Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 15 September 2005

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (3 January 2005 to 30 April 2005):
• Archive 2 (30 April 2005 to 17 June 2005):
• Archive 3 (17 June 2005 to 1 July 2005):
• Archive 4 (23 June 2005 to 7 July 2005):
• Archive 5 (10 July 2005 to 12 August 2005):
• Archive 6 (12 August 2005 to 19 August 2005):
• Archive 7 (next to start):

Unanswered questions in archive

• Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive04#Tagalog INC article

Sources

Sources are requested for the following so that the Disputed flag can be removed:

Church structure—essentially the roles within its organisation.

Church beliefs and practices.

Each doctrine is written in a book that is published by the INC but is not available to all members of the church. Is there a publicly available source? —Theo (Talk) 17:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. They might be covered in a Pasugo article though, I'm not sure.--Onlytofind 01:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that book we're talking about is the one which is written by Manalo, which is now referenced on the main page. --LBMixPro 22:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is Manalo, Erano G. Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) (Manila: Iglesia ni Cristo, 1989) the same as Introducing the Iglesia ni Cristo Booklet, 1989, pp.1-16? Both are listed as references.

Not that I know of, the FBINC book by Manalo is a full sized 200 or so page book. --LBMixPro 01:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know how I can get hold of copies of either/both? I cannot find them in the UK. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier to the thread, the book is only available to high members of the church. The booklet could probably be found lying around an INC member's house. --LBMixPro 03:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Missionary activities

The four internal organizations.

The Hierarchy

Protocol

This article is about a controversial subject and feelings often run high around it. Because of this, please take particular care to avoid personal attack or personal criticism here. If you want to say anything about an editor please do it at that editor's talk page. On this page please focus entirely on the article. —Theo (Talk) 10:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please also refer to Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles for information about dealing with articles like this one. For all new editors to the article, please read Misplaced Pages's site policies. Most importantly, this one. Any contribution which fits in the rules of Misplaced Pages are most welcome, as this article is edited by both supporters and opponents of INC. No matter what their view of the church is, everybody is bound by the Neutural Point of View and must realize that Misplaced Pages is not a tool for advocacy of any kind. --LBMixPro 01:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

References in other articles

• I don't think this question was fully addressed: Is it the standard practice in other Misplaced Pages sites on religions to use the 'references' section as a repository of obviously opinionated articles by partisan organizations?--gcessor 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe it was explained in depth by Leon and Theo. This is a unique situation and the use of those sites is within the rules.--Ironbrew 21:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles says: "When writing an article on most topics in Misplaced Pages, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be cumbersome to burden a writer with the onus of providing documentary proof for every assertion. However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented." --LBMixPro 23:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • Glenn, I do not entirely understand your difficulty with the previous explanation. I will try to make it clearer this time. Misplaced Pages policy requires us to back up every assertion with a reputable source. We should, therefore, list every source that we consult when writing an article. Note that this requirement is the citation of every reputable source. The prejudices or stance of the source are immaterial if the source takes responsibility for its own accuracy or if its opinions are the subject that is being sourced. Whenever we consult a source we should list it. As we have found, there are very few neutral articles about INC, which is why our cited sources seem to be unashamedly partisan on either side. I hope that this is clearer than the previous explanation. —Theo (Talk) 00:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Talking of references: one of the newspaper articles cited led to reference to a recent, nonreligious, academically respectable source. Might be useful, if anyone can find it:

Robert R. Reed The Iglesia ni Cristo, 1914-2000; From obscure Philippine faith to global belief system, BKI 157-3 (2001):561-608.

BKI is Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) - Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania. See here and here. Tearlach 13:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have enquired about the cost of obtaining a back issue. I may also be able to obtain a copy through Inter Library Loan. —Theo (Talk) 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now ordered a copy. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes on 21 August

Thank you, Coffeemaker, for your extensive changes today. I have copy edited for a variety of reasons. I restored the three deleted "beliefs" because I think it useful to have the single coherent summary even where they are addressed in more detail elsewhere. I found it hard to believe that a main focus of the sermon is comparison with other churches; I have left this in but is it really true? The inclusion of the long section on the Bible lessons felt like too much detail for this article and I am concerned that it may violate copyright; I have moved it to Iglesia ni Cristo/Fundamental beliefs so that we do not lose it while we discuss this. I have added the book as a ==Reference==. —Theo (Talk) 19:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the 27 lesson titles for the same reason. --LBMixPro 08:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is that reason too much detail or copyright violation? Coffeemaker 20:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Too much detail. Besides, isn't most of the lesson titles covered in the doctorines area? I feel it would be repeating the same information twice. --LBMixPro 07:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Central Office link

I restored the "Iglesia ni Cristo Central Office" wiki. I don't see why there could not be an separate article about it in the furture. The New Era university has its own article. Coffeemaker 21:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There was an article a few months ago. But it was merged into the main INC article because there either wasn't enough information to warrant its own article. If the article is returned, I'd seriously doubt it reaching above stub status. Unlike the NEU article, which covers as a educational facility, the central office is centered only around the administrative operations of INC, which makes it best as a section on the INC article. --LBMixPro 08:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with LBMixPro. I believe that anything said about Central Office is too integral a part of the Church administration to be covered elsewhere. The University has a significance outside the Church because it coexists in the world of academe. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just thought given their obsession with real estate and their large membership there might be a glossy feature article in it. But that would be vanity. How about a picture in central office section? Coffeemaker 20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a picture. Please be careful to respect copyright. I think it will be very difficult to offer a fair use defence on a picture of a building. —Theo (Talk) 21:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom final decision

A reminder: As a result of the Arbitration Committee's final decision, The person who owns User:Emico is no longer allowed to edit any INC related article until August 21, 2006 (pending appeal or mentorship granted by ArbCom). As well, the person who owns User:Onlytofind is banned from editing WP until 19:52 UTC August 28, 2005, and Emico is now banned from editing WP until 19:52 UTC Monday. --LBMixPro 03:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a way we can improve the look of the infobox? It looks so bland compared to any other one I've seen at WP. --LBMixPro 01:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Or better yet, can we convert it into its own article? -LBMixPro 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

A separate article makes sense. Presumably each of the roles merits a brief description. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the infobox. But can we trim it down to only the english translations? After all, this is en.wikipedia.org. --LBMixPro 03:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

New category

Does anybody here feel we should add a new category called "Iglesia ni Cristo", to organize the INC related articles? --LBMixPro 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

How many such articles are there? If it is less than six, I feel a category would be unnecessary. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We have five. The INC article, FYM, his two sons, and New Era University. If we decide to convert the infobox into an article, we'll have six. --LBMixPro 03:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this does not merit a category because each article is linked from this main article. —Theo (Talk) 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of the Blog

Moved to Category talk:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Emico#Forked from Talk:Iglesia Ni Cristo.23Deletion of the Blog

I think Emico's back again

Check out Special:Contributions/Starbucks and Talk:Eduardo_V._Manalo--Ironbrew 09:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Article size and the Crits section

I noticed the Critic section of the article has increased dramatically over the past few weeks, to the point where it's larger than any other section. Can we please do something about regluating it. I doubt it's NPOV, and we now have a 30k limit on our hands.

I was looking at WP:RS#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet, and I realized that some of the references are actually Network 54 forum posts. What should we do about the article in regards to WP:RC? --LBMixPro 11:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to focus on specific criticisms from other religions or external sources in the Criticism section than such generic criticisms such as "The INC hierarchy reflects traditional Philippine culture....." I also feel that the Cultic Research series is a well-written critique, and aside from its format, is nothing different in nature than Truthfinder's or Bible Student's websites. Upon further reading of the above link, it says "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution." If anyone wants to remove both the Pro and Con link sections in the article, I wouldn't mind. --Ironbrew 18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

To 160.36.8.109

Welcome to Misplaced Pages (if you haven't been here before). Please understand that it is against Misplaced Pages rules to use an article to advocate a certain point of view or opinions, such as those of Mr. de Guzman. You might want to get acquainted with the NPOV rules before you make further contributions, or risk having them reverted and a possible ban from editing the article. --Ironbrew 07:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

All the recent ip number posters seem to use open http proxies except this one. Open proxies: 203.223.42.9, 80.68.53.169, 142.179.200.121. Coffeemaker 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• By the writing style, I am 100% convinced this is Emico trying to circumvent the ban by using the open proxy system. This article needs to be locked and Emico permanently banned from editing anything religious on Misplaced Pages. I will report this to the arbitrators.--Ironbrew 05:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

How can we make the Criticism section more neutral?

My goal, by adding the Kelly and Keating references, was to show how other religions might view the INC. I understand right now that the section is quite long and needs to be pared down. How can we do this? I've examined the criticism section on the RCC and it appears to be similar, but maybe there's something I'm not realizing here.--Ironbrew 05:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we lock this article?

Since Emico shows no signs of letting go and has gotten ruder, more obnoxious and even more militaristic in his views- would it be good just to lock the article and leave the disclaimer on?--Ironbrew 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Any edit Emico makes to this article may be removed without comment, any sockpuppet or anonymous ip he uses may be blocked, if practical. He may be blocked under his own account for up to one week. If you make a note of his violation of his editing ban at ] the ban on editing certain articles will be extended from that date. It is not necessary that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an editor is Emico, it is enough that he has the same point of view and style of editing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics