Talk:Alberto Rivera (activist)

Untitled
Removed a paragraph of "Rivera's claims have never been denied or refuted by the Catholic Church", as this is demonstrably untrue. See the Catholic Answers page in the links section; in particular, note that the R.C.C. has denied Rivera's claims of having been a Catholic priest - on which many of his other claims depend.

The same site also lists numerous other objections to Rivera's claims. Whether these count as 'refutation' is a matter of POV, but they can certainly be seen as such; thus, claiming that Rivera's claims 'have never been refuted' is POV. As such, I've removed it. --Calair 02:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, we shouldnt say "Rivera, a fraud from spain...". Even if Rivera himself wouldnt give others the same respect. However, it could be made quite clear that his claims can not be confirmed by any objective source whatsoever. Also, mention should be made of the fact that Chick later claims Rivera was a Bishop with the Jesuits. Of course in my opinion this has about as much credibility as the "Vatican Pornography Conspiracy", but I will try to return with facts.

Cialovesyou 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation
Per the NPOV policy, I've removed the tag categorising Rivera as an "impostor"; there may be a lot of evidence for it, but this is hotly contested. We don't judge neo-Nazis; we present the facts and let the reader judge. The same should be done here. Johnleemk | Talk 17:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Seconded. --Calair 22:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the title "Dr." from Rivera's name, apparrently he has admitted recieving his degrees from a diploma mill and never having actually earned them. Kmerian 01:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That admission would be an interesting addition to this article - what's the source? --Calair 02:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From the Cornerstone Magazine article: Alberto commands great respect from many with his alleged numerous degrees including an N.D., a D.D., a Th.D., a Ph.D., and a master's in psychology. However, he is ambiguous when asked where he received these degrees. Alberto attended a seminary in Costa Rica (the Seminario Biblio Latinamericano) with a friend from Las Palmas, but he did not graduate. That friend, Rev. Plutarco Bonilla (a respected Christian leader in Central America), said that Alberto never finished high school in Las Palmas and that he was in the seminary's program for non‑high school graduates. The school in a letter said they were forced to expel Alberto for his "continual lying and defiance of seminary authority," The known chronology of his life does not allow time for him to have achieved the academic status he claims. When Rev. Wishart pressed Alberto concerning his degrees, Alberto admitted receiving them from a diploma mill in Colorado. Kmerian 17:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a great article. I just wanted to let you know that you did a good job. When I read the section on his claims I was caught off guard for a moment thinking they were presented as fact. The writing on that section may hit the reader a bit hard, but it's not confusing for more than a second. Good page...Paul August 17, 2006


 * Thanks, I read the Cornerstone article a while back but didn't remember that part. I've added it here. --Calair 01:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Alberto's homepage
Alberto's homepage has become a link farm (after the initial enter page). I have thus removed it. Since he is dead it seems unlikely it will be back, but if it is preserved somewhere or Chick has kept it around on his website or something, feel free to add it back. Kit 19:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed dispute tag
I removed a 'section disputed' tag from the page because no explanation of that dispute was offered here - feel free to re-add the dispute tag after explaining what the dispute is about. --Calair 12:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll make a dispute: I did not know what other tag to use. But the biography seems rather unusual... At the end he turns into an angel and saves his sister, also the catholics are tortuing him... It sounds unlikely...


 * I think you may have misunderstood that section on a couple of points.


 * First, the first paragraph of that section says "the following account reflects Rivera's own claims rather than generally-agreed facts". Whether or not they're actually true, Rivera did *claim* those things, and that's all this section says. I don't think his own account is available online, but you can find a comic-form adaption of some of it, including the torture claims.


 * Second... there's nothing in there about him turning into an angel. It does say he 'flew to London'... but presumably that was in a plane. --Calair 03:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In absence of further comment here, I've removed the dispute tag again and reworked the article in a way that will (hopefully) make such misunderstandings less likely to recur. The previous version claimed that Rivera denounced the Catholic Church in a Costa Rican stadium in 1967; I don't have access to Rivera's original version, but the Chick adaptation says Guatemala, 1965 - I've changed it accordingly, but if somebody can find Costa Rica and 1967 in Rivera's version, please change back and perhaps note the discrepancy. --Calair 00:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Alberto's Fans
It looks like one of Alberto's fans has valdalized one of the sections, adding this drivel after the book title (starting with 'However...')-

Author Gary Dale Cearley has written a book refuting these claims about the Roman Catholic Church and Islam. The book is titled Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth About the Vatican and the Birth of Islam. However, its common knowledge that Roman Catholicism is indeed a mixture of Roman pagan practices and gods with Christian labels; these contradictions led to the world-wide Protestant Reformation that re-discovered the essence of the Christian early church is salvation through faith in a pardon by Jesus Christ---not by good behavior in any church. A large human organization commanding the unquestioning obedience of millions of people would have plenty of funds to hire agents to disrupt those who oppose them so the Rivera story is plausible.

I don't know what was originally intended for this paragraph, but it seems trashed beyond repair, my apologies to whoever got their work messed up.

I can't imagine this stuff fits in on Wikipedia, so I cut it. Perhaps Mr. Chick is a registered member here... Thedegu 00:10, 30 September 2006 --   Thedegu 00:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)thedegu

Cornerstone Story dead link
I'm removing references to the Cornerstone refutation of Rivera because the links seem to be coming up dead. I'll see if the address as changed or whatever but this is creating a hole in the article sources and references. Can anyone fill this in? -- Pig manTalk to me 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Cornerstone site is still there but a search of the domain for Rivera only finds one passing reference to him. Again, this puts strain on the underlying available documentation of some of what is said in the article. A new link to the article would really be useful. Instead of deleting the current link, I'm going to comment it out in case it can be updated. -- Pig manTalk to me 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, there's an archive copy on the Wayback Machine. But note that references don't have to be weblinks; "Cornerstone Magazine issue 53" would be a perfectly adequate reference for this stuff, even if the online version vanished. --Calair 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, of course it doesn't have to be a weblink. I just like it when citations are available online so I can look at them myself. It certainly doesn't make the sources more valid by any means. But I'm also not thrilled to re-insert a reference that isn't current. I can validate the contents of the article at the Wayback Machine but it bothers me to use that as a link for the article. Just personal thing about sources; I like them to be current and semi-permanent (well, as much as can be expected on the internet.)  Pig manTalk to me 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too, but unless it reappears on the Cornerstone site an archive version is probably the least bad option. --Calair 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted/ More Vandalism
Someone with the IP 68.46.155.9 came in on Feb. 25 and vandalized the page, and I had to revert it back to its Feb. 20 state. This guy tore apart the whole article, basically changing the first half into 'Alberto's Story (as Told by Alberto).' The vandal even rewrote the 'Cornerstone' section in a more Alberto-leaning manner.


 * Sloppy grammar, too...

The vandalized sections featured stuff like: "Alberto Magno Romero Rivera (1935 - 1997) was a Jesuit priest who later defected from the Catholic Church and reported in numerous interviews and publications that the Catholic Church was "Babylon the Whore" from Revelations and that the Pope was the man name calculated to 666 in Revelations. This argument was also shared by many notable men in history such as Sir Isaac Newton and almost all protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin as the pope's mitre does read "Vicarius Filii Dei" which adds to 666 in Roman Numerals and the Catholic church did admittedly kill 68 million people usually in torturous fashion for owning, teaching, or translating the bible. But the interesting twist to Rivera's story was that he claimed the Catholic Church had briefed him at the Vatican a much different world history than what is generally accepted, filled with the Catholic Church attempting to obtain a unified world government and church with the Pope as ruler."

I think you'd agree with the revert if you checked it.

This sounds consistent with history. Should people know the history of the Catholic Church. Signed: Wynn


 * Sorry, Wynn, but the statements contained in the paragraph above are not even remotely consistent with history. But what can you expect from a guy who claimed that the Jesuits (founded 1540) invented Islam (founded circa 600)?Farsight001 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

'Luther and Calvin as the pope's (insignia) does read "Vicarius Filii Dei" which adds to 666 in Roman Numerals and the Catholic church did (roughly) kill 68 million people (40,000 in Ireland in c.1640 and 10,000 or more during St. Bartholomew's massacre) usually in torturous fashion for owning, teaching, or translating the bible.' This is factual.

If the Jesuits are as powerful and influential, as one who studies the bible and history will find, they could form consensus. So anything putting them in bad light will be hushed. For instance there are a lot of powerful influential people who have graduated from one of the many [known] Jesuit universities.

But, as Otto states: "Finally, Wikipedia isn't for "truth seekers". Nor is it for "truth". It's for "verifiable facts". If you disagree, then you should go elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not your soapbox." -- Otto


 * 40,000+10,000 =/= 68 million. Sorry, but the idea that Vicarius Filli Dei is a title of the pope, or that the Church killed 68 million for owning, teaching, or translating the bible is not just not a fact.  Its absolutely, completely and utterly ridiculous.  Take it from someone who actually has studied history.Farsight001 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"...the Church killed 68 million for owning, teaching, or translating the bible is not just not a fact." Is the exact quantity of people killed very relevant? The fact is that at least a million people were killed by the Catholic organization, just during the Dark Ages. The Waldenses and many other groups and individuals were hunted by the catholic church and killed for even possessing a manuscript of the bible never mind teaching,etc. It seems you don't know much of the history of the catholic church. Singed: Wynn
 * Actually, a million is still multiple orders of magnitude exaggerated. Also, historians don't call it the dark ages.  Its quite a myth that the age was a dark one.  Its called the middle ages and it was a period of renewed freedom and scientific enlightenment, as well as increase in faith, marred mostly by plague and famine - something the Church obviously had no control over.  And yes, people were killed for possessing a manuscript of the bible, as well as a manuscript of pretty much anything else.  This was not to keep them in the dark.  This was because at this point in history, there was no printing press.  It took a team of scholars 5 years to make just one bible, which would cost more than the average person made in a lifetime, so for an average person to possess a bible or any other book without explicit permission to do so meant that they had stolen it, and just like theft of anything back then, that often resulting in hanging.  Its got nothing to do with the fact that it was a bible and everything to do with the fact that it was stolen.
 * Now, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but article talk pages are, strictly speaking, for discussing article improvement only, not for discussing the subject of the article. So if you don't have a suggestion for improvement of the article, you're not really supposed to be posting.Farsight001 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like your fabricating as you go, trying not to acknowledge what is known from history. The kind of people that write Wikipedia; editing written history in a generation that looks to the internet for knowledge. There was a time of about 1000 years from 500 to 1500AD known as the Middle Ages where technology and quality of living hadn't improve much from biblical times. When the catholic church tried to remove the bible from the public, so they could create their own fabricated religion for the people. I do have a suggestion for improving the article. Please, don't write bias material. Signed: Wynn


 * I'm not fabricating a thing. I studied history in college.  68 million, as I said above, is an absolutely ridiculous number.  This would be because, in part, that is more than twice the entire population of Europe for a thousand years.  It is literally impossible.  Current scholarly estimates put the death toll from the inquisitions (all of them together) at less than 10,000 (the high end of the estimate) - and the vast majority of those killed were Catholics, too.  The inquisitions were secular institutions that were run by governments.  The Spanish inquisition, for example, was run by the Spanish government, not the Church.  The Church tried repeatedly to wrest control of the inquisition from them, and the clergy the Church sent to do this was usually executed in inquisition trials, hence, most of the targets were Catholics.  This is what the reliable sources say, so this is what we report.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with your description of history.


 * As for your suggestion - since it is off the mark and based on your poor grasp of history, nothing will be done. But for future reference, suggestions for article improvement should be far more specific.  Grab a specific sentence or paragraph and explain what you think is wrong with it and provide a suggestion for what to change it to and why.Farsight001 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature
Sorry, that last revert/comment was by me. 71.199.70.215 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)thedegu

Burial Information
I am not sure how well visited this page is, but having the exact grave site mentioned seems a little invasive to me. I have looked at several pages about deceased individuals and the article may say, "was buried in such-and-such cemetery" but never the exact location of the grave. Paranoid or not, it seems like the guy had some concern about the desecration of his corpse. Do we really need to promote the exact location of his final resting place so that any kook can vandalize it? 66.192.126.3 09:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.110.133.81 (talk • contribs).


 * Risk of vandalism aside (and the 'information that can be misused' issue is a very knotty one), I think there's a simpler reason for removing that information: it just isn't terribly noteworthy. Will tweak the article accordingly. --Calair 01:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who puut in the info about where the grave was located. I was specific because there is no marker, so how else to locate the grave, if someone wanted to put a rememberance, etc.

As to the "citation needed" mark on the fact that a mass was celebrated there, and the grave was blessed by a local priest at an earlier date...well, that was me. *I* blessed the grave, and celebrated the mass on the anniversary of Rivera's death. I have no idea how to put a citation on that. Thoughts? FrRob 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It needs to be reported in a reliable external source - unfortunately we occasionally have problems with malicious editors falsifying material or purporting to be somebody they're not, so policy is that an editor vouching for something isn't enough... which is a considerable nuisance to the rest of us, but probably necessary :-( --Calair 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

needs sources
This article has no references section, and its External links section consists of three links, two of which are to Jack Chick's site and the third is catholic.com... the article needs more secondary sources and less primary ones. Also, the article is written largely from the Jack Chick POV: if the Rivera's claim to fame is his criticism of what he discovered while he was a priest, and the Catholic church claims he never was a priest, this is obviously something that should be mentioned more prominently and not buried under a section titled "biography". wikipediatrix 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know one good resource of information http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0199.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solifugae (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, solifugae, if you'll look at the date on the above post, you're responding to something posted over a year and a half ago. They're not going to see it.  Second, as I have already explained, chick.com is an unacceptable source for anything but it's own beliefs. Farsight001 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Article too biased
Though this article relied heavily on the charges against Alberto Rivera (c/o the article in the Christianity Today), it never presented neutral grounds like the independent investigation of the Canadian Protestant League which is called the Protestant Challenge.. Whoever is the author/s of this article probably is a "child" of the Vatican.

"...probably is a "child" of the Vatican." - Uuuummm, well, oooookaaaaay then.

A brief look at the article and anyone realices how biased it is. Another product of the Vatican, as someone says above? It could well be. This is just a glimpse of the evidence: The pejorative term "fundamentalist" given twice to Rivera confirms the one-sided view of the article from its very beginning. (To be considered a fundamentalist or otherwise depends on who looks at any particular person or matter). Moreover, is the term used by the Vatican when referring to Alberto Rivera. Regarding "Rivera's account" there is no proof that he said all that, rather he never said such things, yet this not verifible info is on the article; where does all that info come from?; a lie of who wrote that in the article. Any third-party source which is for what Chick says and given by any other, is deleted or dismissed with an excuse,. not applied to the opposite view. The only source given in the article for Rivera's story is that of Chick himself. On the other hand, the sources against Rivera's story are 3: Cornerstone, CT (quite pro Catholic, by the way, just see its articles when speaking of any Catholic person or matter), and the Catholic "Catholic Answers”. In few words, the article is so biased as not to be considered seriously by any truth-seeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There's no bias in this article. The information is presented, uniformly, in a Neutral Point of View everywhere I can find.
 * Also, "Fundamentalist" is not a pejorative term in the given context, it is descriptive. There is a notable difference between fundamentalist christianity and christians of other types. This difference is significant enough to get its own article, and so it should be stated in the article.
 * Rivera's account does need a reference, however finding one of those would not be difficult. That story is basically a straightforward retelling of the man's own words from interviews, from Jack Chick's booklets, and other sources. There's nothing particularly factually incorrect there, and there is certainly no bias in stating the facts as they actually are.
 * The only "third party sources" that have been removed from the article have always been links to personal sites. No reliable sources for that "side" of the argument have ever been added to the article. Most of the sites linked by people qualify as hate sites, in point of fact. Chick is the only relatively reliable source (and I try to say that with a straight face, really) that exists for Rivera's life story. If another reliable source could be added, then it should be added. However no such source exists that I can find. Either that or it is drowned out in the flood of christian hate sites out there promoting him.
 * Finally, Wikipedia isn't for "truth seekers". Nor is it for "truth". It's for "verifiable facts". If you disagree, then you should go elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not your soapbox. -- Otto (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Since "finding one of those would not be difficult", and they are "from Jack Chick's booklets, and other sources", it is funny that there is none at all shown in the article. Bias again? "...stating the facts as they actually are", where are the proof of those facts?, they are not verifiable. No proof, no link, just personal opinion of the article writer. "Most of the sites linked by people qualify as hate sites, in point of fact" ? Personal opinion again. "If ... reliable source could be added, then it should be added". Sounds nice, but unreal. "However no such source exists that I can find": they all have flaws?, or rather not interested in finding them for a bised problem? And if someone finds one (opportunity to offer that to me?), they would be erased under the disguise of any excuse. "christian hate sites out there promoting him"? personal understanding again. Certainly wikipedia is not for truth seekers, they may put for truth somewhere else. "It's for "verifiable facts" " That is right. CT's article cannot be read, it is not verifiable, yet is on the article.


 * They ARE linked to in the article. Look at the References section, there's at least three links to Chick's tracts linked to right there.
 * Also, whether a site is a hate site is not a personal opinion, it's an objective fact. If a site promotes hate (against anybody, not just Catholics), then it's a hate site.
 * And Cornerstone Magazine article is a verifiable source. This has already been explained to you.
 * I'm truly sorry that you find the article to disagree with your own personal faith, however that is a problem with you and your faith, not with the article itself. The article is unbiased and uses a neutral point of view as much as possible. You are the one who is biased, thus the article seems biased to you merely because it disagrees with you. However, you're just going to have to cope with that. I would suggest therapy, or perhaps deprogramming.
 * -- Otto (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, Jjoohhnnyy, please add new comments to the bottom of the page. Inserting them any old place on the talk page makes them difficult to find.  Second, the link to the cornerstone article works just fine, for both me and Otto.  In fact, you are the first person who has ever complained that the link doesn't work.  This makes the link unreadable only for you which, not to sound rude, is your problem, not ours.  Do you have a poor internet connection?  Or perhaps you are signing on from work where the link may be blocked by the firewall.  There are a multitude of reasons you may be unable to see it.  I suggest trying to visit the link at a public library or an apple store (both with easy access to free and open internet) and see if it works there.  Third, both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the United states government itself are watching Chick publications because they are a hate group.  They are sitting right there on the list next to the KKK and neo-nazis.  I know you might like what he has to say, but he has caused many a Catholic to cry themselves to sleep at night because of what he says about them.  Lastly, I would suggest you take a closer look at this supposed "Jesuit ID".  Read every word on it and take careful notice that nowhere does it identify him as a Jesuit, or a priest, or even a Catholic.Farsight001 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks farsight001 for your help, about adding new comments and regarding the website link. I read the article. Although Cornerstone is a verifiable source, this article does not show anything at all to back up what it says. So, anyone may believe it or not. Otto, I suggest you to calm down and learn from farsight001, who explains things properly. The term "fundamentalist" is essentially a pejorative term for most people, in and out of wikipedia; anyone may ask them. It should be avoided in the article, yet the word is in it to define Rivera; see "words to avoid" in "wikipedia:Neutral point of view". That term is used just starting the wikipedia article to place in the reader an attitude against him from the very beginning. See full sentence in 2nd line in "Bias", in "wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Although articles in wikipedia are not necessarily true, they should follow those and other rules. The called "Rivera's account" in the article needs citations in wikipedia. (That is why I have written the "citation needed" sign.) See 2nd paragraph of "reliable sources" in "wikipedia: verifiability"; see also 1st paragraph of "Attributing and specifying biased statements" in "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Where does that "Rivera's account" info come from? Is there any source, or is it someone's imagination? And the citation(s) must be from reliable sources. According to "Questionable sources" and "Reliable sources" in "Wikipedia: Verifiability", Chick is not a reliable source for Rivera's case, at least in wikipedia. So, it should not be in the article. Therefore, the article on Rivera violates several wikipedia rules. Yet, it is likely that it will be kept tightly in every single thing as it is now. I try to follow Wikipedia rules as well as I can. Regarding calling "hate sites" those sites which support Rivera, in the definition of hate speech in wikipedia, at the beginning it is said that, outside the law, it applies to "race or sexual orientation", not religious matters. Also, it says that, in law, it is applied when it is about a protected religion. Since Catholicism is a well protected religion, to say something against it is not hate speech; nor are hate sites those sites saying something against Catholicism. That is what it says in Wikipedia right now, until it changes that, according to federal or whatever government rules. Regarding Jesuit ID there are some sites around, with documents regarding that, but they are considered unreliable according to Wikipedia, so they cannot be put forth or accepted in wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the Cornerstone article doesn't actually need anything to back it up, other than that it comes from a publication that meets WP:RS. Verifiability applies to the info we put in the article, not to the citations we use for the info in the article.  Second, Otto understood me fine and is perfectly calm.  I think perhaps you misunderstood him.  Third, "fundamentalist" is pejorative only to some.  Rivera carried the descriptor with pride.  Fundamentalist isn't actually among the Words To Avoid.  Fourth, you are right that Rivera's account needs citation.  Without it, ideally, it would be removed, but that would leave only the Cornerstone account.  I would be fine with that personally, since Rivera is a big fat phony no matter how you look at it and his own account shouldn't be trusted to even be in this article, but I think you might have a problem with removing his account.  Last, as for what qualifies as hate speech, you misread the wiki article on it.  Race and Sexual orientation were only examples of characteristics.  Religion still falls under the umbrella.  It also says that by law, religion is a group protected from hate speech.  It does not say, as you imply, that if a religion is "protected" (whatever that means) that nothing one says against it qualifies as hate speech.


 * So...can I conclude that you don't really think anything about the article should be changed anymore, aside from the need for citations for Alberta's account, which we can give some time to?Farsight001 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think you understand what the term "pejorative" actually means. What "most people consider" is not relevant. What you or anybody else thinks about it is also not relevant. Whether it is pejorative or not depends entirely on context. In the article, it is not used in a way to demean the character of the man, it is not used in a way that insults the man. He was a fundamentalist christian. This is a simple fact, unalterable, and without bias. Fundamentalist Christianity is a descriptive term. We have an article specifically describing Fundamentalist Christianity for this very reason. It's a descriptive term, not an insulting word. If the article called him crazy nutjob fraudster and con artist, like he actually was, then sure, those would be biased. But classifying his religion into an actual category, when the man was an evangelical preacher, hardly qualifies as in any way biased.
 * Fundamentalist Christianity is a description. Not an insult. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but that merely makes you wrong. -- Otto (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to increasing workload, in part because of "distracting" activities such as wikipedia, I will not be able to keep this interesting discussion.

Regarding removing Rivera's account, I had already thought on that, since (as I said last time) it has no citation, and the citation(s) must be from reliable sources, according to wikipedia; and according to "Questionable sources" and "Reliable sources" in "Verifiability", Chick is not a reliable source for Rivera's case, at least in wikipedia. But removing it would leave only the Cornerstone account, which would be another violation of wikipedia rules, which is balance (in Neutral point of view). Either way the article violates wikipedia rules. It is noticeable that some, with so much shown knowledge on wikipedia rules, had not said anything about the evident rule-breaking of the called "Rivera's account" in the article regarding citation of sources, and had not put before the "citation needed" note; I wrote it last time, and hope it will remain there, at least for wiki rules sake.

If Rivera carried the descriptor of "fundamentalist", some words change connotation in time: "fundamentalist", for instance, or the word "gay" in the 50s and now, and other words. This word is used in the 2nd paragraph of this article. Nowadays the word "fundamentalist" is a pejorative word for most people, especially if combined with religion and after Sept. 2001. Also it says so in 4th paragraph of "Fundamentalism" in Wikipedia. What most people consider of any particular word/term is totally relevant, because it does affect at how they look at the person described, here and elsewhere, especially if cleverly placed at the beginning of an article, and that is why it is kept in this one. So, it is quite uncertain that Rivera would call himself a fundamentalist nowadays, not because of the right meaning of the word (given in wikipedia), but because of its meaning in society nowadays.

If Rivera was a phoney, or any other thing, or not, depends whether one believes what he said was possible to happen, or not. I do not think most Americans lived in the Catholicism-only Spain of the 60s and 70s, and quite likely know little of the Catholic church inside, especially at that time. So, a good advice is to ask those who experienced that to have a proper view of Rivera's story, before judging; otherwise, proper history books on that can be found. Yet, if that is too much work and some want to stick to their (and other's) personal opinions, like Metz's, it is up to them. Since Rivera is dead, he cannot prove anything, personally at least; while Metz is alive and well, and has not proved anything at all of his claims and accusations in 29 years since the article, so if someone is the big fat phoney that is Metz, but if anyone wants to believe him, it is his/her problem.

The amount of clear insulting words in a row against Rivera ("...called him crazy nutjob fraudster and con artist, like he actually was..."), written above, reveals a heartfelt animadversion and hostile attitude against him, which puts anyone with that attitude in a wrong situation (being disqualified by him/herself) to judge properly any matter regarding Rivera.

If some Catholics have any problem with Chick, basically because of their religious devotion is being affected, they may go to court, as may countless of abused children by Catholic leaders worldwide go against that church. Any problem that Chick, or anyone, may have with US laws is his/her problem.

I understand that many from the US think that Rivera's claims are rather unbelievable. Most of them have always lived in their US world, never lived under the huge Catholic religious and political power during Franco's Catholicism-only regime in Spain, nor have lived Catholicism inside, not even near, and just prefer to accept ecumenical views, Cath-Prot brotherhood, such as Metz's, not wanting to know any claims that contradict their religious hopes. Yet many who lived under Franco's regime believe that the Catholic church was able to do what Rivera says, including torture. It is noticeable that many who have never lived within any Catholic institution (e.g. Opus Dei, Society of Jesus, Catholic monasteries,...) say that Rivera's claims are false. His claims are so dramatic and far reaching, they can't possibly all be true, can they? What if only half of them were true? This is the danger of Rivera's claims: they can make people see further...

Books by Bill Hughes, Edmond Paris ("The Secret History of the Jesuits"), or Eric Jon Phelps, confirm again and again Rivera's and other ex-Catholics' claims. No matter what ex-Catholic leader (e.g. Gerard Bouffard, Donna Eubanks, Clark Butterfield, Robert V. Julien) backs Rivera's view, Metz and supporters will say that all their claims are fake. Anyone may search books and sites on those names.

In 1984, Gary Metz was a guest on the Southern California radio show "Talk From The Heart". The host was Rich Bueller. Gary came across as a very calm, believable journalist with no axes to grind. He itemized a list of falsehoods he claimed to have proof of that Rivera lied about. After about ten minutes of this type of information, it sounded obvious that Rivera was a chronic liar and/or nut case. Metz claimed to have all sorts of documented proof of these lies and distortions. And Metz seemed to have absolutely no motive to smear Rivera or Chick Publications. He came across as just a journalist doing his job. But then an surprising thing happened: Rivera called in unexpectedly to the show! And by golly, he also sounded believable and sincere. The three talked together and, for the most part, were extremely civil. Rivera seemed genuinely grateful to have a opportunity to defend himself, especially in the presence of his chief accuser. He claimed the vast majority of news programs & newspapers would never call and check his side of the story or view his documents, yet they would provide plenty of time for his detractors.

Because Rivera was Spanish and spoke somewhat broken English, a few exchanges were confusing. But Rivera sounded like he was trying to be as direct as he could. He didn't back peddle on any of his claims. He often said emphatically, "that is correct sir". But he also made it clear that "he" is not the issue, but that the deceiving Catholic Church was the real issue and that Metz never investigates the Vatican at all. Metz avoided that point and responded with a series of accusations. Rivera said he first wanted Metz to answer just three simple questions: 1. How come Metz cannot provide any of the documents showing convictions for the crimes Metz accuses Rivera of in the USA or foreign lands? 2. How come Metz cannot prove Rivera's leave of absence document from the Vatican is false? 3. How come Metz never even mentions Rivera's special I.D. (as a priest) granted by the security secret police that requires a birth certificate and 9 major documents from other legal authorities in Spain? Metz claimed he never said Rivera had any convictions (but didn't offer to provide the warrants for Rivera's arrest that he claimed to possess earlier). Rivera asked about the "convictions of illegitimate children" Metz claimed to have. (It seemed what Rivera really meant to say was "proof", not "convictions"). Metz said he had a death certificate of Rivera's first son from the County of El Paso, Texas in 1965. Rivera said "you should prove that and make it public". Metz said "Sure, no problem". (But we have yet to see it and the Austin Bureau of Vital Statistics denies the certificate exists.) Metz ignored Rivera's other two questions and instead, moved on to more accusations. But most of Metz's evidence is from Catholic institutions, and Rivera countered that they are lying because the Vatican has instructed them to do so.

At one point, Rivera's education was brought up. He claimed to have four PhDs. Metz claimed it's false. Rivera said the Catholic Church often dispensed these degrees to nuns and priests without the proper studies being required. (Sometimes they only require a seminar.) He said, however, that he did most the studies to obtain his degrees. Metz said those degrees didn't exist and he could only find evidence of Rivera's high school education. Again, Rivera explained the Catholic educational institutions were denying his records. "You can ask the Devil about Christ, and I am sure the Devil will not give you a true report on Christ, our Lord and Savior." Rivera seemed to believe that Metz was fooled in his investigation, as opposed to being a Jesuit or other agent of the Vatican on a deliberate mission to destroy Rivera. He never attacked Metz personally.

The story Metz did on Alberto Rivera is the only article he did that was featured in Cornerstone and Christianity Today magazines. Gary Metz's articles are the main sources used to debunk Rivera on the whole internet and the world. Let it also be known that these magazines are pro Catholic and pro Vatican; a look at how they deal with Catholic issues reveals that. Furthermore, CToday's founder and supporter, Billy Graham, wrote the foreword of a big-size Catholic book on John Paul II published about 2000.

According to Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". Cornerstone is verifiable source (not necesarily true what it says), and that is why is an accepted source in wikipedia.

One of the points which stands out of Metz's article in Cornerstone is that the info published there has not been checked, yet it is generally accepted, in and out of wikipedia. The same happens with Christianity Today's article, both by Gary Metz. No proofs at all of Metz's claims; no proofs either that Rivera or others said what Metz says they said. It is just Metz's word. Proof of nothing. Why then should anyone believe him? More importantly, those publications which allege having exposed Rivera have never investigated the mere possibility that his claims about the mischief of the Vatican were true, which would be a major news story.

Since he could not nulify Rivera's testimony, still living Rivera, Metz made up a story without proofs. He picked up some facts, mixed them up with his fantasy (or lies), and a credible fairytale came out, but so much believed. Now that Rivera is dead, he has it easier. After 29 years since the CToday article came out still his groundless collection of statements are believed by many, just because it was published in reputed publications. Accusations without proofs, only names of places, and some few people that may have never existed, like Cesar Ramirez. Even if those persons existed, did they tell Metz the truth?. Metz must think that he does not need any proof since so many believe him anyway. Also, it is noticeable that Metz only gives some loose points of alleged events in Rivera's life, with proof of none.

Metz may say whatever he wants in C.stone, C.Today, or any other reputed publication, and Metz himself may have a good reputation, but without proofs his accusations worth nothing. Or should anything published in those magazines been accepted by the general public? Does Metz always say the truth? (two questions for those who blindly accept those articles). Because some do not like Rivera's claims, are any accusation against him to be accepted as valid just because accuse him? (If anyone's inmediate answer to this last question is "yes" it is due simply to bias against Rivera).

In the Cornerstone article (with link given in wikipedia), starting the final section "the Catholic question", Metz tries cleverly to manipulate the view of the American reader by using the American sensitive black-white issue, comparing the Catholic-Protestant understanding to that of the black-white decades ago. He tries to give to his article a look of credibility, so he names some historical religious facts very conveniently selected, not mentioning points that contradict his argument; ignorance of those points?. Then he names some Cath.-Prot. experiences together (but no names of churches/organizations given), also names some Catholic leaders and organizations, and the well-known pro Catholic John Stott (see more of his writings on the issue), that is, people who back his religious views. In conclusion, he pretends to know the truth about Rivera, but showing proof of nothing, and pretends to have the answer to the Catholic-Protestant "problem" at the end of his article. In the same "Catholic question", Metz clearly shows his view on the Catholic-Protestant brotherhood, paragraph 6, from half of line 5 until half of line 6, where he says "that would erect walls between us and our Catholic brothers and sisters", and also in the last paragraph with "our brother's motive" (refering to a Catholic). A view right opposite to that of Rivera's, so no wonder that Metz fiercely attacks Rivera, since Rivera smashes all his (and many others') hopes of Catholic-Protestant brotherhood. And this is the key issue for being against Rivera, disguised as an investigation in search of the truth. Also this is also the key issue of why Protestant churches/bookstores/organizations reject Rivera's claims, and accept Metz's without hesitation. He knew that with his articles on Rivera, 1981, with an alleged investigation, he would become the reference point for Catholic-Protestant brotherhood supporters in their battle against Rivera's disrupting claims.

What do official Catholic texts say about Catholic-Protestant brotherhood? The Cathecism of the Catholic Church, Veritas Pub., says: "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after His Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the succesor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" " ("Unitatis Redintegratio", 3-5). [article 9- 816]. Further more: "...they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it"  [article 9-  846]. These are just 2 examples of what this Cathecism says regarding her alleged brotherhood with non Catholics, including Protestants, and which many ignore, or prefer not to heed. This Cathecism may be read in a book or in internet, like in the Catholic site http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Well, it does not show a "brotherhood" in equal conditions, but of submission to the Catholic church. Do those Protestants who support this "brotherhood" know and accept this submission? Metz just tells about Vatican II Council (not Vatican 1, as he says in paragraph 3 of "the Catholic question" section in C.stone article) what the Catholic church told to gain Protestants as alleged brothers/sisters, in a seemingly openess of it, but actually being a deception under the label of "separated brethren" used in Second Vatican Council.

The Catholic site http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch13.htm, in the section "On the most Holy Sacrament of the eucharist", in the Canons of the Council of Trent (16th century), Session XIII, say some interesting statements. For instance, Canon 1 says: "If anyone denieth that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently the whole Christ, but says He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema" (that is, damned as a heretic). According to its Session VI, anyone who says that has assurance of salvation is anathema (that is, damned as a heretic). All the popes during the Vatican II Council and since, have accepted the ratification of the entire Council of Trent on these decrees.

Now, anyone should ask him/herself just few simple common sense questions, such as: Did Metz go to "investigate" to the places where Rivera said main events ocurred, that is, in Spain? (Metz never says such thing, so likely not), What are Metz's studies (if any) on Catholicism?, Has he ever lived Catholicism inside, or at least been closed to Catholicism, or rather prefers to embrace Cath.-Prot. brotherhood blindly? Where are the proofs of his alleged "investigation"?, Is Metz's arrogance that makes him believe that he has the truth on this issue?, Where did he get all that info and accusations against Rivera from?, from his imagination?, Why should anyone believe him?

Metz has tried to demean and distort Rivera's testimony and reputation, throwing on him not proved charges: police record, investment schemes, bad check writing, contradictory testimony, fabricated educational record, and reported family abuse. All due to "our intensive investigation" (as he says in C-stone article, whom?, of pro Catholic Cornerstone (see how it sees Cath-Prot relations), and of Metz?). No proof of any investigation at all, but certainly of an intense manipulation of few facts conveniently mixed up with his imagination (or lies).

The wide acceptance of Metz's claims without hesitation shows the growing power of Rome worldwide, especially in the US; one only has to see how the pope is received wherever he goes in the world, better than any other religious or political leader, with a trail of Jesuits/Catholics attempting to discredit those who are exposing the Jesuit order, and/or the Catholic church. With or without Rivera, with or without Chick, real life Jesuit plots will keep being exposed. And that regardless how fiercely they are denied, or demeaned those who expose them.

Those who believe Metz ignore that the great power of the Catholic church throughout (mainly European) history has made her able to do what Rivera says, and/or are just pro Catholic church. They usually prefer to believe in Catholic-Protestant brotherhood (as does Metz) in a society of increasingly religious unity. Rivera's claims are diametrically opposed to that brotherhood, and are a great hindrance to and a disruption of that. Therefore, many deny them, fiercely attack Rivera, and back Metz without hesitation.

“Truth can be hidden, but not deleted” (Titus Livius)


 * Despite your rather long and rambling rant there, I'll address one point only. As you pointed out, Rivera's account is indeed poorly sourced. However, that in-and-of-itself is not enough to pull the material out of Wikipedia. The material can likely be sourced, isn't particularly defamatory, and agrees substantially with the non-reliable sources on the topic. So it's better to leave the material in until somebody comes along with better sources. Anybody adding to the material or re-wording it will likely draw from such sources in the process. This is the way many articles get improved. If we simply deleted material outright instead of trying to improve upon it, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia and collaboration would be basically non-existent. -- Otto (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Assasinated?
Where's the information about how the man died? On this page you see two videos, the title to the second is: "Very Rare video of Jim Arrabito interviewing Dr. Alberto Rivera (both Died under very suspicious circumstances)"

Jim Arrabito currently has no article in Wikipedia, but should. He was a history professor specializing in the history of Christianity. Here's a page with his videos, wherein you'll find a series called “Jesuits in History”, and as most documentaries on the Jesuits it’s not in their favor.

Am I the only one here that thinks this looks a bit suspicious? Why do these people mysteriously die after revealing to the world the methods the Papacy has used in the past to “stamp out heresy” and to promote her cause, and the danger of giving her state power?

These issues are not addressed and barely covered in the history classes, and look how many things which pertain to them are mysteriously missing from Wikipedia. I can’t find the Jesuit Oath, Jim Arrabito, or Francisco Ribera.

I guess it’s the consensus of the majority that there’s nothing to fear. So maybe the Catholic Church uses assassins and spies as her modern day “inquisitors”, but she means well and her end will be for the good of all mankind. I guess life would be better if the whole world bowed down to this institution which kills anyone that speaks against it.

Or maybe everyone really is scared they will be assassinated? I can understand that. One would have to have a real experience with God to be willing to put his life and the ones he loves in danger for what he believes. “and they loved not their lives unto the death”, (Rev 12:11). On the other hand to sympathize with the secret societies, you only need a fraternal instinct, a desire to be on the popular side, apathy, or a smirky, witty, make-fun-of-the-conspiracy-theorist attitude.

What would people rather assume? That the Jesuits and Knights of Columbus have only their missionary work and no secret society which people don’t see outwardly? That the Jesuits are not known to conceal their identity as Jesuits, like under-cover agents?

Why, for one example, are Protestants are no longer protesting the abuses of Rome, no longer teaching the historical interpretation of the prophecies, taught by the founders of all the original Protestant denominations, that the Anti-Christ is the Roman church-state power, the “man of sin” which “sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”, (2 Thes 2:4), the great harlot who rides atop a seven headed beast, “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”, (Rev 17:6)? Why do they now teach the “Secret Rapture” theory, which is based on Futurism, which was concocted by Jesuit priest and doctor of theology, [Francisco Ribera], during the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s? (see these  articles.)  This is the very kind of thing the Jesuits aim to secure. The result is that Protestants no longer see the Papacy as the Anti-Christ power of Revelation and Daniel and which all the apostles warned us about. “and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration”, (Rev 17:6).
 * ”My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among the Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence to seek even to preach from their pulpits and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and to descend so low as to become a Jew among the Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.”, (beginning of the Jesuit Oath)

So either the Catholic power really cares about the good of mankind, or just seeks world domination. I think if she wanted the good of mankind, she would teach the bible and seek to imitate the character of Christ. Is it ludicrous to believe she doesn’t thirst for power? If the Devil offered her complete control of the bodies and souls of all mankind, would she refuse?

''“And the devil .. showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.”'' (Luke 4:5-7)

What would have happened if our Lord would have taken that offer?

This view does not reflect hatred toward Catholics, but a love for freedom, religious freedom, freedom to worship how you want, freedom which was never allowed by the Catholic Church during her bloody reign of power, which will not be allowed if she gains such power again.

I really want to persuade people to join my church, but where would be the satisfaction if I knew that person had no other choice?

Cherish your freedoms while they last, because you won’t have them for very long. But then I guess that won’t be a problem for the majority. ''“and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”''

”the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world”, (Rev 12:9). Rush4hire 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, whatever. Thanks for the sermon and short jaunt into Chickite conspiracy theory. Thedegu 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)thedegu

Excuse me. My edits on this page are NOT "vadalism"
Who do you idiots really THINK you are? My contribution was very important. How could you delete it? Jersyko is a FALSE accuser and a over all LIAR. Put back Alberto's ID or there is going to be BIG problems. I have hundreds of supporters and I will let them know through the front page of my website that YOU are taking away vital information proving the authenticity of Alberto Rivera's testimony. Be prepared to spend ALL your time fixing this page because it will corrected from YOUR vandalism 1000's of times over. If you lock the page a new page for Alberto Rivera will be created. I'm not going to sit by and let wikipedia be a platform for all your personal opinions. I'm not simply linking to my website. My website has very important information to the article I am contributing to. Tlthe5th 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Tlthe5th

The edits Tlthe5th were not vandalism. He added pertinate information on Ex Jesuit Alberto Rivera. It was his spanish ID issued under Francisco Franco of Spain. The only one who removed large amounts of information was Jersyko. Tlthe5th didnt remove anything except a tag at the top. And that might have been an accident. Otto42, it's amazing how you wont even look at the edits and accuse Tlthe5th of removing large amounts of data. That is very irresponsible for an admin. I'm going to have to report what's going on here. The only links that were added with the Jesuit ID information was from a website called chick.com. Thomas Richards 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Thomas Richards


 * And then you go and delete massive amounts of information yourself. That *is* vandalism. If you think it's biased, correct the bias, but do *NOT* remove large quantities of information without discussion and debate. Also, please try and understand that we have no bias here. We don't care about your particular viewpoint. I have no real interest in Alberto Rivera myself. I'm just not going to allow you to monopolize the article with your POV and that of your little community. Continued vandalism will result in administrative action. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to vent your personal beliefs. -- Otto 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

hey Otto, you say you have no interest in Albertyo Rivera and yet you delete large amounts of information and label your edit as saying someone entered some 'pop-up'. Does truth matter to you at all? you didnt just delete and entry by someone adding 'pop-ups' you edited whole huge sections of information. Including Albertio's jesuit I.D. Now please stop vandalising the article under the deceptive guise of being admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.219.18 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User at IP 69.22.219.18: I have done no such thing. I'm reverting your vandalism and attacks against me personally, as you've been spending the last few days reverting my edits. I do not know what you're talking about with "pop-ups" and I did not remove any information from the article. Other people did that. I'm simply preventing you from your persistent vandalism. Please stop. If you want to discus changes, then discuss them. But simply reverting everybody else's changes to push your point of view is not how Wikipedia works. Deal with it. -- Otto 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is poorly written. How can we accept one religious publication (i.e. CornerStone article) and not compare it to an article from the other side of the camp? This is quite simply an example of intellectual dishonestly. I am sure that the Catholic Church is strong enough to withstand what the other side has to say, and the public does not need another mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.2.148 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's not about what somebody has to say, it's about verifiable truth. Or, in the absence of verifiable truth, verifiable facts. The article is perfectly fine and unbiased, as it presents both Rivera's statements and the statements from those on the other side of the fence. It does so fairly straightforwardly, and while there's always room for improvement, the kinds of improvement that you should be looking for are reliable sources. Not simply opinions from "the other side of the camp". If you have reliable sources for facts in the article, then feel free to add those. But if all you have are opinions of people who back this person's ideas/cause/whatever, then that's not relevant to an article about the person himself. -- Otto 13:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Who removed the external link "Is Alberto for real"!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.174.56 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did, because it is not a valid external link. However, it could be used as a reference inside the actual article itself, so I've converted it into such a reference. In the future, when you're editing an article to add sources, try to keep with that article's own style instead of just randomly adding things scattered throughout the page. Try to make the article better, is what I'm getting at here. Just sticking stuff in randomly is not helpful and will usually be reverted without a second glance. -- Otto 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about it being used as a reference in the article. If it's the book I'm thinking of, then I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet reliability guidelines. Farsight001 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * True, however it's not being used as a source for actual facts, just as proof that it exists. "Chick published counterclaims in reply". That is what he published. -- Otto 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I support tithe5,what Dr Alberto Rivera said are facts.Alberto said that Ignatius Loyola who formed the jesuits order is a Illuminati.William Schnoebelen(Ex-Illuminati) showed in an preaching (you can watch that on you tube)a transparency that shows the history of the Illuminati,Ignatius Loyila is also mentioned.From now on,alberto Rivera will be called Dr. Alberto Rivera! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solifugae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rivera has no evidence and is a proven and long since exposed fraud. The article reflects these facts. Furthermore, even Albert Einstein does not get to be called "Dr." in his own article. The "Dr." title is supposed to be left off of names per wiki guidlines. Please cease and desist from vandalizing this article.Farsight001 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

read http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0199.asp and revelation17.9 says "And here is the mind which hath wisdom.The seven heads are the seven mountains,on which the woman sitteth. Where is the state of Vatican? Rome...Whats the name of the city with the seven mountains? Rome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solifugae (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, chick.com is recognized as a hate site by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which specializes in hate organizations. As such, according to wikipedia policy, it is not a credible source for anything but it's own beliefs.  Second the Vatican is NOT in Rome.  It is next to Rome and it sits on one hill, NOT seven.  That one hill is not part of the seven that make up Rome either.  There are also other cities all over the world that sit on seven hills.  There's a couple in China, one in California, and I think, but am not sure, that even Jerusalem sits on seven hills.  One cannot simply assume that it refers to Rome and use that as proof when it could apply to so many other places.


 * Also - to the IP (which I highly suspect is you, Solifugae) that continues to insert the word "fairy tale" into the article in an attempt to discredit Cornerstone magazine's exposing of Rivera as a fraud. This is considered vandalism and you will be blocked if you continue.  And if it is you Solifugae that is doing this - logging out does not free you from blame. Farsight001 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So,you want to say that the roman catholic church is a true christian church...if that's the case,why was Ignatius de Loyola,who was the founder of the Jesuits(society of Jesus)in 1534,was a Alumbrados (Illuminati),and why did Pope Paul III welcomed Ignatius in 1541 (the Alumbrados was a occult club,out of that came the order of the Illuminati) and why is that article critizise Alberto Rivera,why is there only the article of conerstone church,why don't you read http://www.chick.com/articles/houstonletter.asp?FROM=infocenter


 * I didn't say they were, though I do believe that. I was merely pointing out your error in thinking it the whore of babylon.  Your claim that the founder of the Jesuits was a member of the Illuminati is completely irrelevant.  Assuming that he was, one person being a member of an occult organization does not make the entire Church a fake in any way shape or form.  Furthermore, the link you provided for "evidence" is not actual evidence.  It is a rant with several quotes from other untrustworthy anti-Catholics.  And like I said before - chick publications being a known hate group - they are not a credible source of information for anything but their own beliefs.  Of course Jack Chick is going to decry the cornerstone article.  It exposes him.  If he genuinely thinks it's untrue, all he has to do is look it up.  The housing records for Rivera's home, birth records for his three children, and tombstones for two of them and for the wife he had during the time he claimed to be a priest in Spain all exist and can be easily viewed.


 * If Rivera were truly a former Jesuit secret bishop, then none of those records would exist and Chick could simply say that. Instead, he simply assaults the credibility and honesty of those who expose him and provides no evidence of his own.  His brand of propaganda is little different from that which was present in abundance during World War 2.  In other words - if Jack Chick tells you the sky is blue, you should still look up to make sure.  He is not a credible source of facts about pretty much anything - whether it be Catholicism, Islam, egyptian mythology, music, or pretty much anything else he has written about.


 * Lastly - the links you added were improper. They were added to the reference section which is only for sites/books/etc cited in the article itself.Farsight001 (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO DELETED THE LINKS,I PUT IN THERE?! from now you've got to correct the article for the next 1000 times the letter of the archbishop proves that Alberto was a jesuit priest


 * If you are talking about the links added to the reference section, I didn't read them, so I don't know their contents. I just removed them because they simply don't belong there according to wiki policy.  Also, looking at what you appear to have readded (again in the wrong place), they don't appear to be acceptable sources according to wiki policy either.Farsight001 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cadaver synod?
I don't see the connection here? Is this just a way to slip in something? I think that sentence should be struck out unless a citation is provided.136.242.228.218 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I put that line in, because it may explain why Rivera is buried in an unmarked grave. There is weird paranoia in the Jack Chick literature about how Rivera's widow was afraid the "Jesuits would dig up his corpse to put it on trial." The only connection I can think of to anything ever recorded about the Catholic faith was the "Cadaver synod," which is (unfortunately) factual history. - Fr. Robert Dye, Tulsa, Oklahoma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.75.168 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jesuit" ID
I removed the "Jesuit ID". If you want to post it here, fine, use a thumbnail and identify it correctly. It is purported to be an ID card issued by the Spanish Government not the Jesuit order, so it is improper to call it a "Jesuit ID". Nothing on the card identifies the person on it as a Jesuit. And the comments about Franco's security forces are irrelevant to this article.Kmerian 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Alberto's ID is interesting. It does look to be a state issued "national identification". What makes it relevant is the identification of Albertos name, that he was in Spain and wearing the uniform of a priest--all of which give credibility to his claims of being a Jesuit, which is under dispute in the article. I've attached the File:AlbertoID.jpg photo under his bio. Amish 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. For one, Spanish id's were notoriously easy to fake at the time.  Second, it's extremely easy to get a priest's outfit at any costume shop and wear it for a photo id.  they'd never care at the ID place.  third, Catholic priests are not the only clergy that wear the collar, so even if we accept it as authentic, it is no indication that he was Catholic instead of Anglican or some other denomination.  On top of all of that, it's not the uniform of a Jesuit in the first place, as they typically wear cassocs, so it would actually suggest that he was NOT one.  In addition, your citations do not meet the reliability guidelines of inclusion in wikipedia and simply tossing an ID, especially on of as dubious authenticity as this one, into the article really does not help with flow or encyclopedic tone.  Lastly, even if we were to accept everything you say (which I certainly don't), it only works for the specific time period in which the ID was taken, which does not come even close to covering all the years he claimed to be Jesuit.Farsight001 (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you hold a conspiracy theory about a supposed fake ID that stretches decades and across several countries (claiming Spainish IDs are "easily faked") has not proven the ID is in fact fake. The ID has his name and photo with his country of origin. It shows him wearing a priest collar at that time. The ID will be returned to the bio for evidence of his claims. Some would seek to hide this evidence. They cannot be allowed to dictate what is and is not allowed on Wikipedia, an open source encyclopedia.Amish 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that I have not proven the ID is fake, but it is not my responsibility to do so. It is your responsibility to provide a WP:RS that proves it IS authentic.  Without that, its inclusion in the article is in violation of wikipedia policy.  We need a 3rd party, reliable source which gives actual evidence (of which, "he's wearing a collar" does not qualify) that it is authentic.  Without it, by wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies, we cannot include.  Period.  This is why I suggested in the edit summary that you review the rules again before trying to add any more info to articles.  Hence, I have removed it again and will continue to do so until you provide the source REQUIRED for its inclusion.  This is not my rule.  This is the rule of wikipedia.Farsight001 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may question whether the ID is fake, it is still evidence that has him in priest uniform with Spanish ID with his name on it at that time. Your point seems to be that any time an ID is produced it needs to be proven not to be a fake. State ID is accepted as such until proven not to be authentic. Whether the ID is fake as you suspect but cannot prove or is real it is still a photo ID with Alberto's name wearing the uniform of a priest from Spain as he claims to be. It supports his claims and will not be buried at your dictates, but is in fact a reliable source. If you care to point out anything in the Wikipedia rules that disallows a state ID for an individual's bio then point that out, until then the photo ID edit will remain.Amish 03:28 24, Aug 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not listening to me. We need a reliable 3rd party source that supports the claim that it is authentic to include it in the article.  It is not being "buried" by my "dictates".  There is another policy around here - that everyone assume GOOD faith on the part of other editors.  Assuming that I am deleting it because I want to bury it is not helpful at all.  I already explained - there are several policies against its inclusion.  You may not understand them, but that is not a reason to ignore me and re-add it any time you want.  It is instead a reason to go investigate the policies so that you understand them better.  The ID itself does not qualify as a reliable source because it is a primary source, not a secondary source or a third party source.  I already pointed out the relevant policies - multiple times at that.  Please pay closer attention to what I am saying.
 * In addition to the above reasons, tossing a like to an Id arbitrarily in the article is not in keeping with the encyclopedic style. There is flow to worry about, as well as an explanation for the seemingly randomly placed link.
 * I'm going to be blunt. I have seen dozens of editors who come in as new editors and edit as you are editing.  You NEED to change your tactics or you're not going to get anywhere here.  Wikipedia is not in a hurry to make all the articles perfect and some of them never will be.  People will discuss changes for weeks before finally agreeing to make or not make them, or come to a compromise.  chill out, relax, discuss, come to an agreement, and THEN make the agreed upon article changes.Farsight001 (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Negatively biased article

 * ''The following was entered into the article text in these edits by 139.182.118.81 (meco (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)):

'''Whomever wrote this wikipedia information, has a clear bias and is absolutely against Dr. Albert Rivera. In this biograpgy he is promptly attacked as a fraud before and after stating the life of Dr. Alberto. The refrences of public magazines where Dr. Rivera is pointed as a fraud are commentary, opinionated and are not mere fact. It is clear that Dr. Rivera's life is quite controversial and to discredit him is the easiet form to invalidate his claims. Out of evident knowledge, Dr. Alberto was not Anti-Catholic, he only spoke what he lived. It would be quite contradicting to have been not only a Roman Catholic, but a Jesuite and then be margined as Anti-Catholic. Obviously this would be the best label in order for Catholics to reject and discard whatever Dr. Rivera has said.

But, therein is the problem, he has never shown that he was a Jesuit or that he was even a Catholic! And since his only proof for his claims is his word, then his credibility is clearly the issue. The question is did he speak what he lived? Did it ever happen? He has never offered any proof to support his allegations.Kmerian (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He indeed showed that he was a Catholic priest. There are plain of proofs on the net. One of them is on: http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source, it is not him(Rivera) showing that he was a priest, we have no indication that the man in those pictures was actually Rivera and they don't particularly look like him, and last, that ID is so obviously fake it's not even funny.Farsight001 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, hate sites in general are not considered reliable sources because of their obvious bias. That site in particular is run by Eric Jon Phelps, a well known loony and conspiracy theorist. Nothing on there could be considered "reliable", and in fact having any sort of material on those sites is probably a darned good indication that the exact opposite is the truth. -- Otto (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

His personal ID is the best proof that guy is he indeed. If some would learn some little Spanish would learn a bit of that ID. What is a better proof if he is dead? The ID is so truthful to reality as life itself, although some will never accept it. What are his real pictures? They will never be accepted as such by some with fixed ideal (and pride).

More sites: http://therealtemple.blogspot.com/2009/01/alberto-rivera-ex-jesuit-priest.html

http://arucasblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/el-jesuita-canario-que-denuncio-la.html

and more searching. Probably they will all have problems to be accepted, won't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer your question of "What better proof...?", we have this thing on Wikipedia called Verifiability. That is how we determine whether something is included or not. Verifiability has to do with the source material used. In specific, your source material of this personal ID fails several of these guidelines.
 * For one thing, it's original research. You're wanting to use the ID as source of him being a priest, however that is an act of research. Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy as well. This is an encyclopedia, which is a synthesis of other people's research. New material belongs in other sources, an encyclopedia just summarizes the state of knowledge at the time.
 * For another thing, all the sources stating this ID as being some form of proof are questionable sources, many of which are biased as well. Anybody can make a website and claim anything they want. Wikipedia only uses sources that have a good reputation for fact checking and/or are well respected. So that if the source is wrong, then at least it is definitively wrong. Some random guy's website about his church beliefs is not a highly respected source.
 * In other words: Wikipedia does not care if the statement is true or false. This is not about truth; this is about what if verifiable. The ID is not verifiable and it is not backed up by a well-respected and credible source. It is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, regardless of how real anybody think it is. -- Otto (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The info given by Cornerstone and CT are not verifiable, the info is not accesible, clicking on the website addreses given, they lead one to their main page. Yet not verifiable info is on this article. Excuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the cornerstone link (which it technically to a web archive) sends me right to the article. Perhaps you were just unlucky?  Or perhaps it is blocked if you are trying to access it from work.  I will say too that we don't actually need a link to the article.  The article exists in a magazine on paper, and that can be referenced here.  We prefer online sources as they are easier to confirm, but that would not forbid the use of a physical magazine article.  As for verifiability, that applies to what we put in articles.  Things we add to articles must be verifiable by a WP:RS.  Cornerstone magazine qualifies as a reliable source, so there is no problem here.Farsight001 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference number one's link is this: http://web.archive.org/web/20051202084221/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228 and it works perfectly fine. So I have no idea what you are talking about, Jjoohhnnyy. -- Otto (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks farsight001 for your help. I read the article. Although Cornerstone is a verifiable source, this article does not show anything at all to back up what it says. So, anyone may believe it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Chick Drawing
It looks to me like the drawing of Rivera that is attributed to Jack Chick is more likely by Fred Carter, another artist who worked or works with him on his tracts. Chick isn't really capable of that quality of work, to be frank.Jason Fruit (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point and the caption deserves rewording. But being that that rendition is found in Chick's tracts, it's still "his" rendition, even if it wasn't he who drew it. Farsight001 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Was he a Jesuit?
By Rivera's own account (in the article): After education at a Catholic seminary.... Which seminary: where and when? By Rivera's own account (in the article): The Jesuits then sent him to a top-secret sanitorium in Spain to make him recant his faith... When did he enter the Society of Jesus (exact year and place); in which province and country? When did he leave/was dismissed? Which sanatorium? If we could get precise information about that, it would be very easy to prove or disprove Rivera's assertions. Jesuits have their own archives and documents, and there is nothing very secret about that! I am willing to make the needed research, if I get answers to the questions above. Zerged (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you did, Wikipedia would not be the place for this information. See WP:NOR.
 * If you can find reliable third-party sources for the information, then it could be added to the article. -- Otto (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Otto Rest assured! I had no intention of putting on Wikipedia some 'original research' on Rivera...  I just volunteered to check a particular information that creates problem for several: was he a Jesuit or not?  Well, your remark helped me, as it sent me going a little deeper into the references given in the article that is remarkably vague on the early biography of Rivera.  And for good reasons: the guy is a fraud. And the references are mere advertisements for the books of a certain Chick that I do not have the priviledge to know. Why should I spend precious time on them?   Thanks again.  Zerged (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Chick after Alberto's death?
Quote: "Chick promised to promote Alberto's claims even after he died." Can anyone veryify this strange comment in the opening paragraphs of the article? If not it should be removed. Thank you. Obviously Chick and others use Alberto as a source, if not for hearsay value. Has nothing to do with Alberto's anti-catholic crusade in which Chick "promised to continue". Rather Alberto is one of many sources. Discredits the rest of the article. Amish21:01 24, August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Lede of the article is supposed to, ideally, be a summary of the rest of the article and also to not be sourced (because the sources are down in the article body, of which the lede is a summary) I'll take a closer look at the claim and look for support for it in the coming days. (I'm at work, where chick.com is blocked, so I can't do it here)  I just wanted to give you an FYI that there's not really supposed to be a citation right there. :) Farsight001 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Islam
One howler in Rivera's account of the emergence of Islam (if I understand Jack Chick correctly) is that on the eve of the Muslim conquests Jerusalem was not controlled by the Jews, it was controlled by the Christian Byzantine Empire, and at that time the bulk of Christians were united in a single church, the Roman Catholic - Greek Orthodox split only came a lot later. Indeed, at that time the see of Rome was dominated by the Byzantine emperors (see Byzantine Papacy). PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism
This page has been repeatedly vandalized by the removal of a section giving the findings of a Journalistic Investigation into Alberto Rivera's claims. Mrbusta (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We know. Its been happening off and on for years, usually by the same people who claim the Vatican is trying to silence Rivera, which I find so ironic.  Nothing to do but to revert and keep an eye out.Farsight001 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Mental illnes
Does this guy suffer from a mental illness or disease of any sort?--79.69.104.119 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. He's kind of dead.Farsight001 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why did he believe in such stupid things?--79.69.104.119 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Because he is your typical conspiracy theorist. Alberto Rivera's imagination.... I mean story has all the elements of every classic conspiracy story. It's a self-sealed system, since any inconsistencies can be explained away as part of the Jesuit plot. That makes it completely unassailable to any kind of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.1.33 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the ultimate in 'Jesuit conspiracy' is that they were the mastermind behind the Medieval Inquisition of the 13th century (see the article), that is: a good 200 years before the Society of Jesus was founded (in 1540, not 1534) by Ignatius of Loyola! To make it acceptable and encyclopedic the assertion is even duly sourced. The claim is so ridiculous that I care not correct the text, as there is a watchdog behind this article... This is the kind of stuff that discredit Wikipedia. --49.244.11.180 (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alberto Rivera (activist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726182214/http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p4.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p4.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318165220/http://www.interment.net/data/us/ok/tulsa/rosehill/r/rose_r03.htm to http://www.interment.net/data/us/ok/tulsa/rosehill/r/rose_r03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Freemasonry
The article says that 'Rivera claims that he became "disillusioned" upon finding that the Vatican was "behind" Freemasonry.' In reality, the Catholic Church completely prohibits the practice of Freemasonry and considers it grounds for excommunication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry). Should that be mentioned in the article, or would it be considered original research? Carlo (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alberto Rivera (activist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803110703/http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p3.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesuits were the masterminds behind the Medieval Inquisition in the 13th century
(1) The source is secondary source, and a claim by Alberto should be verified with a primary source.

(2) The source make no such claims. Look for Your self, here it is:

https://archive.org/stream/IsAlbertoForReal/IAFR_djvu.txt

Razzham (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Uneven quality, NPOV, and sources
This article is oddly laid out in terms of POV; about half of it seems neutral, and the other half comes at it with obvious distaste for Rivera. I have tried to fix this. Namely, I have removed a number of what appear to be "scare quotations" in Rivera's narrative. Since it is his own narrative, these seem inappropriate to me where they are not explicit quotes - I have left those ones that seem to be so, but they should have citations where appropriate, or otherwise removed if not. If the other ones were quotes as well, they should be either rephrased to make this clearer, and in the case of the one word quotes (e.g. "torture") more should be included if they are to be considered quotes. I also removed a sentence about being unable to offer proof for one of his claims: this is meant to summarize his narrative, not analyze its veracity. Whether or not he proved it is irrelevant to whether or not he claimed it.

I have also changed the section on his allegations about the creation of Islam to being "allegations about catholicism and islam" since 2/4 claims did not involve its creation, but all 4 involved catholicism and islamic interactions. It does not seem well organized to me to have a header that only describes half of the paragraph. Both of the allegation sections should probably be merged about "beliefs" or his "claims" or something along those lines. This paragraph also repeatedly mentioned a lack of proof for his claims; I do not think this is appropriate since this is, to me, implied by the words "allege" and "claim" themselves, but I have replaced them all by a single qualifier at the beginning about not offering proof, instead, should there be some sort of reason for it to be there. The only sourced part of that section was basically copy paste; and, on the topic, am I missing something, or does the fourth reference simply have an small overview (not including the actual information) of the tract which seems to be the actual intended source? If so, then it should be changed to refer to the actual Chick tract. Two other tracts are already used as sources for his beliefs - and since it is for his claims, not proof, I don't imagine it would matter.

Lastly, I'm not sure how one would do such a thing, but I think this article would be a decent one to nominate for deletion. He seems to have no notability beyond that which Chick has done in his name; it would make sense to merge some of this into Chick's article as a source of inspiration or something like that. There is a definite deficit of sources about him that make him seem notable; it seems like almost all of the sources about him are basically just from his own friends or those who believe in his claims, and a few that call him a fraud. As this article stands now, without doing any more research on my part, admittedly, he does not seem notable. However, this comes from my impression of him based on this article, so if it were to improve greatly in quality, I would rescind my opinion.

This is my first time editing an article beyond spelling fixes, so I would appreciate another eye to make sure I have done it correctly and according to policies.

50.71.37.108 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)