User talk:YorkNewton

Welcome
Should recordings of the leadership be used as sources?

January 2020
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to La Luz del Mundo. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Chlod (talk &#124; contribs) 07:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Added a few facts well documented in video recordings and audio files. La Luz del Mundo ministers and members use social media and other media outlets to promote religion intolerance against other denominations. They dedicate hours of their produced Mexican radio shows to bad-mouth, belittle, decry, denigrate, derogate, diminish, dismiss, play down, poor-mouth, put down, talk down, trash, trash-talk, vilipend Catholics, Pentecostals, Mormons, JW, Seven Day and other denominations. The founder of the church Aaron Joaquin Gonzalez used to say that he would like to be a pig instead of Catholic. The minister Carlos Montemayor became famous in youtube when he said "Maldito tu y toda tu casa por hablar contra un hombre de Dios" to Christian apologists Luis Carlos Reyes.

Regarding La Luz del Mundo
Hi! You recently inquired about the criteria for the addition (and removal) of content from Wikipedia pages, specifically content on La Luz del Mundo as I had reverted your change to the page.

First and foremost, I'd like to apologize for not properly providing a welcome greeting that may have guided you in what must be done to properly contribute to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome greeting in the previous section to make up for this. I sincerely hope you understand. Second, I'd like to again apologize for issuing a warning that was not fit for the issue (which I'll discuss later.) Perhaps I had issued a warning too sternly. At the time, the written section appeared problematic, so I went with the warning that would most likely fit (and unfortunately, it did not.) I have changed the warning to avoid confusion.

For you to learn how Wikipedia pages should be written, I'm going to tackle the primary reasons of why I had reverted your change. If you still have any questions, feel free to reply by adding an indent on this section, then writing your reply (and don't forget to sign your comments with ).

Style
Here in Wikipedia, we have what is called the Manual of Style, which is abbreviated to MOS. The MOS describes what to do and what to avoid when writing Wikipedia pages, specifically on what words not to use.

The repeated use of loaded terms is highly discouraged. Not only does it unnecessarily make the article longer, but it somewhat violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. By charging these articles with words that can bring a lot of impact, you start to turn the article against the subject (in this case, La Luz del Mundo.)

So with this, let's correct one clause of your edit, turning this: "...to bad-mouth, belittle, decry, denigrate, derogate, diminish, dismiss, play down, poor-mouth, put down, talk down, trash, trash-talk, [and] vilipend Catholics, Pentecostals..." into this: "...to bad-mouth Catholics, Pentecostals..."

Now with this newer statement, we cut the sentence short by 130 letters, and retained a neutral point of view by using the mainly-neutral word "bad-mouth" instead of "trash-talk" and "vilipend."

Additionally, when referencing quotes from another language, it is advised that you translate the sentence and use that instead, or provide the translation beside the sentence. For example, let's return back to your edit. From "...when he said 'Maldito tu y toda tu casa por hablar contra un hombre de Dios' to Christian..." it should now be, "...when he said 'Maldito tu y toda tu casa por hablar contra un hombre de Dios' ('Damn you and your whole church for speaking against a man of God') to Christian..." Both are good, but not as good as this, which both paraphrases the quote and incorporates it into the next part of the sentence. "...when he damned Christian apologist Luis Carlos Reyes for speaking against him."

Lastly, there's a lot of articles you can link to in that section. As much as possible, link to pages that can provide more context. For example, you can link to YouTube (which was not capitalized properly), Catholics, Pentecostals, Mormons, Seven Day (but should be expanded as "the Seventh-day Adventist Church"), and JW (but should be expanded as "Jehovah's Witnesses").

Verifiability
Now, the main issue on why the edit was removed was due to its verifiability. Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability, and in a nutshell, it states (verbatim) that: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

YouTube is in most cases, NOT a reliable source. Especially if the video does not have any links to content that can be authenticated, and even more so if the video is biased against a subject, with a description that uses the word "mentiroso" (liar) every time Pastor Montemayor is mentioned, and uses the word "brother" to describe Luis Carlos Reyes (which alludes to the fact that the publisher of the video is from the same religious group.) If a source is biased, it may not be verifiable or accurate, and if so, it most likely violates the rules against Wikipedia's neutral point of view. In most cases, this is what is called a fringe topic, which Wikipedia has a page on.

Additionally, you cannot say that a person has gained notoriety on YouTube if the video source provided only has 843 views, not counting duplicated views. If the issue gained widespread attention, and this video had been reposted multiple times, then can it only be referred to as "famous" (but then again, Wikipedia doesn't really have set quantitative values to call something "notable", but the general consensus is if the topic has significant coverage, then it can be included.)

If you want to reinsert your edit, please add a reliable source. If you want to know what is reliable, please refer here. In summary, it should be from the group themselves, a notable person from the group (perhaps its leader), or any book, textbook, magazine, journal, or mainstream newspaper that is authentic, notable, and verifiable.

Final notes
Given these points, I hope you understand why your edit was removed, and how to improve it. If it still wasn't clear, here's a short outline of what you need to do to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia: And a few tips on writing articles:
 * Avoid the use of loaded language, and other words that have significant connotation.
 * Avoid the use of repetitions, as it unnecessarily makes a sentence long without adding more usable thought.
 * Avoid the use of YouTube as a source, as it is mostly unreliable.
 * Avoid the inclusion of fringe topics as it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
 * Avoid the use of unverifiable or non-authentic information, especially if it contains possible bias.
 * Add links that can improve the context of an article.
 * Make sure that something is notable before stating that it is notable.
 * Always make sure that content on the English Wikipedia is mainly English, unless the translation would be detrimental to the content of the article.
 * Don't forget to sign your comments with, as you forgot to do so on my talk page.

Thank you for understanding, and again, welcome to Wikipedia! Chlod (talk &#124; contribs) 07:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)