Talk:Mercy Multiplied/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tammyp2319 edits

• I can't see a reference for the second closed location - can you help me?
• There is no need to repeat the information about the controversy in the location section. It can already be found under controversy. I have taken that out again.
• Happy to help with footnotes if you have a further problem.

Hyper3 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyper3 edits

1) There was no reference for the outdated statement that one project had been closed, so updating it to two projects in itself shouldn't have required a reference. As stated and widely noted, both homes in Australia were closed, the Queensland and Sydney homes. Mercy Ministries Australia closed down. You might like to add this footnote (see number 4 on this document) http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=906586&nodeId=3e5d2c62fdfda22b0c1c708fe24326ff&fn=Undertaking.pdf

Once a discussion gets going, we usually start looking for footnotes to back up any statements. Wikipedia stresses that the issue is verifiability, not truth. Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2) I didn't repeat anything. If you look at your edit, you'd notice that most of what you deleted was not added by me. It was already there. I had added a few words to add details, and I attempted to add a footnote (as you had suggested) and then you deleted the whole part, not just the details and footnote I had attempted to add which were relevant to that part.

My mistake then. I think it is better as it is, having reviewed the whole section. Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

3) Thank you. Please feel free to add the footnote referencing both projects that were closed if you would like a footnote there.

I've reviewed both footnotes. The evidence you have found is very useful.Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tammyp2319 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Tammyp2319 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations?

In light of the recent allegations SMH 17/3/2008, it may be worthwhile setting up a new section following the progress of the investigation as it develops. The current article is quite uncritical of Mercy Ministries. Orthabok (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, actually. Some of the information about the allegations made by the SMH is currently under the "Use of funds" heading, which seems a little confusing, and isn't really relevant to that heading. I'm also a little concerned about the tone of the article. It seems a little weasel-wordy. I think it needs to be made clearer that the only investigation into the matter as yet (as far as I'm aware) has been carried out by the SMH. I don't think that the article should jump from being uncritical of Mercy Ministries to being uncritical of the SMH's allegations. Landithy (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section called "Controversy", and added a POV tag for that section too, as some of the information is probably covered by the original tag in the "use of funds" section. Although I think that a POV tag could safely be applied to the whole article, given that information has been added to the overview which has clearly been cut and pasted directly from Mercy's own promotional material.

I also updated the "Controversy" information a little, to include the reactions of some of Mercy's other corporate sponsors. Will try to dig up some information on Mercy's reaction to the allegations when I've a little more time. Landithy (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edits re. "Controversy" section (28/04/08)

I've made the following changes to the "Controversy" section:

Deleted however interviews with several young women who have been in the Mercy Ministries program in Australia indicate that Peter Irvine's claims are unfounded. - There is nothing in the source cited to support this statement, and it appears to be a conclusion drawn by the contributor who added the comment. The statement seems rather biased, since there is no obvious logical link between the allegations of a small number individuals and the statement that Irvine's claims are unfounded.

Deleted This is hardly surprising, as Peter Irvine is a director of Mercy Ministries and a co-founder of Gloria Jean's Coffees. - This statement is unreferenced and appears to be a personal opinion of the contributor, which I believe compromises the neutrality of the article. Plus, Peter Irvine's involvement with both Gloria Jeans and Mercy Ministries is mentioned elsewhere. If some specific allegation of conflict of interest has been made, I'm all for reporting it, but with appropriate references and mention of the accuser.

Edited the paragraph dealing with the ACCC investigation to make it clear that the allegations have not been proven yet. Since the Australian Democrats are the ones making the allegations, they could be considered to be a biased source. To state the allegations as though they were established fact would be misleading. Since this section is about controversy, I think it is important to specify who is making any allegations, and whether those allegations have been proved.

As always, I'm happy to discuss the matter if somebody takes issue with it. Landithy (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ACCC Investigation

I found links to the Hansard reports for the Senate decision to refer MM to the ACCC over the false advertising allegations. These may be a more reliable source than the press release from the Australian Democrats. I haven't had a chance to properly read through the manuscripts yet, but here are the links:

[1]

[2]

Landithy (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Organisations With This Name

A quick Google search shows that the name "Mercy Ministries" is also used by the catholic Sisters of Mercy to describe a shelter in Laredo Texas and by Youth With A Mission (YWAM) to describe their overseas charitable and social work. Both of these are clearly quite different from the organisation described in this article. Should we put something in to this effect to avoid confusion?Majurawombat (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I actually did get confused the first time I saw a 'Mercy Ministries' pamphlet, because there's a Catholic-run charity in my suburb called the 'Mercy Centre'. The Sisters of Mercy in Australia have specifically stated that they aren't connected with the Mercy Ministries that this article is about. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landithy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Overview

I've removed the overview section as it is a copyright violation of the Mercy Ministries site. As for the controversies section, I don't see why it needs the POV tag. It seems well referenced. Is anyone disputing the neutrality? Because otherwise it doesn't need the tag. Recurring dreams (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I put it in because I'd moved material from another section that already had a POV tag, I wasn't sure exactly what the POV tag in that section applied to, and I didn't want to remove it purely on the basis of my own edits. I've no objection to it being removed. Landithy (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for the reasons given above Majurawombat (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm really all that bothered, but the above discussion related specifically to the tag in the "Controversy" section.Landithy (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Recent IP edits from 70.148.121.218 have, amongst other things, removed the "Controversy" section, leading to the edits being reverted. That IP address is in fact registered to "Mercy Ministries of America". I have left a "welcome" message for the IP, including reference to WP:COI, but I did also wonder whether the article was over-dominated by the controversy section and whether it needed to be that long in comparison to the rest of the article. It may be that the balance of the article needs to be looked at. I've asked the IP to discuss matters here before editing the article further. Bencherlite^Talk 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, because the edits are being noted on some news websites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy part is definitely too long. Especially in light of the fact that the articles are all Australian and the fact is that Mercy Ministries is an International organisation. Wrinkleintime123 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly there are probably some worldwide view issues with the article, because Mercy Ministries seems to have risen to greater prominence in Australia, due to the afore-mentioned controversy, and its connections to the Hillsong and Gloria Jeans Coffees, which are both large and to varying degrees, controversial organisations. There is also more readily accessible information about the Australian perspective for similar reasons. However while perhaps the 'Controversy' could be trimmed down a bit, I think some of the other sections could do with expanding. In particular, they could do with more detail about MM outside Australia.Landithy (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Cut down the article a bit. I've tried to focus on the most serious/concrete of the allegations.Landithy (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How come the controversy section has been cut down so much? I think the controversy section is more relevant than what it has been cut down to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmkelly (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was cut down following the above discussion. No mention was made of the USA allegations (mentioned here[4]) in the original version. If you have verifiable information regarding any such allegations, by all means, include it. Was there some part of the original version which you think should be kept? Landithy (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (edited Landithy (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Mercy Ministries is a rather small international organization with only a handful of homes worldwide catering to a small number of women at each home. From what I've read on the websites there are 3 homes in the US, 2 homes in Australia, 1 home in New Zealand and 1 home in the UK. They serve no more than 200 young women in all of the homes combinedat any given time. This would give the allegations greater relevance given the relatively small amount of young women cared for by the organisations. This isn't like the Teen Challenge or the Salvation Army which are much larger and serve many more people in comparison. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section did say: Controversy On 17 March 2008, an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, containing allegations of mistreatment by several former clients of Mercy Ministries in Australia. They claim the organisation has made false claims about its services, and that instead of receiving counselling from qualified professionals, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students who treated them with techniques including exorcisms and prayer readings. [7] Australian Government agencies such as Centrelink have also been drawn into the controversy, as residents are required to transfer their benefits to Mercy Ministries. There are also allegations that the group receives a carers payment to look after the young women. Mercy Ministries says 96 young women have "graduated" from its program since its inception in 2001. But many have apparently been expelled without warning and with no follow up or support. ("They sought help, but got exorcism and the Bible", Sydney Morning Herald, March 17, 2008) Peter Irvine, a director of Mercy Ministries and co-founder of Gloria Jean's Coffees, has stated, in response to the allegations, that Mercy Ministries had received "overwhelming positive feedback from graduates, their families and the community" and that clients were made aware of the details of the programs before they joined.[8] Since the allegations were first made public, several other former clients have come forward, reporting negative experiences and abuse at the hands of Mercy Ministries.[9] Gloria Jean's Coffees, a major sponsor of Mercy Ministries, has stated that, despite the allegations, it does not intend to change its funding arrangements for Mercy Ministries. Several other corporate sponsors have announced that they will be severing their connection with Mercy Ministries.[10][11] On 16th April 2008, the Australian Democrats announced that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would be investigating Mercy Ministries Australia over their alleged misrepresentation. The Democrats claim that Mercy Ministries advertised that their program provided professional medical and psychiatric care for their patients, however the young women were placed in the care of Bible College students who were unqualified to treat mental illness. It is also alleged that Mercy Ministries advertised that they did not charge young women to be part of their program, however the ministry did require payment from young women in the form of their Centrelink benefits. [12] In 2006 it was revealed that Nancy Alcorn, founder of Mercy Ministries, earned $178,583.00 from the charity for the financial year.[13] The wages paid to other directors of Mercy Ministries are unknown.

There were a lot of references in there to support it. I'm disappointed that a lot has been edited out, and as the other person said, Mercy Ministries is a very small organisation compared to TC, Salvos etc, and the fact that so many from Australia and some from the USA have come forward, is a very big deal.

I don't want to argue about it though - I'm fine with the majority on here making a decision about the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmkelly (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to start a row either. However I do think that it's good to discuss these things. I particularly welcome constructive criticism of my own edits, since it's easy to lose objectivity when looking at one's own contributions, and obviously I'm not omniscient.  :-)

I honestly can't find anything in the referenced articles which refers to the allegations from outside Australia. Also, much of the information I removed was vague or of questionable relevance. Otherwise, I've tried to make the article as concise as possible while still covering the main points. I've also tried to avoid the emotive tone of many of the articles referenced in the interests of providing a NPOV.

I would also like to reiterate my view that I think that while Mercy Ministries may be a small organisation, it is affiliated with two very large and prominent organisations and has a high media profile (at least in Australia). While obviously it doesn't merit an article as large as an organisation so old and widespread as the Salvation Army, I think that it does warrant a slightly larger article than it has at present. I would argue that the fact that it is more prominent in Australia than in other countries does not necessarily mean that it is not worthy of more attention. In this respect, it could be likened to the Magdalene Asylums, which existed around the world, but became particularly notorious in Ireland. Landithy (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I cleaned up the links removing all but the links to the mercy ministries websites and the mercy survivors website. These links were to various christian publications as well as to youtube and myspace. I did not see the relevance of any of them being included. Here are the links I removed for anyone to review and add their input.

Mercy Ministries on MySpace Nancy Alcorn SpeaksLittle Big Town Touchs on Baby shower that supports Mercy MinistriesNancy Alcorn Founder of Mercy Ministries talks to Life Today about Mercy Ministries Have Mercy Woman of Mercy A Survivor Story: Meet Laura Schultz… Treatment or Death Mercy Ministries Promo video Another Article on Mercy Ministries A fan visits Mercy Ministries Career Minded - Mercy Ministry President, Nancy Alcorn Help for Women with Eating Disorders CelticLabyrinth (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits during protection

I have a new account and want to make a few minor edits that do not change content, should I just wait or post suggestions here?(Victoria Lucas (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

If you want to make edits such as rewording or grammar checks, or you want to add cited information to improve the article then please go ahead. Just don't outright delete sections of cited information or rewrite the article without discussing it here first. If you're new to wikipedia then I would suggest using a sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox first. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not letting me make even minor edits and I think I have to submit something on this page to request specific override of protection in order to make minor edits, so honestly I think I am just going to wait until it's unprotected, since some of the problems I have with it are as simple as correcting the names of the various locations of the organization (Mercy Ministries of America/ Mercy Ministries Australia instead of "in the US" or "in Australia".
However, I would like to admit my bias regarding the article as I am a former resident. In my defense, I have a library science and literary research background and am trained in technical writing, so I am familiar with the necessity of references, and believe in the case of Wikipedia it is particularly important to be as impartial as possible, to list out facts for people who are looking for information on a subject, and not attempt to remove information, or make an argument defending my view on the recent controversy.
I think both the overview and the controversy sections need clarification, and can be more concise, while adding more detailed information, so I'm hoping to do that once the article is unprotected.Victoria Lucas (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Overview Section

I am not finding the quote "... to provide opportunities for young women to experience on teaching young women aged 16-28 about Jesus Christ" in the referenced interview with Darlene Zschech. Where is it exactly? I can't find any sort of quote that references MM's mission. The quote itself is also not grammatically correct as "to experience on teaching" should either be "to experience teaching" or "to teach", but neither of those makes sense for what I understand their mission to be as the residents to not actually teach anything to other young women. You could change the statement to "to provide opportunities for young women aged 16-28 to experience Jesus Christ," or alternately "to learn about Jesus Christ". But again, there is nothing in that interview that references the mission statement of MM, that I can see. I think we should find a better mission statement, maybe from their site?Victoria Lucas (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to using a (properly referenced) a mission-statement from the official site. It's possible that some of the references got pushed around a bit when a whole bunch of copyrighted material (cut & pasted wholesale from MM's website) was removed out a little while ago. Landithy (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Overview Edits

I rewrote the overview paragraph explaining the mission statement/objectives of MM. There are a couple of items that are probably going to be controversial, so I thought I would address them preemptively. I will have the citation up soon, but all of this information is paraphrased from either a recent radio interview by Nancy Alcorn found on the MM of America website or the other already referenced history pages, etc also found on the website. At this point, all that needs to be done in the first two paragraphs is clean up the references, but as a new Wikipedian I am still working on doing that without messing the whole page up, or deleting references by mistake.

I can most likely find more references for most of what I've written, but I think it is a good choice of reference because Nancy herself is describing the ministry. Here is the link to the interview I am basing the overview on (It can be found on the site under the Audio/Visual section of their press center.): http://www.mercyministries.org/shared/audio/public/Nancy_Radio.mp3

I wrote:

"Mercy Ministries is an international Christian charitable organization that offers a long-term residential Christian-based treatment program for girls and women aged 13-28 who struggle with life-controlling mental illnesses such as eating disorders and depression, as well as psychological issues that arise from sexual abuse and predispose girls and women to attempt suicide, self-injure, or abuse drugs and alcohol."

Paraphrased from interview. I phrased the "psychological issues that arise from sexual abuse and chemical dependency, etc." the way I did because sexual abuse is not an actual illness, and MM is not a detox facility, but instead works to treat the roots of the problems that they feel caused the residents to become dependent on drug and alcohol, self-injury or attempt suicide in the first place.

"In addition, Mercy Ministries is both an ex-gay program that offers conversion therapy to residents who struggle with their sexual identities, and a pro-life ministry that takes in girls and women who seek help with their unplanned pregnancies."

I stated this in as neutral a way as possible, and feel the pro-life and conversion therapy are equally valid parts of their program and should be included along with information on the psychological issues they treat. I made sure to stress that the pregnant girls and women who enter the program have in fact sought help of their own volition.

When I mentioned the gay conversion aspect of their program I also made sure to stress that the potential residents were again seeking help of their own accord because they feel they need help.

Nancy mentions both of these aspects of the program in her interview, and I made sure to refer to their ministry as pro-life and not "anti-choice" as some might view it because, again, residents make their own decisions to go there.(Victoria Lucas (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Just wanting to clarify something. Does that list of programmes run by MM apply to all MM institutions worldwide, or just the ones in the USA? Only this article, says that MM "denies it runs an "ex-gay" program". I've no problem with the article stating that MM offers such a program if it can be verified, and the article I mentioned is admittedly from a secondary source, but perhaps the issue warrants further investigation in light of this anomaly. Landithy (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the programs are the same across the board. I do think it's fair do include the ex-gay part of the program (and to some extent a fact that should be included for a thorough overview) because the reference [5](that I need to add, sorry I've been on vacation) is a radio interview where Nancy, the founder mentions it herself. I agree, though, that the gay conversion part of the program has been denied, so I thought it might be something to include in the controversy section. Thoughts on that?(Victoria Lucas (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Reference 16 should be April 16, not March 16, since you have editing rights Victoria could you please change it? Thanks

Done. I am going to try and figure out how to link the mp3 file to the end of the first and second paragraphs. I'm not sure if it's different than linking a webpage, and I think I need to put the "retrieved" date on there, but am figuring that out as well. If there is a tutorial specifically for references, can you lead me to it? I am also in the process of figuring out how not to repeat a reference without creating a second reference that is the same link because I see one link is repeated instead of just having the same number referenced in two locations. Does that even make sense? I can see there is a different code, but I'm still figuring it out.(Victoria Lucas (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Have you tried this article, and some of the cross-referenced ones? Landithy (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the reference/example for the fact that the Sisters of Mercy use the term 'Mercy Ministries' in reference to their work. On reflection and review of Wikipedia's referencing policies, I think that this point would fall within the category of general common knowledge and does not need a citation, and the reference was only an example, not a statement of a policy. Landithy (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing of the Sunshine Coast Home

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/jun/07/mercy-ministries-close-coast-home/ I can't add it right now, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of others working on this article. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

removal of addition to controversy section

I also think the addition of the "positive articles" statement shows bias. I merely added as fact that statement by MM that the home is closing. I understand if the fact of the closing needs to be removed to the overview section because placing it in the controversy section might be considered biased (as there is no proof that the closing is related to the controversy). However, I do not think listing the existence of what might be considered positive articles has merit. Mentioning relevant information that references the articles would be fair, I think. I am totally open to discussion about this, of course, but for now I took it out.Victoria Lucas (talk)

Another IP (from Sidney Australia- my best guess is it's Mercy Minitries) is editing this page and removing controversial information. Last time it happened I notified some editors of it- I think we need to protect IP's from editing the page- but I don't know how to do it, I'm not a very good wikipedian, but if you don't want to deal with it I'll deal with it later tonight. I'll also see about putting a warning on their profile and blocking that IP from editing this page CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected this article for another month to stop the IP from editing it for the time being. They'll have to register to edit it from now on. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt sort of weird protecting myself as I didn't want to seem like I was trying to stop them from ever editing it, or seem like it was a personal thing. Maybe they could weigh in on the discussion? Victoria Lucas (talk)

There was more vandalism today by 202.80.145.234 I have reverted it back. Melanie587 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Books by Alcorn

Since Nancy does not have a page of her own, do you think this would be an appropriate place for a list of her books/teachings? Just a thought. I was also thinking of expanding the funding section, well, making it less confusing as well, but I thought I might list some of the other churches/pastors who support MM financially, such as Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church, Abundant Life Church, Darlene and Mark Zschech, Chris Caine, Hillsong, any other major contributers. I will of course find references, but I think in each major city that they are expanding, they are partnering with a local church, usually of some notoriety, that have at least the beginning of an article on Wikipedia. I think she has mentioned some major private sponsors, as well, but I will have to check on whether there are any of notoriety. Thoughts? Victoria Lucas (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up/adding references

I'm in the process of cleaning up/adding references, and could use help. I'll eventually figure it out myself, but I don't yet know how to create anchors, and it's clear that several references are repeated. I also have not gone through and checked all of them, but am hoping to do that within the next couple of days. I have tried to list a variety of appropriate ones, and not rely on a single source, even when possible. (I'm assuming that's a good thing.)

Also, I haven't even begin to deal with references in the beginning of the controversy section as I think they've gotten jumbled up.

I will defer to those who can help in deciding if I've "over-cited" the article, etc.

Also, with the formatting, I have placed the citations inside of the final punctuation as the end of the appropriate sentence and outside of the punctuation of the final sentence when cited for more than once consecutive sentence. I think that is right, but haven't dealt with this for many years. I haven't gone through and done this for the entire article, however, because I haven't checked every ref/statement yet and thought the actual formatting would be a good thing to do last, so I will look into it and see if that is the correct formatting before I get to that stage. (Unless somebody already knows?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Lucas (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Does anyone know why the NPOV tag was put back up? I can find information on older NPOV issues, but none that are current. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was added by the person who initiated this discussion, presumably for the reasons outlined in said discussion. Personally, I'm satisfied that that particular issue has been resolved, although the person who put the tag on and initiated the discussion hasn't added anything further to it. Landithy (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they did. I have no objection to take it off now that revisions have been made to the passage in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Lucas (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Texmis (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some further information taken from a recent article Texmis (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence (posted below in the dotted box with my emphasis) makes it sound like homosexuality is a mental illness. While this may be the view of Mercy Ministries, it is not the commonly held position amongst psychiatrists and other mental health professionals of the modern day. Therefore, this wording needs to be changed.

Mercy Ministries is an international Christian charitable organization that offers a long-term Christian residential treatment program for young women aged 
13-28 who struggle with various issues, including mental illnesses such as eating disorders, mood disorders, homosexuality, sexual addiction, and substance 
addiction and the affects of abuse.

I am also removing the part about "affects of abuse" because that isn't necessarily a mental illness. It's also redundant given the later cite. I also removed the second mention of self-harm and suicidal thoughts. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Australian age reference

I removed the Australian age reference as MM's has different age ranges in different countries (the UK is 18-28, AU is 16-28, NZ is 16-28, the US is 13-28, who knows what Canada and Peru are going to have). 13-28 is inclusive of all of the age ranges, so I think it is the most appropriate thing to put up. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hyper3 Edits

What does everyone think of the deleting of information and other edits that Hyper3 has done? Hyper3 can you explain why you believe your edits enhance this article? If you make your points we can discuss them. Thanks

Happy to answer any questions you may have. Hyper3 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. The questions are above. It's also good you're now willing to discuss it before simply going in and changing whole sections. Discussions can promote improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletree80 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to "be bold" and "assume good faith." I'm sure you are in favour of both. I hope you don't mind, but I can't anticipate what you don't like about my edits - you need to ask me specific questions for me to be able to answer. Hyper3 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Can you explain why you believe your edits enhance this article?" Type your proposed changes in here and explain why you believe they are necessary. We then discuss them and come up with a version that everybody is happy with. Appletree80 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Really happy to address your specific concerns. Your proposed procedure is not the wikipedia process. Being bold involves making the edits you think are the best. If there is a problem, then anyone who wishes to object can raise them on the talk page, and we can work for a proposal that satisfies legitimate concerns. If I have to justify every aspect of my edits, I will inevitably waste time addressing issues you have no problem with. By all means be specific, and I will answer. Hyper3 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed

I have done a substantial overhaul of the article, which was repetitive and unbalanced. It still may be over-emphasising those who have an axe to grind. There have obviously been a number of problems with MM, its just that life is more complex than good guys and bad guys, and this needs reflecting better in the article. Hyper3 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this piece again, I think that the neutrality of this article is in doubt because half of it is given over to complaints. Because it is on a religious topic, there are bound to be differences of opinion. For example, exorcism is presented as always and every time a wrong approach; adherents would obviously not agree. The issue here is to do with consent, one which was given by the parties on entering the course. One could also say, that because the course participants were vulnerable, this consent was not validly given... In other words, its not about exorcism really, it is about consent and vulnerability. The tone of the text should be amended to reflect this. Hyper3 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that consent was given for the exorcisms. Where are your sources?

There is overwhelming evidence that consent was not given for the exorcisms, and Mercy Ministries itself is not open about its practices of exorcism. I can see that it was you Hyper3 who added a reference saying that very thing - that Mercy Ministries on their website claim that they do not do exorcisms. I cannot see how you can now say that consent was given for the exorcisms.

I see no evidence anywhere that the exorcisms were done with any sort of consent, but if you find a valid reference I would be interested in seeing it.

I have to state my interest in this article (as I believe Hyper3 you also have an interest in it.) I work in the social work field, I'm a Christian and I have a dear friend who attended Mercy Ministries. I do have information about the program from knowing somebody who attended, however that knowledge cannot come into it as things need to be referenced. Rainy885 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainy - nice to hear from you.

Actually I know no-one involved, though I am acquainted with the sort of Christianity that it entails. I am contributing to this page because it is a good example of the sort of ethical conflicts that arise for Christians in a postmodern society. People who begin with different ethical standpoints speak across each other.

I am suggesting that the consent issue is more relevant than the exorcism issue. Of course secular humanists don't believe in demons, and why should they? But it is important that each side is treated with respect. That tone of respect is lacking.

The main question is whether the vulnerable people who agreed to join the course (which they were aware was being run by Christians) gave a valid consent to MM to use whatever spiritual goods they believed they had to offer. It is possible that they consented to participate in a course about which they did have full understanding - we might call that trust. It may well be that everyone who joins MM is in that position. Perhaps their life controlling issues do not allow them to concentrate, or maybe they don't really care, as long as it works. However, MM owes a duty of care to the individuals involved not to take that trust too far. Yet it may be that MM folks honestly believe that praying against demons is the best they have to offer. How do we solve such a conundrum?

Interestingly, it appears that MM has realised that they have a problem that arises out of the cultural conflicts involved, that may be more acute in Australia. They have changed their course, and though they themselves obviously do believe in exorcism, they have realised that they need to be careful in the way they approach people who are vulnerable and have offered them their trust. Not scaring them and threatening them with increased demon possession if they don't co-operate, is definitely a start!

There have obviously been some serious mistakes made, and from what I can read, there is both the cultural conflict evident, and some problems with being honestly sorry. They should be able to learn from their mistakes and continue, though. It would involve much humility however.

Actually, I think your knowledge, which is probably accurate and yet limited due to it being only one person, is still relevant. No one is unbiased!

I would find your thoughts very interested, and if you wanted to email my from my user page I would find it a privilege. Hyper3 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3 I appreciate your reply. I think the key here is to look at the advertising - does Mercy Ministries advertising lend itself to being open about what their practices are, and what a young woman should expect when in the program? Only when a practice is explained, can it be consented to (and then as you stated, it may not be informed consent due to the nature of the girl's illness.) The advertising on the Mercy Ministries websites says they do not perform exorcisms, and their brochures (from which young women often learn about the program) have no mention of exorcism or deliverance either. I have never seen any form of information brochure or advertising from Mercy Ministries that says they perform exorcisms. http://s495.photobucket.com/albums/rr314/mercysurvivors/?action=view&current=Mercybrochure.jpg The brochures indicate the young women will be treated by psychiatric and medical professionals. I'm sure you'll agree that consenting to a program that says the young women will be treated by professionals, is quite different from consenting to exorcisms by untrained staff. What are your thoughts on the issue? Rainy885 (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainy - thanks for your information, and the picture of the brochure.

The brochure mentions "physical, spiritual and emotional" wellbeing - and good Modern Western culturally aware people think they understand what the references to "professionals" means, so they don't ask further questions. Actually, there are hundreds of "therapeutic modalities" and research done into many of them does not prove their utility especially when compared to "spontaneous recovery." One could accuse much that counts for therapy of being abusive, manipulative and money orientated: it would not however seem plausible, and most would reject it. A Christian approach that includes Christian versions of therapy (including deliverance) is much more implausible to the modern Western mindset, and therefore accusations against it stick more readily. It is very likely that the therapists mentioned as being "professional" are also Christians, and therefore may well use a variety of approaches, from prayer to Freud. My point is that we must ask the question whether even Modern Western therapies are openly described.

What MM believes spiritual well-being to mean is not what modern Westerners in general believe it to be. Christians and this particular type of Christian group, come from a tradition that defines "the good life" in a particular way, and therefore their path towards it, and what they count to be the virtues that are needed to lead the good life, are far more divergent than you might expect. When it comes to instructing the vulnerable how to live the good life, there is no doubt at all that this is brought out more starkly.

I think it is important that MM and those like them are very careful at this point, because the accusations that can be made are extensive, and therefore they need to be as honest as they can. It is clear from the beginning, that Christians come to different conclusions to non-Christians, and that it is unlikely that Christian therapeutic modalities are going to be wholly acceptable to non-Christians.

What bothers me more is that they seem to have been taken by surprise in this. I think it is the difference between Australia and America that particularly has brought it out.

Was consent given when the girls entered the programme? I believe that this is really the main part of the debate. I think we need to be open to the fact that these girls often are willing to try anything, and therefore have offered quite a wide consent. Are they in a position to give that consent given their vulnerability? I don't think there is a general answer, but there should be some work done on a case by case basis to make sure. Some of those who do give consent, may do it unwisely, and regret it later. The majority buy in to the whole package, and feel they have been helped. These are some of the most difficult people to help. Other therapies may be more acceptable, and less effective. There will always be failures and complaints. MM statistics claim 7% failure, because 7% are asked to leave, and 7% say they did not progress. This is very low, in my opinion. If you look at secular drug rehabilitation figures, their success rates are often in the low single figure percentage. And this is why Alcorn began. Hyper3 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

From my knowledge of them in Australia, many more than 7% are asked to leave, and many more again leave after joining the program and realising it was not what they consented to or expected. Whether this was across the board in both homes I don't know, but certainly in one house over a length of time. My view is that this isn't so much a question of Christian belief and how faith is perceived by non Christians. It's more about services needing to be honest about their treatment regimes, whether they take a faith based approach or a secular approach. Keep in mind that Mercy Ministries have flatly denied doing exorcisms. It's not simply that they didn't mention them in their advertising - they outright denied it. Therefore when a young woman consented to the advertised program, there was no consent for the exorcisms as she did not know they were a part of the program. Rainy885 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think on the issue of what they said and didn't say, there is clearly a muddle that turned into a PR fiasco, and made them look like they were caught lying. I think there are a number of issues to do with openness that have not been dealt with well here. But then, perhaps we can agree that the main issue is the area of consent and honesty about treatment regimes? Hyper3 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Australian Operations

I've added a brief statement about the announced closure of MM's operations in Australia. Other parts of the article, such as the "Locations" section of the article will also need to be updated in light of this. Will try to get around to this in the next few days, once I've sourced appropriate information. Landithy (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added quotes from MM's own site and from Hillsong's (extraordinary, IMHO) statement cutting MM loose and admitting damage by association. I've also taken the liberty of referencing the only site I could find that carried an earlier, harsher version of a statement from Hillsong that Hillsong's own website no longer carries.

I would regard this as very much an open section which will further evolve over time; MM's claim of mere financial unviability and Houston's statement admitting there is an ongoing "investigation" (which may or may not be related to the ACCC investigation of 2008) and exhorting co-operation means there is undoubtedly more to tell. --baliset 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baliset (talk • contribs)

Reasoning

It seems like this page still has a lot of issues and it seems like someone is trying to give Mercy Ministries a bad name instead of just reporting the facts. Referencing blogs on this site is a stretch. Blogs are based on opinion not fact.

For instance, the descriptions of Mercy Ministries in the first section are NOT true. The entire ministry is NOT charismatic. I have met several of the staff members and happen to know that several denominations are represented, including Methodist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Four Square, non-denomational, etc.

You really should change the heading of “Exorcism” on this page. What Mercy Ministries is doing is not even close to the TRUE definition of an “exorcism”. If you look on Mercy’s site, in the FAQ section, they clearly state that they do not perform exorcisms. They also don’t use the “restoring the foundations” program mentioned. They are using a program called “choices that bring change”. These facts really should be cleared up if this page is to keep with wiki standards and guidelines.

Even the language used to “balance” this section is also inflammatory – “nonetheless” etc.

This word “exorcism” was first used in descriptions of Mercy Ministries when a former Australian resident was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying, “when they laid hands on me and prayed, it felt like an exorcism.” This word was used incorrectly to sensationalize what is commonly practiced in all denominations – laying on of hands and praying for people. (http://www.ccel.org/contrib//exec_outlines/top/layhands.htm)

The term “exorcism” is very loaded especially after the 1970s movie – “The Exorcist” – and is used on the Mercy Ministries wiki page in a way that clearly indicates an axe to grind by those who are posting it.

As I read this section, it is very one-sided and serving only to attack Mercy Ministries rather than report FACTS – which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. This is a side bar to the overall Mercy Ministries page and should be under a controversy or discussion section and not presented as “fact” as it currently is.

Also, all of the 50 articles that are referenced, with the exception of 3, are Australian and include blog postings by Australians. There IS NO Australian organization anymore! Seems very biased and one-sided; even with some of the edits. I really don’t see any indication that the truth was sought in this page’s discussion of Mercy Ministries.

Lastly, according to this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJoSMifx02c , “Victoria ‘Vickie’ Lucas”, who is responsible for a large part of the edits, is actually the alias for “Jodi Ferris” who is quoted in the Tennessean article and who has written Truth Will Out Blog – which indicates an “axe to grind” in and of itself. “Jodi Ferris” is also responsible for a Mercy Survivor story by Sean the Blogonaut, where she is using the name “Hope”. From what I’ve read, there has only ever been ONE former Nashville resident who has spoken out about being required to take part in group prayer sessions for casting out demons, and that was Jodi Ferris, a.k.a. Victoria Lucas, a.k.a. Hope, a.k.a. Vickie Lucas.

The comment about the Nashville Scene reporting – belongs in the Australian controversy part and not in this area. I am suggesting that this area be labeled – other controversy… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denice May (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum to slander an individual, nor is it a forum to discuss personal opinions about the organization. Exorcism was the term used by numeronew sources regarding the treatment at Mercy Ministries in both the US and abroad, I do not believe there is a more neutral term for it. The Australian controversy is in large part what makes this organization notable. Certainly there is room in the article to detail other notable things about this organization, and if you have cited information to add then please do! CelticLabyrinth (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above comments do throw light on serious problems with the article: blogs should not be used WP:BLOGS and being involved in the dispute is a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. These two problems if remedied properly will reduce the article in size considerably. Hyper3 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tammyp2319 edits

• I can't see a reference for the second closed location - can you help me?
• There is no need to repeat the information about the controversy in the location section. It can already be found under controversy. I have taken that out again.
• Happy to help with footnotes if you have a further problem.

Hyper3 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyper3 edits

1) There was no reference for the outdated statement that one project had been closed, so updating it to two projects in itself shouldn't have required a reference. As stated and widely noted, both homes in Australia were closed, the Queensland and Sydney homes. Mercy Ministries Australia closed down. You might like to add this footnote (see number 4 on this document) http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=906586&nodeId=3e5d2c62fdfda22b0c1c708fe24326ff&fn=Undertaking.pdf

Once a discussion gets going, we usually start looking for footnotes to back up any statements. Wikipedia stresses that the issue is verifiability, not truth. Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2) I didn't repeat anything. If you look at your edit, you'd notice that most of what you deleted was not added by me. It was already there. I had added a few words to add details, and I attempted to add a footnote (as you had suggested) and then you deleted the whole part, not just the details and footnote I had attempted to add which were relevant to that part.

My mistake then. I think it is better as it is, having reviewed the whole section. Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

3) Thank you. Please feel free to add the footnote referencing both projects that were closed if you would like a footnote there.

I've reviewed both footnotes. The evidence you have found is very useful.Hyper3 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tammyp2319 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Tammyp2319 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please advise if you are disagreeable.

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

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

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

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

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

Independent Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi DRM.

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

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

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