Talk:Mercy Multiplied: Difference between revisions

Removing Ex-gay/Pro-life part of description

This is true as referenced further up in the discussion. Why is it being taken out? Can you explain?Victoria Lucas (talk)

Undid Vandalism

The article has been reverted after a user appeared to delete some of the main information. I hope that's ok.

Primary sources and other concerns

This article has about five times too many references published by Mercy Ministries. This article (as with all articles on WP) should be based primarily on secondary sources independent of the organization. Additionally, the entire "Beliefs" section should probably be removed per WP:UNDUE, the Locations section should be trimmed, and the Fundraising section should be drastically slashed. The latter is the worst, in that it clearly is intended to promote the organization by tying a bunch of famous names who've fundraised for it; this information is not really relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.

However, I would like to add that DownRightMighty was correct to remove all of those blogs and the excessive focus on the Australian scandal. Like the rest of the article, controversial information must come from reliable independent sources, and blogs almost never qualify as reliable sources (nor do other self-published wesbsites).

I'm not going to edit this page at the moment--I'd prefer that interested editors start to have a conversation here about article improvement. I'd rather act primarily as an administrator here at this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being objective about the article and the edits. I have no issue with the discussion which has been started on my talk page. I just want people to have a level head as I will discuss anything that needs to be in order to get a consensus. The edits from Miss Bobbins were disruptive to Wikipedia and done to make a point. We will continue dialogue on my talk page and hopefully reach a consensus. I will work on the other information that you suggest above over the next couple of days. I will need time to obtain references that meet the criteria that you site and make the adjustments as necessary. Again, sorry to get you involved. --DownRightMighty (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have an inquiry about the Australian scandal. Since there is ample coverage by various Aussie news sources and the Nashville Scene in Tennessee, I don't believe it to be 'excessive focus.' Could you elaborate on that, please? Ollyoxen (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

I apologize as there is so much writing on this talk page at this point that I missed your inquiry. Wikipedia has a policy on weight of information. You can view it at this location and Qwyrxian and I have dialogue about it below in another section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DownRightMighty (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

My main concern about the recent edits by Mighty is that almost half of the content of the entire article has been deleted. My reason for reversing them without comment is that it looked like censorship of criticism which would fall into the category of vandalism. This page has been the victim of censorship over the years by supporters of this organisation and even Mercy Ministries themselves (scroll down and read). It was even frozen for a time for this reason. So when close to half of the article was deleted, that was my first impression of what had happened.

Deletions of content I had previously added had been removed, but more than that, content that had been there for years has also been deleted, despite the article discussions showing the fine tuning process of why that content should be there.

I am hoping to go through each section of the article and discuss its current and previous states, one by one, and see if we can work towards a more balanced and accurate article. I think this is the best way forward.

Reasons given for a number of deletions was that it relied on unreliable sources such as blog pieces.

1. A substantial number of statements that were deleted were in fact supported by published media articles
2. Some of the links that related to blogs etc were actually duplicates of media stories that are no longer viewable at their original source. In addition, some of these blog/website pieces contain evidence such as scanned letters from Mercy, or copies of the counselling manual that they use or have used in the past. Therefore, if a sentence in the article is supported by that type of content alone (rather than the actual blog commentary), then I don’t see why those statements should be deleted simply because at face value they reference a blog link.
3. Finally, there are statements that were supported by both media stories and blog links, and in those cases, all one would have to do is delete the blog references, provided they do not fall into the above category.

If there is anything else anyone thinks should be discussed before we go through each section, then please post it here for discussion so we can work through it.

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.82.91 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First, a note: "censorship" is not vandalism--vandalsim (per WP:VANDAL) only refers to cases where someone is intentionally trying to make an article worse, like saying "Obama is an idiot" or "suck it!". This is a content dispute.

But, moving forward: the best step would be to reintroduce, slowly, the content you think still belongs. Work only from reliable sources--newspapers, news tv shows, etc. You can't use blogs, even if the blog was "reproducing" content from other online sources, because we cannot verify that the blog accurately copied the original source. And we definitely would never include blog info that has allegedly "scanned info"--such sources would be primary sources, and only if we had absolute, rock-solid proof that they were authentic, which we cannot get from a blog. This is really not something that can be compromised on--if mainstream sources haven't covered it, we can't either. However, please note that sources don't have to be online--if you know full publishing info for a newspaper article that's not archived online, you can include it. If someone wants to challenge the info, you may be asked to provide quotations to verify the info.

Given my experience with articles like this, the best thing to do is tackle one small section at a time, adding sources, making sure they meet WP:RS and the text meets WP:NPOV. Then we can evaluate each part, and gradually build up a good article. Work on the lead last, because we can't know what belongs in the lead until we know what's in the article itself.

Oh, at the same time, we can also go about removing the excessive material sourced to the Ministries itself, as that's also WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for giving us both insight on what needs to be done. You are correct about the undue weight which is why the Australian information was removed in part. 50% of the article seemed to be dedicated to this affiliate location. I am unsure of how it would equate to 50% of the article and also to be mentioned in every section including the intro, an "ethos" section, locations, Australian controversy, etc. Although I agree with Qwyrxian's reasoning stated above, I would recommend coming to a consensus on the talk page prior to any edits being made. In fact, I have cut down the funding section as suggested and will paste a recommended version of the new text here tomorrow. We can discuss the content and hopefully come to a consensus on what needs to be added or removed from that section. Also, I will be introducing some additional references in the next few minutes. I will NOT be changing the content as there is a current content dispute and I will not add content or remove it going forward unless there is a consensus. I will only be adding the primary sources as suggested by Q. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is about consensus. So, regardless of your reason for wanting more weight to negative information on the organization, let us try to reach a consensus here for the sake of the millions of people who use Wikipedia on a daily basis. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose that due to the dispute between us, that we work with the original version that was negotiated and agreed upon before either of us made edits. I propose that we restore the version of this article from 13 July 2012 at 03:31. We can then discuss what sections we should add or remove from that one. This version has less content about the controversy, and you can insert the sections that you created such as funding which have and are already being discussed herein.

I propose this as a neutral way forward for both of us, because I am being accused by you of trying to undermine this process and I have serious concerns about the past and present issue of gross censorship that this article has undergone, by you and others and also by IP addresses that belong to this organisation.

On the subject of censorship, many things were deleted that were referenced by proper sources such as the countless media articles available on the subject of this organisation. And not all of those things that were deleted related strictly to the controversy. There has also been controversy surrounding the US branches, and that section was removed entirely, despite references to several media articles and radio interviews.

I am not bringing this up to discuss the controversy section here (let's create another heading for that), but rather to make the point that we should both work from the version that existed prior to either of our edits. It is a more neutral starting point as edits up to that point have been made upon considerable discussion and input of many before us.

Please advise if you are disagreeable.

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissSherryBobbins (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I just mentioned on MissSherryBobbins' talk that we can't do that, because that version, while it does contain a number of good references that I think can be salvaged, also contains a number of blogs, self-published websites, and advocacy sites (some clearly made specifically to harm the Ministries) which we cannot have on the page, even temporarily What we should do, though, is go back to that version (I'm thinking of this version from July) and pull out some of the newspaper sources. One thing that MSB said to me is that this controversy isn't just in Australia, but also in other countries as well. And even if it is just Australia, the current coverage seems too light given how extensive the news coverage seems to have been. As such the right level is likely somewhere between the current one and the way it was a few months ago. I recommend that, in a new section, someone start collecting useful articles (including offline ones, if necessary), and you start to figure out how to summarize those with due weight and neutral tone. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with reverting the article back to an earlier version as from the history of the page this has been done numerous times in the past when these conflicts arise. However, I did look at that revision and feel that some of the sources could be plucked and placed into the current article if we can get a consensus on the wording. At your suggestion, I have started with new proposed wording for the funding section which as I step back and look at it again, is way too long. I am hoping that we can reach a consensus on the shorter section soon so that it can be implemented in the article. From looking below, it appears that the issue that Ollyoxen/MissBobbins have deals with the statement that they do not receive government funding, not the length of the content itself. If we can resolve that issue, I believe that we can move forward with that section. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the July version is more factual. The version now has been so distorted it's very biased. 198.176.189.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen.

Q, I have to concur with OllyOxen that the 13 July version to me seems better referenced and more neutral than the one with my edits and the one with DRM's edits. Even peeling back the references I added that were not reliable, there is still alot of content in that article that was deleted by DRM for apparently having unreliable references. Furthermore, DRM has simply replaced poorly referenced (and well referenced) material with promotional fodder, referencing MM's own promotional material. Therefore, I still believe that this July version would be a better one to work with, but should you still disagree, I will go with what you propose about keeping this one and reintroducing previous content as we go through it. DRM, I will address your comments about funding when we commence discussions on that section of the article. MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Independent Sources

• Again, Keep in mind that I am only adding better sources and not changing any content.

1. Added an article from the Tennessean that talks about the closing of Australia franchises and the apology issued by the Australian director. Also removed the under referenced notice. More references to follow.--DownRightMighty (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Removed self-published source from the MMOA website (http://www.mercyministries.org/what_we_do/our_program.html). Was used twice as a reference in the opening paragraph. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Added the source from Today's Christian Woman to support the information previously sourced by #2 above. This should suffice to support the content in the opening regarding adoption.--DownRightMighty (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

4. Removed self-published source to MMOA website (http://www.mercyministries.org/who_we_are/about/locations.html). Used Washington Times Article (Mercy Not Strained; Christian Mission Nurtures Young, Distressed Women) to replace the self-published source.--DownRightMighty (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

5. This source (http://www.mercyministries.org/who_we_are/founder.html) is self-published and used 3 times in the article. I have removed the 1st instance of it and replaced it with the above referenced Washington Times article. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note that there will be quite a few self-published sources removed under the proposed new wording of the funding section below. The new section will be limited to the independent and reliable sources, not the organization's website.--DownRightMighty (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Removed source to MMOA website under the funding section. Link is self-published and also a dead link.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Removed another self-published source (http://www.mercyministries.org/AboutUs/OurFounder/MercyHistory.aspx) from funding. Cutting out the fat first. Will introduce the independent sources under the "funding" section on this talk page for everyone's review.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

8. I have not yet removed this reference (http://www.mercyministries.org/who_we_are/about/statement_of_faith.html) as it is the one that supports the beliefs section. Although not independent, the article states that "According to their website...." References 3 & 4 in the article would also support the belief section; however, stating what they DO believe is different from what they STATE that they believe. It could be subjective to state that "they believe" as opposed to a more objective "they state that they believe." --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DRM.

Again, I will respond to each section as we discuss them oen by one.

One thing I will say for now is that you have raised the issue of neutrality a number of times, and on that subject and your point 8 above, I think it is more accurate to state "the Mercy Ministries of America website states" rather than "Mercy Ministries are such and such". I think this will help to preserve neutrality of the article, and we can take the same approach to other sources, eg "the Sydney Morning Herald reported such and such". I think this is especially important given the number of discrepencies between the content of the MM website and what is reported in a number of other reliable sources. Are we able to agree on this approach?

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Funding

I have edited the funding section and cut quite a bit out. Instead of having subheadings within the main heading, I would propose to leave it as just one heading. Here is what the new proposed wording is:

MMOA is funded through donations from individuals, businesses, and organizations. They do not accept state or federal funding. MMOA is supported by numerous celebrities including New York Times Best selling author Dave Ramsey and The Ramsey Family Foundation, California-based multi-millionaire Buzz Oates, and Joyce Meyer and Joyce Meyer Ministries among many others.

MMOA partners with numerous other nonprofit and charity organizations. One of their principles states that they will give at least ten percent of all donations that they receive to other organizations and ministries. In 2012, Big Idea Entertainment, the animation production company best known for the VeggieTales films and now owned by DreamWorks Animation SKG, announced a partnership with MMOA. The partnership revolves around the company's recently released (August 2012) video entitled VeggieTales: The Penniless Princess - God's Little Girl, which features a video intended to help drive donations to Mercy. The video contains testimonials from girls who have been through the MMOA program.

MMOA also partners with many famous artists to raise funds and awareness for the mission. In 2010, Grammy nominee Contemporary Christian musician Matthew West invited the girls from Mercy to be a guest of himself and his wife Emily on The Story of Your Life tour. In November 2000, Donna Summer recorded the song Take Heart for The Mercy Project, a compilation CD with proceeds benefiting MMOA. Other artist supporters featured on this CD include Amy Grant, Martina McBride, Point of Grace and Michelle Tumes.

The section is shorter and it cuts out the lengthy details about each event that they have conducted with a celebrity. I feel that it is important to leave information about how they do partner with celebrities, but not in as great of detail as it was. This is because the articles that I found that support their funding are largely based with celebrity and popular artist partnerships. Of course, I welcome the comments from others. --DownRightMighty (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The above wording would be supported by the following sources [1], [2], [3], [4]. There are additional indpependent sources that I am looking for now. They are in hard copy and not online so I will need to find them and then post them here for everyone's review. If you take a look at the current article, the above section here and the sources that I currently propose, it will widdle down the self-published sources from Mercy down quite a bit. Please make a comment about the above proposed wording. Also, if you have a reference that shows that they do in fact take donations from government sources.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page 3 of this source, http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/103/pub/pc0372.pdf from the Tennessee Senate Bill in 2003 contradicts the statement that MMOA does not accept state or federal funding. Could you point out a more relevant or direct source that shows that this is incorrect? Ollyoxen (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

A government bill is not a reliable source. First, we would need a reliable source to verify that the bill was passed, and passed in the version that you linked to. Second, you would need evidence that money was actually disbursed to MM--just because they're on the list, doesn't mean any money was finally sent, because lots of bureaucratic decisions can intervene between a law passing and money changing hands. Finally, the wording of the bill makes it unclear about "who" is getting the money; there are two ways to read it, and one of them implies that, while these charities are facilitating a process, they aren't actually receiving the money--they're just passing it on to other "clients". So, in fact, its you, Ollyoxen, that needs a better source to support your claim that they do take state funds. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the above source. It is a good reference to show what the government has stated they are going to do; however, it does not state that they actually gave the money nor does it say that Mercy accepted it. Can you help me by telling me how you have direct knowledge of their funding? If you can actually point in the direction where you are obtaining your information it would help me find a source that is independent that we can use in the article. Thanks.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I would appreciate it if you could remain neutral on the article. Perhaps I'm misreading your statement, but it reads quite condescending. I don't agree that this source should be tossed out entirely, as it is state paperwork and is a reliable source on the issue, but I see your point and will provide those sources/details.

To further prove my point, here are 3 sources showing that the bill above in 2003 was finally made a law in 2006. The ACLU held it up for 3 years but it went through.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188267,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Life_license_plates

http://www.lifenews.com/2006/11/15/state-1963/

I will bring forth more sources about the direct link to MM. Thank you for your patience. 198.176.189.201 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Australia Scandal

(Recopied from "Locations" as I believe I misplaced this discussion originally)

I'm not certain this is an accurate statement:

"Affiliates of the Mercy Ministries brand also exist internationally, although each affiliate has its own independent executive director and board according to MMOA's website.[9] Affiliates include Vancouver, Canada; Auckland, New Zealand; and Bradford, United Kingdom. These homes are operated and financed independent from MMOA; an international board from Mercy Ministries International (MMI) oversees these worldwide operations.[10]"

According to the news sources in Australia over the controversy and the Nashville Scene article in 2008, Mercy Ministries of America is a new concept and the terminology was used after the scandals. I don't believe it is correct to state that "each affiliate has its own independent executive director and board" unless it is qualified with a "now" or "after the allegations." Ollyoxen (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Upon further reading, I don't agree with the following statements based on the articles that are from Aussie news sources.

"An independent charity with two homes founded by Darlene and Mark Zschech[11] in Australia called Mercy Ministries of Australia (MMAU) closed in 2008 and 2009.[12][13] These locations had no oversight from MMOA,[11] and they had separate and independent leadership, program design and organizational structure.[14] According to MMOA's website, because of a shared vision to serve hurting girls, Nancy Alcorn, Founder and President of Mercy Ministries of America, permitted Darlene and Mark Zschech to leverage the "Mercy Ministries" brand when they founded MMAU in 2001."

This would be a "he said-she said" account of allegations that are quite serious with MMOA blaming Darlene and Mark Zschech for the incidents that the Aussie news sources documented as MMOA's fault. I will link the original Aussie news sources I'm referencing after I gather them. Ollyoxen (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

A recent 2012 article discusses the scandal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-17770794

I am not on Wikipedia full-time so I hope to address your comments as much as I can. For the above, please propose new wording. The fact that you disagree is not coming to a consensus, it is just disagreeing. Please propose new wording that is supported by reliable sources. If you have wording that is supported by sources, I believe that we can reach a consensus on new wording. Keep in mind that it is not about what you know, it is about what you can source. The "he said-she said" is not a blame of MMOA, it was a well-sourced admission of the director of MMAU. Again, please provide some proposed wording and I will look at it. I am not that hard of a person to deal with and know that we can come to a consensus. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will propose new wording and get back to you. However, I'm simply pointing out the sections of the article which are biased or innacurate so we can move forward addressing each section. If we are going to revert back to the July version, then we should do so now, so the same detail can be given there and time not wasted on this one. 198.176.189.201 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Programs: Structure

Under structure, I would suggest adding this quote from the Sydney Morning Herald under "Funding" or "Structure".

"Yet few who donate to Mercy understand they are giving money to fund exorcisms in a program that removes young women from proven medical therapies and places them in the hands of a house full of amateur counsellors. Its literature claims to have a 90 per cent success rate - yet nowhere does it publish any results.

The allegations by Johnson, Canham-Wright, Smith and others indicates the program cannot lay claim to such a success rate."

Another point I would suggest to add is this statement from the same article, saying the following:

Some former residents of Mercy Ministries spoke with Syndey Morning Herald reporter Ruth Pollard about their stay at Mercy. Pollard writes of the women's experiences: "Instead of the promised psychiatric treatment and support, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students, most of them under 30 and some with psychological problems of their own. Counselling consisted of prayer readings, treatment entailed exorcisms and speaking in tongues, and the house was locked down most of the time, isolating residents from the outside world and sealing them in a humidicrib of pentecostal religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollyoxen (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While that's a good article to look at for information, putting it in the funding section would not be appropriate--it's not really about funding, it's about the quality of the services MM claims to provide. As DRM pointed out above, it is inappropriate to try to turn every single section of this article into something critical about MM. However, that does look like a great article from to draw criticism. Could you all work out how to do so together? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sections to be agreed upon

Although this will ultimately get worked out as we proceed, I thought it would be a good idea to maybe list the sections/sub-sections we think should go into or be reinstated into the article. Drawing from the 13 July version, my edits, and DownRightMighty's edits which are represented by the current version, here is what they are combined:

A. Intro/overview

B. History

C. Beliefs/Ethos

D. Locations

E. Funding E1. Direct funding E2. Charitable partnerships

F. Programs F1. Structure

G. Media outlets

H. Controversy H1. Australian controversy H2. US controversy I. Exorcism

J. Use of false memory recalling/Use of recovered memory therapy at Mercy Ministries

My initial thoughts are:

• Remove sub-sections in funding section. You can have paragraphs about "direct" and "charitable partnerships", but I don't think that the subsection headings are necessary.

• I'm not adverse to there being a "history" section, but at the moment it looks more like Nancy Alcorn's bio. Unless someone wants to create a page on her, I think that this section should be reserved for the organisations history, not Nancy's.

• "Beliefs/Ethos" could probably be covered in the intro/overview. It's more recently been simplified to "Christian", but i think that the previous description of "evangelical" and "charismatic" elaborate on this well, as subcategories of Christian, and those labels are well supported by available evidence that could be cited.

• Have "Program structure" as a heading or something similar, rather than a sub-heading for "structure".

• Media outlets is not really accurate... MM aren't a media outlet. Many organisations publish newsletters but they wouldn't be called "media outlets". I am wondering if there should even be a section for this? It seems more promotional than anything.

• DownRightMighty mentioned in a comment that he/she thinks that the controversy section should be limited to that section and not spill over into other sections. From a structural perspective, I think that this would be ideal, but due to the magnitute and the nature of the controversies, I don't know if it is possible to not at least reference them in those other sections. The controversies arose mainly around the nature of the program and counselling used across all homes (which highlight allegations of exorcism and false memory therapy technique, not to mention their entire counselling manual), false and misleading advertising of services as shown in government undertakings signed by former directors, and the taking of government welfare monies when the program was advertised for free. According to US media sources, not all of these issues were isolated to the Australian homes. And these controversies relate to sections such as "funding" and "program structure". What are everyone's thoughts on how to approach this?

• As for exorcism and use of recovered memory therapy, we could put those in controversies, however as they relate specifically to the nature of the therapy, do we put this in "program structure" and subcategory "counselling"? Or do we simply reference them there and then elaborate in controversy?

• In the controversy section, I am wondering if we should add a "UK controversy" given there are at least two newspaper articles that I am aware of.

Would like to know what others think?

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Note that you can't put spaces before you start a line--it doesn't indent, it just messes up the formatting; I've reformatted your section. As for your proposal, two things. First, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't decide ahead of time what sections there will be until you find out what sourced information you have. We've already established that large chunks of the old article were unsourced or linked to unreliable sources, and until you establish that reliable sources exist, we can't guess ahead of time there will be a section. Second, in an ideal article, there is no controversy section. Instead, relevant controveries are mentioned within the rest of the article. This doesn't mean they should permeate every aspect of the article (unless, of course, the group is primarily notable for controversy), but it does mean we should try to put a controversy next to a topic. If that can't be done (because there's no clear way), then a separate section is okay, but it's always preferable to avoid. As an example, If exorcism is a major portion of their activities, and that can be documented, then have that as a separate section, including both positive and negative comments (if soured, WP:DUE, etc.). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to weigh in as Qwyrxian is giving good advice; however, an important thing to keep in mind when editing is to make sure that you use a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Note that I have included both positive and negative information about the organization. I have also recommended wording to remove a large portion of positive information that I previously introduced in the article. I am also agreeable to introduce additional negative information that you feel should be in there; however, it appears that everything that you want to introduce is negative. Please make sure that you try to stay as neutral as you possibly can and I will keep an open mind about any proposed wording that you feel should be introduced. Thanks.--DownRightMighty (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DRM, there is no requirement that a specific editor find "positive information"; the key is that the information be "neutral". In other words, our job is to report the facts about Mercy Ministries, in due balance to how they are described in reliable sources. If the organization is almost always described negatively, then our article should reflect that. I don't mean that Wikipedia should say "MM is bad", but the sources we site and the amount of weight we give to each section isn't based on trying to give both positive and negatives, but on trying to present an accurate picture of how reliable sources portray the subject. Yes, if one person is always trying to force in negative information, that's a problem. But, in any event, this discussion is really all a waste of time--what all of you need to do is focus on finding and summarizing reliable sources, not on trying to build some big picture of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that I completely understand. After re-reading what I wrote, it is apparent that I did not get the point out correctly. What I mean by a neutral point is that all of the information about the article should be included if it is from reliable sources; however, it also needs to be given the appropriate weight. I used the term positive and negative comments, when I want to say that there are positive and negative press items out there and we should weigh them appropriately. For instance, there is plenty of press about Mitt Romney transporting his dog on the roof of a vehicle. In fact, you can find hundreds of articles about it from some of the top sources such as New York Times, USA Today, etc. However, just because there is so much press about it, I do not believe that 50% of his article should be consumed with this information. Is is credible enough for a mention, but just because it was covered in great detail, it needs to be weighed against the other sources about him. If all there was on him was negative press about his dog, then that is what the article should be consumed with. I believe the same would apply to MMOA and all other articles in Wikipedia.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q.

Sorry, I intended this to be more of a guide that is open to change, and also to give a visual aide on the combinations of the sections of the three versions (my edits, DRMs edits and the one from July before either of us made changes). I thought it would be a good starting point.

Regarding the controversies, I think your idea is better than having it limited to its own section. I agree that they should not permeate every aspect of the article, but when discussing topics such as funding or the exact nature of the program/treatment methods, then I think it would be negligent to not raise the controversies as far as they relate to those aspects. To keep it neutral and balanced, we could also include MM's media responses or website information(where applicable) to show what they have to say in response.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Use of abbreviations and referencing Mercy Ministries homes correctly

Even though the article is titled "Mercy Ministries", the first line of the article says "Mercy Ministries of America (MMOA)", and then uses this abbreviation throughout the article.

Firstly, if this is an article about Mercy Ministries, then we should use the term "Mercy Ministries", not "Mercy Ministries of America" (except where referring to the US branches specifically), and there is no reason why the term should be abbreviated throughout the article.

Actually, using an acronym is appropriate, especially with such a long title. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations.--DownRightMighty (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DRM and Q.

With regard to use of abbreviations in this article, if it discusses the five international branches (trading as MMUK etc) as well as the company name, we will end up with a total of 5 acronyms for each branch plus MMI for the company name plus MM for the name MM is more commonly known by (that is, if we go with my suggestion below). With MM in New Zealand, this is known as "A Girl Called Hope", so would the acronym be AGCH? MM International aside (another MMI), this would be a total of six acronyms. I think this would confuse readers rather than enhance the quality of the article.

DRM and Q, what are your thoughts on this?

In the coming days, I will begin to propose wording and supply sources for the different sections.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Some time ago, someone kept changing references to "Mercy Ministries Australia" to "MMA". Again, there is no good reason why this should happen, and without making accusations of any one person, I have wondered if in the past this was a further attempt at censorship or perhaps an attempt to interfere with search engine rankings.

Also references to other Mercy Ministries homes should be called by their name, eg "Mercy Ministries Australia", "Mercy Ministries UK", and not simply "an affiliate". All of these homes were overseen by Mercy Ministries International for many years and all are linked to the entity "Mercy Ministries Inc". The idea of thes homes merely being an affiliate only popped up in the last year, but I see no evidence to support that Mercy Ministries of America or MErcy Ministries Inc being entirely seperate from the other homes that bear its name.

Thoughts?

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

You bring up something very important. Based on your above logic, I would propose changing the name to Mercy Ministries of America and redirect the page to that title, leaving a redirect from Mercy Ministries. I believe that we will debate when the name began being used, but by your own admission, you agree that it is currently Mercy Ministries of America. I believe that this would be our first consensus, that the current name regardless of when the use began, is Mercy Ministries of America. So, unless you have an object which I will give a couple of days for people to discuss, the page could be redirected.

Also, Since the article does discuss the other affiliate locations and you feel that there are strong controversies about the Australian location, my opinion is that they should go into another article, not this one. Of course, I still feel that it is important to put the information in the current article as these are affiliates who are using the name; however, I believe that the mention of these should not take up 50% of the article like they did previously. Hence, I put the information in the location section to talk about that there was an Australian location, and also put in a controversy section to cover that there was a controversy there. Again, I am using your logics, not mine. I can infer from your comments that you would be happy if the entire article was about the Australia location; however, we have to make sure that we follow the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. If you use that as a basis and come up with wording that you think should go in the article, please propose it on this page as I did with the funding section. The only way to reach a consensus is to propose the wording so that everyone can comment. --DownRightMighty (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the name of the largest umbrella organization? That's probably what the name of this article should be, and we can reference each individual sub-group by clear name w/in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are actually 2 which is why I would suggest 2 different articles. There is Mercy Ministries International and Mercy Ministries of America. Links for MMOA can be found at these locations but I do not know which ones would be reliable [5], [6], [7], [8]. I also did an IRS search and they are listed as separate entities and each has their own tax exempt status. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can not find the discussion, but there was dialogue about the name recently chaning to MMOA after the "Australian scandal." The locations were closed in 2008 & 2009. I found an articles from prior to this time including one from 1997 in the Tennessee Tribune called "Jefferson Street Businesses Help Youth Start Student Companies." The article refers to Mercy Ministries of America, not Mercy Ministries.--DownRightMighty (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q and DRM.

Q, the largest umbrella organisation would be the entity Mercy Ministries Inc. This and Mercy Ministries International were umbrella organisations for all homes around the world. But the organisation is best known as “Mercy Ministries”. It has only been in the last year that MMOA has labelled other homes as “affiliate organisations” on their website. However, this was not conveyed before this point, and certainly not prior to the Australian controversies. Many of the older promotional videos for MM show girls’ testimonies, not only from the US, but also from the Australian homes. This material was used to raise money for Mercy Ministries in the US wherever founder Nancy Alcorn went to speak at various conferences around the world. Following the Australian scandal, Nancy Alcorn announced on their website that MM was now working to streamline the reporting and program structure for all homes internationally. If they were merely affiliate branches, then MMOA would not have the power to do this. Furthermore, the other home are known as “Mercy Ministries UK”, “Mercy Ministries Canada” etc, and to merely refer to them as “an affiliate” is not accurate. Therefore, the existence of MM Inc and MM International, and the references made to those entities in media articles and other available documents, it is disputable that MMOA is entirely separate, commercially and otherwise, from other homes.

DRM, regarding the issue you raise about how there should be separate pages for the different MM homes, I disagree. One reason is given above, that they are not entirely separate entities (and there is evidence to dispute that they are separate as MMOA recently claimed). Another is that other organisations, large and small, do not have separate pages for their different branches. For eg, check out the YWAM article. YWAM is active in many different countries. Thirdly, I think that the controversies surrounding not only specific MM entities or branches, but MM globally (eg, the program structure which is the same across the board) would result in information being repeated in each page. And finally, there would be virtually nothing to report on A Girl Called Hope (MM in New Zealand) or MM Canada, other than promotional information propagated on the MM website.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

I believe this article should be called “Mercy Ministries”. The logo says “Mercy Ministries”, it is most commonly referred to as simply “Mercy Ministries”, such as in promotional material and during Nancy Alcorn’s sermons when asked to share about her ministry at various speaking locations. People generally don’t call it “Mercy Ministries of America” unless differentiating between the homes in different countries.

As for umbrella organisation Mercy Ministries Inc, this is a company name, and trades as the various Mercy Ministries organisations around the world. Mercy Ministries International no longer has a website of its own (but it use to and I can obtain cached pages of this should it be disputed). This website linked to websites for all branches of MM around the world.

I think that if we call this article simply “Mercy Ministries”, we can then go into the ins and outs of the organisational structure, either in the overview or in a newly created section, and we can discuss the dispute there about MM saying the others are affiliates of MMOA and any evidence to the contrary.

To start off the article as MMOA or to call the article MMOA in my view would create confusion and would implicate that MMOA is the “centre” organisation when in fact it is merely a trading name of MM Inc, just as the others are.

149.171.82.91 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

I realized I was a little unclear above, and MSB's comments reminded me: while knowing what the umbrella organization is named is helpful, it's not necessarily what we should call the article. WP:COMMONNAME says that we call articles what reliable sources call them, unless there's some other overriding concern. So, for example, Microsoft isn't called "Microsoft Corporation", even though that's the formal name. We would need to know what MM is usually called in sources (not the logo or the sermons, but newspapers, etc.). Which reminds me...any chance we could focus on the main, overwhelming issue--finding independent sources on the article? I mean, discussing the name is fine, but since it seems like the biggest concern with this article is a combination of neutrality and not missing key info, it seems like info/source adding should be the key focus of people's effort. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q.

I provide the following newspaper sources from Australia and the US, both favourable and non-favourable, that show this organisation is commonly referred to and more commonly known as "Mercy Ministries", even in many cases when referring to MM in a specific country. These articles contain references to "Mercy Ministries" both in the headline and body of the article. Furthermore, the majority of cite-worthy sources refer to MMOA and other branches as "Mercy Ministries".

1. Sydney Morning Herald article "Mercy Ministries admits claims were false"

2. Lincoln News Messenger article "Mercy Ministries: Two fathers views"

3. The Tennessean article "Mercy Ministries 5K run close to Brentwood streets Saturday"

And for what a "primary source" is worth, MMoA referring to themselves as simply "Mercy Ministries":

DRM, I am thinking that if the page is simply Mercy Ministries, we can elaborate on the company structure within the article and work with the available sources on this subject where dispute exists. This is where we can say that MMoA identifies other homes as independent affiliates.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Archiving question

Hi Q and DRM.

I think I may have created an issue with this talk page. I reversed an edit made by a bot, it was basically archiving the bulk of the conversations that had taken place on this page, and I reversed them for the reason that the article is undergoing major revision and so it would be best if we could draw from the previous notes about previous edits made. But there had been changes to the page after the bot edit, and so i think that part of our conversation is missing. Do either of you know how to restore those edits whilst keeping the prior conversations from being archived?

149.171.82.91 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Luckily, the bot kicked in again. There is no reason to revert the bot. The information is retained in archives. The prior discussions have very little help for us in the current discussion--info from many years ago may not be current, the people who were talking then are no longer here, and it's difficult to discuss when the page is over-full. In any event, a number of the arguments previously made didn't conform to policy anyway, so they really really don't help us. For some reason the box didn't show before, but I've added a box (just under the wikiproject templates) that has links to the archives if you need to search them for some reason. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, MissSherryBobbins, please 1) log in before editing, and 2) sign your posts with four tildes. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Overview - proposed new wording

1. REDIRECT Target page name

I know it is best to finalise this section last, but thought it might be helpful to see if we can agree on some basics. If it's not ideal to work this one out now, then perhaps we can revisit it upon finalising the other sections. I have proposed some new wording and included references, and also make the following comments:

1. Mercy is not a voluntary organisation. They do invite people to volunteer as staff, however there are several paid staff, and tax documents will show this. Perhaps DRM was confused about it being voluntary for residents (ie, residents must voluntarily apply because they have to want to go there themselves). DRM, if you are not in dispute of this (and I am sure MM would not be), are you agreeable to removing this word?

2. The old description elaborated on MM being Christian, saying it was also evangelical and charismatic. I believe this is an accurate description, and many articles evidencing their theologies and practices certainly defines them as such. However, if this can't be agreed on, then we can come back to it after finalising the rest of the article. I have left that out of the first line, but touch on it further down.

3. DRM, I can't find a copy of The Tennessean article that was cited supporting that "most of these girls have been X Y and Z". I have proposed wording that covers the main issues, stated both on their website and a number of media articles. DRM, let me know what you think.

4. There has been previous discussion on this talk page about the inclusion of Mercy's "pro life" and "anti gay" stance. There was some wording in the 13 July version about this, and I have borrowed from that to touch on MM extending their treatment to unwed mothers and girls who identify as lesbian. There are at a number of articles that discuss this in detail, as well as a number of screenshots of MM's cached web pages that I can link to. The articles mainly bring these up along with other aspects of the controversies, however the wording I propose in this section merely says that due to MM's Christian worldview, their treatment extends to these issues. DRM, I think you would be happy with the wording, as it is not causing the controversy to spill over into this area.

5. The article says they treat girls between 13-28. This is true on the whole, however due to differing state and federal laws across all branches, this varies from home to home. I don't think it's necessary to go right into this in the article, but I put an asterix next to the 13-28. Do I elaborate on this at the bottom of the article?

6. I left location information out as we can elaborate on that in the locations section.

7. DRM, I put that MM later began extending their program to sex trafficking victims. I think this was in 2010. Are you aware of any articles that comment on when they started this? It may have been when they opened the Sacramento Bee home?

Q, DRM and OO, let me know what you think! Also, Q, I would like feedback on my formatting and referencing.

Here is the wording:

Mercy Ministries is an international, charitable, Christian organisation that offers a six month residential treatment program for young women aged between 13 and 28* who struggle with various “life controlling” issues, such as eating disorders, depression, self harm, abuse issues and drug and alcohol addictions .

Because they are a Christian organisation with a faith-based approach and an evangelical worldview, Mercy Ministries takes a pro-life and anti-gay stance, and as such, welcomes applicants who wish to overcome lesbianism and sexual identity as well as young women with unplanned pregnancies who are seeking alternative solutions to abortion.

In 2010, Mercy Ministries extended their program to include victims of sex trafficking.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Hi Q.

With DRM out of the picture, how should we proceed? Should I implement my suggested wording above and then you come and make any changes you think, or should we work it out here and then add it? Also, still waiting on feedback re my referencing.

I will work on wording for other sections throughout the next couple of weeks.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Go ahead. I may consider some alterations later, but you're welcome to try it out. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate new developments

Sadly, it turns out that DownRightMighty is a serial abuser of Wikipedia operating under dozens of names, who, we believe is being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a large number of companies. While some corporate representatives and PR agents act in good faith, this person is not (given the amount of effort they're taking to remain hidden).

Unfortunately, this leaves the question of what to do from here. We still can't revert back to the June version, because that version is undeniably violating of Wikipedia policy by using unreliable sources and placing a likely undue evidence on the controversies.

So, I still think that we should build up from what's here. I think I'm going to have to give up being an admin on this page and act as editor. I'll first begin by stripping out the promotional info in the current version. Then, if other editors already familiar with the controversy would like, just (as I have been asking for a while), put up links to the reliable sources talking about the group. We can then figure out from them what to re-add to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Well I had suspicions as to his bias but WOW that is massive! Do you know what companies had paid/hired him to write for them? Was there any evidence that suggested MM was one of them?

I am wondering if we should continue with what we were already doing with the new wording suggestions, or if we should go about getting others on board. You mentioned there is a wikipedia approved way to do this. I am happy to continue what we were doing before, but if you think it would produce a better article, am happy to go with the latter.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Oh, wow. I suspected DownRightMighty may have been paid by Mercy Ministries but I had no substantial proof.

I can work on finding reliable sources in the next few weeks but this may take me some time. I'll review some sources that I've gathered and pull quotes from them so we can build up from there. There are other various materials about the program that I can put together, too. Ollyoxen (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen

Go ahead and just start editing the article (either/both of you). The "getting other people involved" is generally for when current editors disagree about how the page should be written, and thus outside editors are brought in to help solve a dispute. Since there doesn't seem, at the moment, to be any significant disputes, you can proceed with editing. I don't know how much time I'll have to work on this either, but I will keep watching. Ultimately, it's better to have an unfairly "positive" article that slowly gets negative points added once they are well-sourced, than to have an article that contains highly negative claims that aren't verified by RS. We'll get there, eventually! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All of this is correct. Mercy Ministries paid this guy [9], whose name is Mike, to edit this article. It makes my skin scrawl. The article needs some very careful eyes now. Qworty (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)