCV be removed.
Jorgecatolica1 says that he finds my recommendations to be an attempt to remove content entirely. I don't know what he means by 'entirely' but it is certainly not the meaning found in the dictionary. It can be easily seen that he is misrepresenting what a said.
In order to facilitate consensus, I will present my arguments for the issues one at a time. So now the first one:
I am proposing to remove the third paragraph (the one regarding Marka and Pena) because I think it can be seen that it reproduces clearly biased, misinformed and refuted sources. Jorgecatolica1 replies that (1) Pena and Ruiz give other sources that attest that SCV is a conservative movement, and (2) 'There is no actual proof except a claim and counterclaim'.
To (1): The Marka paragraph is not about whether SCV can be seen as a conservative movement or not. The two previous paragraphs in the section say that explicitly and sufficiently. And I have not proposed changes there (much less 'remove them entirely'). The Marka paragraph is about trying to connect SCV with a political falangist group, and with the right-wing movement TFP. If needed, check again what Jorgecatolica1 claimed first about this.
To (2): Figari replied with an official 'rectification and clarification' to Marka 'according to the legal dispositions regarding press', which was duly published in the next issue of Marka. That was a legally binding document. In it Figari publicly established his disagreement with TFP, denied SCV's connections with 'Dios y Patria' or any other political group, and clarified that he did not belong to any political group. If Marka had any substatiation for the article's claims, it was well in its right to produce them, and that certainly would have served very well Marka's agenda. But it didn't.
Regarding those claims, Pena's book has no other source. And let me draw attention again to the fact that 'acadamic researcher' Pena does not make any reference to Figari's legal response to Marka, published as said in the very next issue of Marka. Whether that was intented or just bad research, we definitely cannot tell. But it is definitely unfair and irresponsible.
Because of that I am proposing that the Marka's paragraph be removed.
Anibal06 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I do not have a full understanding of the subject matter, but why does the article treat conservatism as a negative? That raises a POV red flag for me. Ronk01 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Part of its agenda is removing liberation theology and attacking 'progressive movements'. The SCV will deny that they have a news agency wing, but they constantly engage in attacks against anti-homophobia/transphobia groups, feminist groups, and the political organization of indigenous people through their media outlets Catholic News Agency and ACI Prensa. Both agencies are directed by an SCV person. The ACIprensa/CNA deny that it is part of the SCV but as La Republica has argued it is not the first group to make the claim that the SCV run these news agencies. The editor of that paper was quite happy to point it out: http://www.larepublica.pe/archive/all/domingo/20081214/3/node/3177/todos/1558
As a movement they can be qualified as attacking progressive movements. Take the conservative label out if you want, but I was merely calling a spade a spade (would all those activities not constitute a socially conservative position?). The Marka sources should remain if this is an area of contention, and has been made a counter claim.
Actually, Anibal, you are right. I didn't mean that you were trying to remove the content entirely. I meant you were trying to water down the content until there was nothing left but vague references to foreign language sources, and a removal of contentious claims and counterclaims.
As for a disinterested party, I cannot claim that I am disinterested: none of us are and that is why we are here. Anibal, you have played shy about admitting your relationship to the SCV. You have produced claims without references that are patently insider (and unprovable from the outside given current public sources). You also just produced a scanned copy of an article printed in 2001 from RPP. Who holds on to a printed copy of such an internet article for nine years? And the Marka articles from the 70s as well, how do you have such old sources? I know you didn't cut them out at the hemeroteca at the Peruvian National Library because that is not allowed and their magazines are only available fully intact and for photocopy purposes (who knows if they even have Marka there!!). I think it should be known if someone is advocating a removal of content on a criticisms section when in fact they belong to an organization that has multiple claims of secrecy and resistance to public denouncements made against them (the Caretas article, the Agencia Peru article, and Diez Canseco for starters).
I, on the other hand, declare that I am acting on behalf of myself and hold no affiliations. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It bears mentioning that many liberal groups willingly and falsely attack conservative groups and movements, just as conservative ones attack liberal movements. Also, my question was not if we should call SCV conservative, but why we are so closely tying conservativism and negative actions, once again, this raises a POV red flag. My major concern here is that since this is such a sensitive topic, we have to prevent bias (which WP has been accused of in the past) Ronk01 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Well, I have already stated why I don't think Marka's should be seen as just a claim/counterclaim issue. And I do not find new arguments regarding this in Jorgecatolica1's last statement.
2. I also agree with Ronk01 concern.
3. I do not want to deviate from the issues in question by clarifying and refuting what would be needed in Jorgecatolica's last statement. If Ronk01 thinks it would be relevant that I do, please let me know.
Anibal06 (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
We can remove the label conservatism and refer to the issues. They wouldn't necessarily need to be "criticisms" but something about their political activities, or politics. I know the SCV objects to that word "political". political - defn: Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
politics - defn: The complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, esp those relationships involving authority or power Collins English Dictionary
I think these are very suitable to describe the following two items, which could remain from this section questionably labeled conservative:
1) Their attacks on Liberation Theology in the 1970s and 1980s (Pena as a source is useful here), and the actions of Kay Schmalhausen in the Prelate of Ayaviri against a liberation theologist priest. 2) Their lobbying of the government for a pro-life agenda.
As for the Marka issue, this could be changed to alleged relationship to falangist movements as an issue of perception. If more information becomes available that shows that it is not just a public refutation then I would feel more comfortable with its removal. As well, this is probably one of the most relevant issues of the alleged conservatism of the movement, which should probably remain clarified. It has been reproduced by Pena, and it would serve to see it left in tact so that the error of repeating a claim without Figari's response doesn't occur again. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Jorgecatolica1 has just claimed that I am socketpuppeting WP accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andres_SCV
WP will verify that this is not the case.
Regarding the Marka issue, I don't know what 'more information' would need to 'become available that shows that it is not just a public refutation' for Jorgecatolica1 to 'feel more comfortable with its removal'. It does not seem as he would willingly accept as true any statement from any of the involved parties.
Anibal06 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how denying a claim against someone, without investigation from a third party, constitutes reasonable evidence. The qualities of the refutation can be described (as the quality of the opinion articles placed by the psychiatrist and the bishop in Callao regarding the SCV report). You trashed the methods of the academic because she didn't engage with Figari's reply but only stated excerpts from the article. I depended on that academic research to make the claim, which should be considered a reasonable source, and your counterclaim is based on a discrediting of Pena for not producing Figari's reply as part of her work.
I merely placed the sockpuppet inquiry as you have played shy with your identity, and you have access to some very unique documents and pieces of information that have qualities not typical of an independent researcher.Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, third party sources are needed to disprove content that was provided by another third party. Second, in a case like this, no information should be added without hard evidence. Ronk01 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
In the case of the opinion articles placed by the psychiatrist and the bishop of Callao regarding SCV report, I agree that they are indeed counterclaims. But we aren't discussing that issue yet.
I am not asking to be listened based on who I am, but based on what I say and based on the sources I give. I don't think it is fair to hold against me the fact that I have produced sources not available online. Especially when the 'very unique documents and pieces of information that have qualities not typical of an independent researcher' are indeed excerpts from Marka (a source to which 'independent researcher' Pena had access too), and from El Comercio (http://elcomercio.pe/), Expreso (http://www.expreso.com.pe/) and RPP (http://www.rpp.com.pe/), all of them mainstream news agencies in Peru.
Regarding the Marka issue, let me restate that the point in question is not about SCV's conservatism, but about trying to connect SCV with a political falangist group, and with the right-wing movement TFP. Let me restate also that Figari's response was not a mere counterclaim, but a legal response, and that Marka did not produce any evidence to substantiate the article's claims. Given that because of its agenda Marka had a particular interest in disqualifying SCV (that being the reason why the article was published in the first place), it is reasonable to expect that Marka would have produced evidence, and it did not.
About Pena, my argument is that she cannot be cited as a new source regarding the point in question, because for it she depends exclusively on Marka's article. The fact that a well done research would have mentioned Figari's formal response is only secondary to the point.
Given the facts, I really don't think that Marka's claims should be qualified as hard evidence.
Anibal06 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The Marka response is a scan of an original AND cut article from the 1970s, something that could not be procured in the format you present it from a public archive (in the BNP (peruvian national library) you cannot cut originals nor scan in their facilities). Nor would the Marka article be available to just anyone but rather to someone who held onto it, or went to great lengths to get an original from the 1970s (I cannot imagine a SCV or a SCV apologist strolling through Jr. Quilca or Amazonas for a rare find, but entertain me with a story about it if you can!).
RPP news articles are publicly accessible, but when they are printed in 2001 and later scanned, one has to ask why someone would procure news article printed 9 years ago, or have it digitized. These printouts are not in the libraries, and RPP has no search function that works for articles from 2001. What you produced is not publicly accessible now.
Furthermore, the 2001 articles from Expreso and El Comercio may be publicly accessible, and, to give you of the benefit of the doubt, you would have had to go to the library archive in Lima, or know someone in Lima who could go to an archive, if you didn't have them yourself or knew someone who did (which then begs the question who would hold onto these articles for 9 years?). These pages do not have archived content on their websites for articles from 2001 and much less as facsimilies of the published version, as you have presented.
I have never seen the actual Marka article myself as it never occurred to me to procure a copy of the article given that it was used in an academic book available in the library. I would find it an interesting coincidence, Anibal, if you have all these interesting sources regarding the SCV that are near impossible to get but lack access to this one crucial piece.
I don't want to engage in this discussion anymore. As I said before, given your insider information about the SCV and access to a range of sources that would require a lot of sweat if one didn't own them already (and how would you get a copy of Pena's book in Peru!? ), all of which you have produced under your moniker, it is hard to believe that you do not either belong to the SCV or have a significant connection. It is not plausible for an autonomous party with no connections to the SCV to have privy to everything you have produced.
I don't want to get rid of Marka claim until the details of the original can be scrutinized. If that means I have to procure them myself, it will be a long time until that happens. What if, like the psychiatrist counterclaim that did not deny the abuse claims, Figari overlooked a certain part of the claim? If the Marka content gets taken off, it should not be a permanent decision. That Marka article has not been scrutinized yet, and, given that I based my decision on an academic's work, I should hardly be faulted for believing that there was some reliability to the claim. If something is problematic about Figari's reply to the Marka article from the 1970s, and the Marka article states something missed by Figari, or if something else was produced that we do not know of, I think it is only fair that the Marka issue be featured on the wiki page. Unfortunately, I cannot scrutinize the Marka article at this time.
I would ask, Anibal, out of fairness and transparency, that you produce the original Marka article and not just Figari's counterclaim if you can. I think you and I know very well that this is possible to get this article, even with a visit to the BNP in San Borja (a stone's throw from the SCV community houses in the same district and in La Molina). If you cannot, then we remove the source for now. Once I or anyone else see it - regardless of the time frame- I think we should be able to re-open discussion on this issue. Until then I believe that we should have a provisional decision to remove the point regarding the TFP and "fascist" claims. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that source can be procured in 48 hours by me. I am not in Peru to get that source from the library. Unless Anibal can produce it I think we will have to open discussion on this, if necessary, another time. As I said earlier, we can remove it for now. I've saved a copy of the file Anibal posted (Marka response by Figari), which means that there will be multiple holders of the source should the debate be opened again and the article need be posted.Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Lastly, I want to remind Anibal that we have not resolved the "conservative" label issue. I think there needs to be acknowledgement of two items:
1) Their attacks on Liberation Theology in the 1970s and 1980s (Pena as a source *is* useful here), and the actions of Kay Schmalhausen in the Prelate of Ayaviri against a liberation theologist priest, which was met with a series of complaints. 2) Their lobbying of the government for a pro-life agenda.
This doesn't have to be in the same section as criticisms and controversies, but, as I suggested earlier, that this would fall under politics (please keep in mind the definitions I provided, which I would be happy to negotiate on if some better word could be chosen). I say this to ensure that the content is not deleted but rather placed somewhere else without POV issues surounding the word "conservative".Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the 'conservative' label issue: For the moment I am currently not proposing changes to the two paragraphs about it. I only have moved the subheading one paragraph up, where I think it belongs for now.
Regarding the next subsection, I am provisionally changing the subheading to 'Internal discipline and recruiting practices' to have it comply with NPOV policy.
I would thank the mediator's opinion on the Knowles issue, i.e., the alleged kidnapping of the 21 year old woman.
I proposed:
- - Removing the 2003 kidnapping case, which, as documentation shows, was completely unfounded (the young woman not only had no connection to any SCV-related organization, but was not even a practicing Catholic).
Jorgecatolica1 replied:
- Keep the Knowles issue as it is a claim with a Police Report refuting the claim. I don't know why police reports have such authority to nullify any claim made as "unreal" or "wrong". Is the PNP in Peru not one of the least trusted institutions in the country, as suggested by Ludwig Huber in his book "Romper la mano: una interpretacion cultural de la corrupcion"?
I reply that the referred report includes the official testimony of the supposed victim, of her father, of the authority of the university she studied in, as well as from the other parties involved, and that it also refers to the previous demands of the mother and how these had been unfounded also. All of these showed that:
- The complaint of the woman was dismissed by the Peruvian authorities after a due investigative process, in which they stated that the daughter had not been deprived of her freedom at any time, that she lived in the same residence since she left her mother's house two years before the demand, that she had a regular job at the Peruvian British Cultural Association, that she also attended university classes, that she was an outstanding student of Architecture, that she was not part of any religious group, that she did not even consider herself a practicing Catholic. Moreover, the investigation verified that the mother suffered from psychological problems, that she had previously filed similar demands against other five people, that all of these were unrelated to SCV, that all those demands had also proved to be false, that they were caused by the mother's personal problems and by the fact that the daughter had left her parents residence at age 19 in 2001 with the intention of becoming independent, and that the daughter had been psychologically abused by the mother repeatedly.
Let me add finally that, as can be verified in the documents, the mother did not produce any single piece of evidence supporting her demand, and that, on the contrary, there was more than enough evidence to verify that the daughter had never been deprived of her freedom, and that she not only had not been living in a community related to SCV, but that she was not related at all with SCV and was not even a practicing Catholic.
Anibal06 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Knowles issue belongs here, but with appropriate sourcing and refutation/response. Ronk01 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with the changes that Anibal made today. As for the conservative issue, I have no problem changing that language provided the events/issues related to that label remain. I am concerned that someone will come on here and make a change because they disagree with the "conservative" label as a POV issue.
I welcome John D. Cohen to enter this process, but he seems to have no problem making changes to the article that are not agreed upon in this mediation. John D. Cohen reads the discussion thread (or at least he did), so I think it is reasonable to expect his awareness of this as he makes changes (also, I add comments when I edit that they are in accordance with the mediation). Furthermore, I think we need to make a decision about what the title of this section will be.Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I will keep the mediation open longer to resolve these issues. Ronk01 (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I thank Ronk01 for his opinion regarding the Knowles issue. Could he please ellaborate on what kind of other sourcing would be needed? I think we have already referenced the two primary sources, i.e., the demand of the mother and the official report of Peruvian police. Perhaps, if he considers it appropriate, Ronk01 as a third-party could try to contact the supposed victim, Kryssie Knowles, through facebook. I have just made a search and I found that the only profile result for a query with that name is a girl of the same age and is linked to a Recoleta school profile (Recoletanos corazon), so I think it is most probable that she is the same woman. Also, I do not see even one SCV related contact among her 273 facebook friends. I declare that I have not contacted her at all. Could Ronk01 please try and verify this as a third party?
Regarding the heading of this section, I am fine with the current one.
As for John D. Cohen, I completely agree with Jorgecatolica1. I invite Jorgecatolica1 to let me undo myself John's revisions next time. I am getting tired of his editions on this section, too. If he is willing to participate, he is free to join this discussion and he should be prepared to provide sources and arguments.
Anibal06 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was that I would like to see an official SCV rebuttal that is properly sourced. I will attempt to contact Ms. Knowles. Ronk01 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)