Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 13

Deputy Executive Minister
I'm probably the only contributor here currently in the INC (regretfully), but it has been declared that Eduardo V. Manalo is the defacto current leader of the Iglesia ni Cristo by virtue of succession with him being Deputy Executive Minister which is part of the Iglesia ni Cristo's line of succession. It is widely expected for him to take over, but in the meantime, he is the acting leader of the church until the position of Executive Minister is declared by the Church.--Ironbrew (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "declared" and "de facto"? a bit of a contradiction of terms aren't they? can you cite your source? thanks. Conrad940 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that I'm a member of the INC and you're not, Emico? And you need to read that sentence again. As far as I'm concerned, I removed Erano's name because a dead man cannot be the leader of any organization.--Ironbrew (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * you're obviously making things up. "declared defacto"? And who's Emico? And since you're a self proclaimed member of this church your edits could either be biased for or against this article and should be examined with a good deal of suspicion. Conrad940 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh...may I humbly propose a better compromise here so that the edits you've recently made won't look like an edit war.

Take a look at how the Mormons did it on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. The infobox says the founder is simply Joseph Smith, Jr. but it also includes a reference, which contains an actual reference to a reliable source material (in this case, a book). Nothing is elaborated on the infobox because, to begin with, the discussion about how the LDS was founded is already in the article.

So...you may want to write something as simple as this on the Infobox:

Founder = Felix Y. Manalo

add the founding/registration (I don't know which should be it) date in the same manner as the LDS article:

Origin = July 27, 1914

and in any of these, add a reference that says something like:

''July 27, 1914, was the date Felix Manalo registered the church with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, INC doctrine holds that Jesus Christ founded the church. Please see the article for more information. ''

Then add the information on the article itself, if it's not there. So that none of your edits will come off as original research to other disinterested readers (i.e. non-INC or non-Filipino readers), please make sure it's properly sourced.

Note that I didn't mention "Biblical times", because the mention of Jesus Christ would already imply that. If one of you insist that it should be included, please do so on the article body, not on the Infobox. The Infobox, as far as I know it, is meant to summarize important facts about the article, not discuss it; that's what the article itself is for.

I was tempted to do this myself, but thought of first posting it here, so that both of you can come up with a more reasonable compromise. Since it appears that both of you are in a position to know better about the topic, please work it out between yourselves on this Talk page. Reminders, please be civil, and please refrain from getting a little personal. The discussion should be limited to improving the article. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * go ahead and try it. it should be better than the obvious unsourced, POV and original research of Ironbrew Conrad940 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * i really suggest making a new article about this one. let us make this factual and unbiased. ironbrew i could give you some idea if you want and conrad. i don't know why this topic is so emotional. when we could make it more educational and informational. lynx3007 —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Notability /Other languages/Rationale
The main rationale is the same as for example, say 'Arnis'. It is a Filipino phenomena or part of (our)the Filipino society and culture. If the Mormons, Latter day saints, Buddhism etc have articles on their their religions then there should be one on Iglesia. This also the reason why it should be translated to other languages. So that other foreigners/countries know about the religion/s (we,) Filipinos have here. How do you expect for example, a Frenchman, not knowing English, to know about Iglesia. Also whether it is a cult or not should come from a civil judge or recognized civil authority. --Jondel (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an Iglesia member. My stance is neutral.--Jondel (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI
I have not seen any edits or editors that qualify under WP:COI guidelines. -- w L &lt;speak·check&gt; 10:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Resources

 * /summary - This is a barebones summary for use in initiating articles in other languages. Please do not expand. Please feel free to add only bare essential information.
 * /Workshop - This is where substantial edits are being made before being moved to the main article.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo article has been clearly manipulated in order to serve as a free advertisement tool to the member of this religious organization. I think that the entire article should be simplified indicating the basic information about the topic.

First, i suggest eliminate any adverse comparison to other religions (this is an encyclopaedia article and not a comparative assay.

Second, eliminate any weasel sentences, which are unnecessary for the integrity of the article, and Third, eliminate any sentences that does not have external reference source

G51b7 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sermonizing capitalizations
looking through this article, I was struck by the large number of incongruous capitalizations. The article seems to be presented in what might be termed "serimonization mode". Capitalization style in this article appears to be noncompliant with WP:MOS. One illustrative sentence: "These Executive Ministers leads the Church to the way of true Salvation and to let every member of the Church be one/united, to guide every member who experience problems as he/she face's the world, to make sure that every Church member will attain the promise Salvation as according to their teachings until the day of Judgment." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Death
I removed that chunk explaining at length INC doctrine about death since this isn't the place for indoctrination.Squidvillanueva (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think there are many other places where the article can be tightened but I leave this up to better editors (as well as reverting what I undid should it be decided thus).Squidvillanueva (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's OK to explain details of the INC dogma, but they should be sourced to specific, verifiable documents, preferably independent secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    19:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultimatum
Please provide appropriate sourcing on this article, or I will start deleting whole unsourced paragraphs on May 1. The "cleanup" and "weasel words" tags have been there since September 2009. Many passages in the article are based on own research, as far as I could tell. Source them, please, or they will be deleted.

I don't want to be a bully, but Wikipedia should be encyclopedic, and entries should not be based on own knowledge of the writer. Mvching (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What to call them, Iglesia or INC?
In most newspapers and other publications Iglesia ni Cristo is usually referred to as INC in short. Should we adopt this standard here? I noticed in serval places it referred to as Iglesia. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

INC's not Unitarian?
In a section on INC's view of the Trinity was this sentence: "The Church opposes the doctrine of the Trinity and is not to be mistaken as to follow the beliefs of Unitarians or Arians who also reject the Trinity as outlined in the Nicene Creed." I've edited it because of the double negative. But I also don't understand how INC's position differs from Unitarianism. There is no explanation and the quote that follows seems to suggest that it is in fact Unitarian. Can someone enlighten? Perhaps a clarifying sentence or two. By the way, I have also tried to clean up some of the wording, especially by removing unneeded words. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, perhaps the original writer meant capital-U Unitarianism. I did find an article on Nontrinitarism that I linked to. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe monotheistic is the correct/better term. Conrad940 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But Monotheism covers much wider ground. Nontrinitarian covers it nicely. I've edited the assertion further, removing assertions that INC is not Unitarian or Arian. That would need amplification if included, and if the article mentions these particular nontrinitarian examples of what INC is not, it should probably mention others as well. Nontrinitarianism describes four general categories of nontrinatariasm. Perhaps it would be useful to clarify where INC doctrine places it in relation to these categories. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "nontrinitarian" is a wikipedia only term. I've yet to find a dictionary entry of the word. Conrad940 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Accused

 * ''Manalo was accused of immorality at one point which resulted in the loss of some followers.
 * Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. By Ongsotto, Et Al, p. 165
 * Why was this deleted?   Will Beback    talk    01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted this. The link, as it was, took me to an empty page, and I decided that this was not good enough for an edit accusing someone of immorality (wp:blp). My perception of this as a malicious edit was exacerbated by the editors obvious agenda-type edits and that editors seemingly very poor writing abilities. However, having delved further into Google books from a different starting point, I see the page in question, 165, is viewable. Check out the following two links:


 * link1


 * link2


 * If you go for link_2 first, and empty page appears - at least it does from where I am in the UK.


 * If you go for link_1, the page has text on it. If you then go back to link_2 after visiting link_1, the page still has text on it, and will continue to do so until your browser is closed. I have no idea why this would be.


 * Anyway, the article is appropriately tagged as 'agenda-ridden', and so it's not worth wasting time on. I'm going to replace the existing link (link_2) with link_1. Hopefully it won't cause problems for viewers in other parts of the world. Mannafredo (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. Google can be fickle. One quibble - I don't think WP:BLP applies in this case.   Will Beback    talk    18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Disinformation of POV editor with ip 77.68.106.13
Can you spot the difference? Entry of POV editor with ip 77.68.106.13: The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) has expressed concerns that INC may have influenced the outcome of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez’s murder case What the source say: The VACC expressed alarm over reports that lawyers of the religious group are also allegedly influencing the trial of road rage murder suspect Jason Ivler Conrad940 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only significant difference I see is the word "allegedly". Rather than deleting the entire material you should add that word. Also, there's a question for you above.   Will Beback    talk    03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * don't tell me you're minimizing the significance of the word "allegedly". It's supposed to be a lesson for the anonymous editor whom I hope you also blocked since you blocked me, an established editor Conrad940 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes
As is all too common with this article, an anonymous editor has made significant changes without any discussion. Some edits are clearly inappropriate, and others are equivocal. I'm going to revert the article back to September 8, but if anyone would like to discuss those edits before restoring them then that'd be fine.  Will Beback   talk    00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

'Beliefs' Section of the Iglesia ni Cristo article
Hello, I have revised several of the explanations of the main points of the 'Beliefs' section of this article. As I was reading this section several weeks ago, I noticed that these explanations could have been more fully elaborated to give a clearer understanding of the beliefs this church observes. I also noticed (and I do not mean this offensively in any way) that, due to the wording and how this section was written in general, it is probable that the one who first developed this section may not necessarily speak english as his or her primary language (which makes sense, as most members of this group are from the Philippines). I would like to help further the development of this article, specifically this section, in hopes of contributing more knowledge about this subject which is, quite frankly, unknown to the english speaking world. Although I will be citing heavily from the church's publications, it is not my intent to be bias in any way. Rather, I view it logical to utilize publications of the church itself when explaining the doctrines and beliefs it upholds. I am very new to this and will greatly appreciate any feedback, guidance, and/or criticism should I overstep any boundaries or policies. Jongarlt (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome. However I'm afraid that your suggestion is not the best approach, according to Wikipedia practices. Church documents are primary sources. They may be used with care, primarily for illustrative quotations and facts, but the article, or even any major section, should not be based on them. Instead, the article should be based mainly on secondary and tertiary sources that are independent. See WP:PSTS. Another issue is verifiability, WP:V. Church documents and publications are not widely held in libraries, nor do they appear to be available online. Yet another important issue is the NPOV policy, which requires that we give all views weight according to their prominence. We can't present only the church's view of itself, or even of its beliefs, which should be explained in a neutral, and accurate manner.


 * Let me ask you, or any lurking on this page, about the Tagalog version of this article. tl:Iglesia ni Cristo. I see that it is short, stable, and appears to use a nice variety of independent sources. Is there any text that we should translate for this article?   Will Beback    talk    10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for the feedback. As you know, I am new to this and have not yet fully grasped the wikipedia policies and guidlines. Your guidance is fully appreciated. Unfortunately, outside sources on the beliefs of this church, ones that are not propagated by anti-cult ministries for that matter, are rare. However, they do exist, particularly in the form of scholarly articles put forth by various tertiary institutions. I am currently enrolled in a major US university, although for my own discretion I will not dictate which one, and upon a recent search in the university's library data base, I have learned that it contains a plethora of various articles and books relating to this church which, fortunately, I have direct access to. I will strive utilize these sources more often in the future.

I would just like to ask if the sections I have edited appear not to be neutral to the reader? It is not my intent to be bias in any way and if the articles seem like they are, please tell how they can be reworded or rewritten in a manner to obtain a higher level of neutrality. Any help is encouraged and will be greatly appreciated.

As for the Tagalog version of this article, it does not contain a section explaining the beliefs of this church and, unfortunately, cannot be used in context with this particular section. Again, thanks for the help. Jongarlt (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Material should be presented with the neutral point of view, WP:NPOV. That's not quite the same thing as "neutral". To someone inside the church, all outside views may seem non-neutral, but even so we need to include them. As you've said, there is an unfortunate lack of non-partisan sources on this topic, but there are a few. If sources are lacking on a topic, then we limit what we say to those sources rather than loosening our standards so as to be able to include more material.
 * An aspect of NPOV is that when we find two different views of an issue, we don't decide which is correct. Instead, we present both versions. "Some say the church was founded in 1911, while others say it was founded in 1912." That kind of thing. So if there is material in the article with adequate sources it shouldn't be removed just because there is a source that says something different. Instead, the other material should be added alongside.
 * Also, the more remarkable a statement, the better the sources need to be, and opinions should be attributed. Apparently, one conflict is over the founder of the INC. The INC members consider that it was founded by Jesus Christ, while it looks like most outsiders say it was founded by Manalo. In this case, we should probably say something to the effect that most outsiders view Manolo as the founder but the church regards Jesus as the founder.   Will Beback    talk    01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent revisions are mostly good, but I don't see how anyone in the U.S., at least, can verify the contents of the source you're using, Pasugo-God’s Message. Are you working from your personal collection or are these publications in any libraries, or online? Independent, scholarly, and widely accessible sources like "A Study of the Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Politico-Religious Sect in the Philippines" are perfect - why can't we use that instead?  Will Beback   talk    06:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Will for the help/feedback. I have been working hard with these revisions and I am glad to see that they do wikipedia and this article, in particular, justice. I am working from a personal collection of the church's publications which, although widely accessible in the Philippines, is unfortunately not the case in the US. Although the church does present readers of its publications the option to get the magazines mailed to them directly, it is unlikely for the average wikipedia reader to do so.
 * I am currently working to make further revisions more dependent on the non-partisan scholarly sources, as these sources provide a refreshingly non-biased view of the church and its practices and beliefs.


 * On a different note, I would like to propose to change the name of this particular section of the article to 'Doctrines and practices' as I feel the definition of doctrine:'a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system' more accurately reflects the contents of this section of the article. Would such a revision be inappropriate? Jongarlt (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How widely accessible are past issues of this journal in the Philippines? Which libraries collect them? Even if they were widely verifiable, there'd still be an issue with basing the section mainly on what the INC says about itself. I realize you're doing your best to represent these doctrines and practices in a neutral manner, and I think you're mostly succeeding, but it'd really be better if we mostly used secondary sources and only used the INC sources for short quotations or precise data. (Can you imagine what the articles on issues concerning the Catholic Church would be like if we only used official publications for sources?)
 * I don't have any problem with your proposed heading change.   Will Beback    talk    07:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, along with the libraries of the various campuses of the the New Era University throughout the Philippines, institutions such as the University of the Philippines and the Philippine National Historical Society carry collections of past church publications, albeit none are archived online. That, however is beside the point. Thanks to the point you made on the Catholic Church, I now fully realize how using only official publications would indeed make the article non neutral. From this discussion page, I've seen how malicious editors can be on this article and ones relating to it, considering that the church is a highly controversial subject in a country where, culturally, emotions on religion run high. I do not, however, want to be counted among these editors and I appreciate how you've worked with me in developing this article, in particular this section, to better reflect wikipedia's guidelines. Jongarlt (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section
There appears to he a bit of an edit war in progress about the addition of a section headed Controversies with cite-supported content. Anonymous users have repeatedly added the content, and User:Conrad940 has repeatedly deleted the content with edit summaries saying "unverifiable google source" and "photoshopped source".

The supporting sources cited in the candidate content cites the following items as supporting sources:


 * A. University of Manila Journal Of East Asiatic Studies The Iglesia Ni Kristo: A Study, Julita Reyes-Sta.Romana Articles from the Philippine Magazine Vol. IV, No. 3 July, 1955, p. 428
 * B. part 1 Photocopy of the Bombshell Newspaper: “Felix Manalo Angel or Sex Maniac?, October 21, 1954”
 * C. part 2 Photocopy of the Bombshell Newspaper: “Felix Manalo Angel or Sex Maniac? October 21, 1954”
 * D. Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. By Ongsotto, Et Al, p. 165

Item A Appears to be a legitimate verifiable source.

Items B and C do not appear to me to have been photoshopped, but neither my opinion nor the opinion of other Wikipedia editors regarding this carry any weight. The images are hosted at imageshack.us, which does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source. Those images appear to have been copied from Behind the Iglesia Ni Cristo’s King Maker Role: A Chain of Crimes and Mythical Numbers, January 30, 2009, phillipgarcia at wordpress.com, also apparently not a reliable source. These items appear to be images of pages from the September 29, 1954 issue of a weekly tablod named "The Bombshell" and may or may not be verifiable, but my guess is that even if the cited item is verified, that tabloid probably would not be regarded as a reliable source.

Item D is probably better cited as something along the lines of

The book appears to be a textbook on Philippine history. Its Introduction says that the book presents a comprehensive narration of events in the history of the Philippines. This appears to be a verifiable source which is acceptable to be published as an expression of the opinions of the authors, to be given due weight along with other similarly prominent opinions.

Via this google search, I've located several possibly verifiable sources with more information regarding this. Unfortunately, none of those sources are viewable online.

I have not found it online but, from references to it which I have seen, the case of People versus Trillanes, published in the Official Gazette, Volume I, No. 1, July 1954, p. 394, docketed as Case No. 8180, April 21, 1942 may be instructive.

Perhaps some of the above might be useful in resolving this edit war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Wtmitchell's assessment. I'd add, just to make it explicit, that sources do not need to appear in Google in order to qualify. The same editors are also warring at Felix Manalo. I have warned both of them about 3RR and will block if necessary. Instead of edit warring, they should use the talk page to work out a consensus version.   Will Beback    talk    07:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The entries seriously besmirch the character of the the subject Mr Felix Manalo and the church he preached Iglesia ni Cristo. Can you vouch for the anonymous writer that the entries were 1. accurate as per source and 2. were not taken out of context? Use you best judgement. If this is yours, tells a lot about you. Conrad940 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't vouch for anybody. But let's focus on the issue at hand, whether the sources are reliable, and whether they say what they're purported to say. The Journal Of East Asiatic Studies would appear to be a highly reliable scholarly source. Does anyone have access to it?   Will Beback    talk    20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * you said "Does anyone have access to it?"! Exactly my point! By threatening to ban me because I reverted an unverified entry detrimental to the character of the subject you are party to the libel. Shouldn't we err to the side of caution and first verify the accuracy of such damaging accusation before allowing it? I'm not censoring, just be fair. Conrad940 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the references used in the article are not accessible to everyone via the Internet. That alone is not a determining factor. We're not here top besmirch the history of the INC and Manalo, but we're not here to whitewash it either. Our just here is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. At a minimum, we can all read the Google copy of Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. By Ongsotto, Et Al, p. 165 It says that Manalo was accused of immorality, and so lost some followers. The loss of followers makes it relevant to this article. Also note that the Philippine History book contains just a short history of the INC, so the fact that this is mentioned indicates it's significant. Can Conrad suggest better sources to cover this matter?    Will Beback    talk    20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not here to besmirch" and yet you allow unverified entries doing precisely that. Whitewash is when you try to cover up something bad. Except you have to know that the 'bad' is true to whitewash it. Otherwise it's not whitewash correct? So it looks like the only verifiable source is Ongsotto and therefore I will edit the entry to reflect that. Do you agree? Conrad940 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are all kinds of things in this article and the bio that I haven't verified. As for the text you added, I don't see why you wrote "supposedly". That seems to be a non-neutral term which casts doubt on the assertion. See WP:WTA. We could add it to every assertion in the article, so it's unhelpful. Also, a minor point: we don't use courtesy titles like "Mr".   Will Beback    talk    21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And, re reliable sources, I would disagree about the only verifiable source is Ongsotto. The aforementioned Journal Of East Asiatic Studies is a verifiable source. Not being conveniently verifiable is not the same thing as not being verifiable. BTW, I managed to get a peek at seemingly relevant snippets with and . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Snippets are fine if we're talking about something non consequential, not when were talking about the character of a person living or dead and the degree of seriousness of the claims being leveled against that character. "Supposedly"? Even the authors are not sure of what source they have. The authors are a high school teacher with a degree in literature, not history; and a Mathematics major. It's clear their forte is not history nor investigative journalism. Conrad940 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we limiting sources to those written by history majors? If we want to impeach the source then we should do so directly rather than in a backhanded way by saying "supposedly". For example, we could say, "According to a history textbook written by high school teachers..." As for the snippets, reading the entire article is certainly preferable, but it sounds like Wtmitchell has seen enough of it to confirm that the IP editor was not mis-characterizing the contents.   Will Beback    talk    22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Your version is better feel free to add it. If you read the entries of anonymous he didn't even add anything from Ms Ongsotto's book. He added Ms Ongsotto's book as a reference just because it's the only one available online. really funny stuff. Conrad940 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conrad940, re your comment about snippets, I just mentioned that in passing to illuminate this present discussion a bit. The full text is available in that verifiable source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * got it. Snippets are dangerous and almost always out of context. Conrad940 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what either of us are saying.   Will Beback    talk    00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if a blog is acceptable but the Filipino Catholic priest and apologist Father Abe Arganiosa has posted the contents of the East Asiatic Journal regarding Manalo THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO 1914. Father Abe Arganiosa is well known Catholic defender and apologist in the Philippines and he has his own TV show in the Philippines. You may contact him in his email http://www.blogger.com/profile/11289042244942397934. He may be able to provide a photocopy of the book for it's veracity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.18.86 (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not acceptable in and of themselves. But the underlying source is the journal article. This blog seems to just be reprinting an appendix. At the end it says "The Bombshell, October 21,1954. The author would like to remind the reader that all the typical attacks against Manalo and the Iglesia on these pages are quoted verbatim from the sources indicated in the footnote." So this isn't an excerpt from the body of the journal article. Rather, it appears to be from The Bombshell, a tabloid which probably isn't reliable. So this doesn't really help us.   Will Beback    talk    00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, I hope you asked Mr Arganiosa's permission before mentioning his name here. It may not be what he wants. Will the real Mr Arganiosa please comment here and stand behind what he writes on his blog on a bigger stage, so to speak. Conrad940 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There was, some time ago, a full article on controversies related to the InC, although largely covering some of the conflicts between the InC and the Philipine state. If this article is retrievable, I recall that it did cover this topic, and better sourcing may be available. 86.13.28.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Is it really necessary to include this section? Please make Wikipedia more objective and not subjective. Kindly remove the criticism section.

Cult warning sign
I would like to suggest to add a warning for the readers to all pages about religious groups to be aware of the fact that there are many religious groups that use mind control to get new members and to manipulate their mind. So the reader can compare the facts about that particular religous group with a checklist about cults and destructive groups.

Something like the warnings for smokers for example.

See this link regarding the checklist:

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhas58 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Please read and understand the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Yes to the No, that is &mdash; No to the suggestion). Re the offered supporting example, note the lack of a warning in the Tobacco smoking article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes
Ok I'm going to summarize what I've done so far to preempt any clamor for explanation from anyone. See this for the actual diff. That's pretty much it. Moray An Par (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox: Specified the hospital and university. It's indicating two then but I believe it's trying to count either the College of Eva. Ministry or the New Era University in Dasmariñas, Cavite. That shouldn't be since the College is part of New Era and New Era in Dasma is a campus (not a separate university). Doubts? Go check CHED's list of private universities and the criteria for university status (which the New Era in Dasma doesn't pass; thus implying that it cannot be a university by its own right). Membership number has been clarified. Specifying regional membership is speculative (not entirely consistent with sources cited) and not needed. General membership figure is now sourced.
 * History: Major de-adverting work. Many statements are not in cited source or do not have any source. Statements like "However, the members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo believe that the success of the church is the work and guidance of God." are entirely inappropriate in tone and POV-ed. All statements are now sourced
 * "At some point in his life, his own studies brought him to what would be the basis for the teachings of The Iglesia ni Cristo." – which point of his life is now specified. Brief background of the church before its founding is now given.
 * "As written by Ann C. Harper, evangelical preachers and missionaries were mostly racist and prejudiced." – she did not state that.
 * "In 1916, Manalo began establishing congregations throughout the provinces." – current version now specifies where the INC established congregations and when. With citations, of course.
 * Info on the broadcast stations should be in a separate section (maybe outreach or missionary).
 * The last portions of the old history section are so dense, and are quite misplaced.
 * Doctrines and practices section have been split.
 * "which have led some to place the Iglesia ni Cristo outside the realm of Mainstream Christianity" is weasled and speculative. It should be in the criticism section and should specify who placed INC outside the realm.
 * Doctrine section presents more background now. It now specifies when the church apostatized, how is it viewed by the church in relation to prophesies, and the implications of its restoration by Manalo.
 * A section on the Bible has been expanded.
 * The Trinity (or lack thereof) section have been merged. Previous Trinity sections were mostly unsourced and may be OR.
 * The Manalo section has been reworded per sources.
 * Death section made into eschatology section. Unsourced claim about cremation, removed since it cannot be found elsewhere (in the Internet at least).
 * Church organization restructured and moved up. It just seems more logical that it comes first since it dispenses the teachings.
 * List of exec ministers made into box.
 * Photo cropped to remove unwanted elements (wooden scaffoldings)
 * Specification on the actual building stats were moved to architecture section.
 * Architecture section moved up, expanded and sourced. Participating architects are now named. It also now features an actual description of the interior and exterior of the average kapilya (including details like seating capacity).


 * Excellent work. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanations. That helps a lot.   Will Beback    talk    00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Classification = Restorationist?
Hardly. The INC cannot be lumped with so-called restorationist/christian primitivism BECAUSE teachings from restorationist teachers such as the ante-nicaean fathers run counter to the teachings of the INC. Conrad940 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Apostate church
In this edit, I've restored some material from an earlier recent edit to the initial paragraph in the Church subsection in order to provide some clue about what the heck the article is talking about when it says "this apostate church" in the final sentence of the para. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Masonic References in the logo?
Shouldn't there be some kind of reference in the article to the clear masonic compass in the logo? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't have any feelings about the Masons either way, but I think it's a fairly clear reference and should be mentioned. S eoJ (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cult
Ang Dating Daan is listed as being a "cult" because they do not believe in the trinity, why is the INC page not also listed as a "cult" for the same reason? Can we please include this? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No! It is very wrong for you to make judgments like that. Let us be clear. The Cult listing is in terms of religious doctrine. Not in a social /civic sense. Else you should list Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any other non-trinity religion/organization etc as cult. Btw I went to the Dating Daan article and could not find the cult listing. Please respect other religions and freedom of religion.--Jondel (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you need to double check, it has been changed again by INC members to list it as a cult, since they are both branches of the same religion the INC should be listed a cult, as it does not recognize the trinity
 * Where? I used Find and the 'cult' brings me to 'Philippine culture right away.--Jondel (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism does not have a heaven/hell and have references to jesus, there for it is not a Christian religion and is not defined as a cult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, you are saying that in terms of 'Christian religion', INC is a 'cult' ?--Jondel (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So I went to the Ang Dating Daan page. It is a radio program for the Member's Church of God International(another headache for neutrality police). Look, these are internal 'family' quarrels. Cult labels should be removed for both unless, these organizations harass or harm individuals and (Philippine)society, psychologically, physically, through embezlements, etc. --Jondel (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's some input from the lead section of the Cult article: "

Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister. [...] The popular, derogatory sense of the term has no currency in academic studies of religions, where "cults" are subsumed under the neutral label of "new religious movement", while academic sociology has partly adopted the popular meaning of the term." The Cult checklist article also has some possibly relevant info. AFAICS, this article does not currently refer to INC as a cult except to mention titles of a couple of critical books and articles which use that term. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Any church or group that rejects the trinity is a cult, Per the wikipedia page " The organization does not believe in the Trinity, nor that the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Biblical.[21][22][23]" Falls under a cult, as the link listed below explains, the article uses "weasel words" to get out of it. http://www.thebereans.net/prof-inc.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line if Members of Church of God International are listed as a cult, than So should Iglesia Ni Cristo. Since Church of god international is a break away from the INC. Both reject the trinity, and either both should be listed as cults, or the word "cult" should be removed from the Members of church of god international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So islam is a cult? just because it rejects the trinity teaching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.136.185 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Official Website of INC
http://incmedia.org/incms/ - Seeking the right path "Watch & Listen"...

http://incmedia.org/incms/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.75.68 (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, there is no offical INC website. But can this website for the TV station GEM-TV used as an alternative website? It looks official for me. IronBreww (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

listen and explore the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF Iglesia Ni Cristo: incmedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.75.68 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Official website of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
http://incmedia.org/incms/ - Seeking the right path "Watch & Listen"...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.75.68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a link
 * www.churchofchrist.tk - Home of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
 * www.gemnet.tv - View news of INC Events and watch livestreaming of INC Programming
 * Net25 - Feed Your Mind - "Net 25 is the free TV channel of Eagle Broadcasting Corporation (EBC), a pioneering broadcast institution in the Philippines."
 * DZEC1062 - Live audio stream.

Why there is no official website of the INC? Knock knock a wake up call to the Church Administration there are many misleading websites that say they are the official website of the INC. Please take notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the INC to have their own website? It's none of our business, besides, you already said that there are many made up INC official websites, so I don't think it's necessary for the INC to make one. The important thing is you know for a fact that this websites are misleading.

For me, this page of wikipedia about the Iglesia ni Cristo is not necessary, if anyone want's to know about the Iglesia ni Cristo, feel free to visit their local church nearest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.203 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful for the INC to have their own website as it may help spread correct information about the church. Simply my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.5.113 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013 for New Lead Section
Hello, I found the original Lead Section to be a bit clunky, so I reworded/reorganized it. Primarily, I have separated a brief summary of the history of the church from a brief summary of the doctrines and added some more general info. Please compare it to the present Lead Section to ascertain whether it is an improvement. Here is the proposed version:

The Iglesia ni Cristo is Christian denomination religion that originated in the Philippines in 1913 under founder Felix Manalo, who become the first executive minister. By the time of his death in 1963, the Iglesia ni Cristo had become a nation-wide church with 1,250 local chapels, and 35 large concrete cathedrals. His son Eraño Manalo became the next church leader and lead a campaign to grow and internationalize the church until his death on August 31, 2009, whereupon his son, Eduardo V. Manalo, succeeded him as executive minister. In 2000, the Philippine census by the National Statistics Office found that 2.3 percent of the population in the Philippines are affiliated with the Iglesia ni Cristo, making it the third largest religious denomination in the Philippines after the Roman Catholic Church (80.9%) and Islam (5.0%), respectively.

The Iglesia ni Cristo proclaims itself to be the one true church and claims that it is the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus and that all other Christian churches including the Roman Catholic Church are apostate. INC doctrines cite that the official registration of the church with the Philippine government on July 27, 1914 by Felix Y. Manalo who is referred to as the last messenger of God. Believers consider the church to be a fulfillment of biblical prophecy of the first church being reestablished in the Far East and the coming of the Seventh seal marking the end of days. Since February 1939, the church has been publishing Pasugo (God's Message) in both Tagalog and English. As of 2010, the God's Message Magazine also features a Spanish Section and in 2012 it has a German and Japanese Section.
 * Yes check.svg Done-- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Kingdylan (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Kingdylan

Edit request on 19 August 2013
I also found this error:

In September 2011 the INC bought 59 parcels of land in Scenic, South Dakota for approximately $800,000,00. Scenic is a ghost town in western South Dakota. No plans for the land have been revealed by the church.

The number "$800,000,00" is quite wrong. The actual number is given by the source as $700,000.

Kingdylan (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Kingdylan
 * Fixed, thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Puffery and POV
Too much in this article has been written by, what seems like, people who have a vested interest in this religious organisation. Many of the criticisms mentioned here in the talk page have never been addressed and still stand. Hopefully someone who is not connected to this organisation can re-write the article from a neutral point of view and weed out the huge amount of puffery and COI edits that have again cropped up in the past weeks. - Takeaway (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have this article watchlisted, and I am normally vigilant about reverting changes that are too POV, but I have been busy lately, and so has INC. I would discern that there is a concerted effort to introduce pro-INC POV here on Wikipedia, if only from the slow but constant and incessant stream of attempts to redact their scandals and some of the more unappealing aspects of their belief. I try to be fair, because as a Catholic I represent a threat to them, but there is no excuse for the kind of whitewashing that is going on here on a regular basis.
 * I propose a drastic revert. Would anything significant be lost if we rolled back several months, perhaps to this revision? We could always manually edit in the new, worthwhile changes, but in my view, this would fix a lot more problems than it creates. Elizium23 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a revert to the version that you indicate, as it seems to be the last version that is devoid of POV and puffery. It seems that someone is doing a regular cleanup of the article at the moment though. I have no feelings at all, neither against or for, the INC. All I am worried about is that this organisation, or its fans, is using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their POV. - Takeaway (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have effected a revert. Anyone is welcome to improve the article, but that means being mindful of policies such as WP:NPOV WP:RS and WP:COI. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption from Manila
I have created Sockpuppet investigations/Mathematician 11 as a first report in a series against the WP:SPA editor(s) coming here to disrupt this article with persistent unconstructive edits. In a nutshell, these edits have run afoul of many policies we adhere to on Wikipedia, including but not limited to, WP:COPYVIO WP:NPOV WP:OWN WP:OR WP:RS. Because these reasons are so grave, I have opened an RFC on the topic now and I invite newly interested editors to take a fresh look at this article, comment where appropriate, and boldly make their own improvements where they see fit. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We probably should wait until the investigation is finished to determine if the sockpuppetry is confirmed. Having said that, at least from a personal view, my own opinion regarding a lot of these potentially divisive topics is that maybe the best way to proceed is to find what independent, highly regarded reference books have to say on a topic and ensure that the matters discussed in those books is included, and then, maybe, file RfCs or other forms of discussion regarding recent changes which might not appear in those reference books, in this case including the INC having bought the town of Scenic, South Dakota for no immediately apparent reason. I could try to prepare any such material from well regarded reference sources I can find and e-mail them to others, so that anyone interested can share the information. I'm personally not sure an RfC is necessarily the right thing to do here, but if it gets attention, I guess it might not be bad. But, for the sake of form if nothing else, it might be a good idea to indicate specific content contained in the article which is questionable, and then maybe to ask the responders whether they think it should be included or not, or perhaps to discuss some other more clearly defined matter which are in general what is done at RfCs. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Zhzhw came up as positive. This topic has gone through the wrung over and over again through every level of the dispute resolution process. Some people are clearly COI and don't care about the encyclopedia. Only that it promotes what they believe. I would rather stick to Werifiability and Reliable sources and delete any content not in line with it. --107.206.152.174 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In August of last year, this article was tagged by for quite a number of issues. At the time, it was under attack by sock puppets from Manila. Since then it has been quite stable, and I am not seeing much evidence of the issues initially raised by those tags. There is certainly no recent discussion of them on this talk page. Consider this notice that I will be evaluating and removing those tags in the next few weeks, unless opposition is met here. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section
Criticisms should be on a separate section. If not, it should be deleted anyway. Events tackled in the criticism section is also not significant. Can somebody explain its significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.38.39 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this article has chronic problems with WP:NPOV and part of it was concentrating everything into a "Criticism" section, which was tagged for its problems. I took great care to relocate the relevant material and integrate it into the rest of the article, and you have undone my efforts with no comment. Please do not do this again without reaching consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

True Iglesia
The paragraph about "True Iglesia" needs to be sourced reliably or removed. Right now the only source provided is WP:PRIMARY, the comic itself. This is not sufficient to establish the criticism as noteworthy or relevant. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Monetary offering
This passage which keeps being re-inserted is problematic in numerous ways. Firstly it is a violation of WP:NPOV, it is not neutral. It is pretty much polemics, which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Secondly, the sources are WP:PRIMARY and unsuitable for supporting the assertions made. If you wish to make statements about INC's monetary policy then they need to be both neutral and supported by reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal Criticism
User:Elizium23, I appreciate your effort in keeping this article secured from vandalism issues. However, criticism section lead the article to hot discussions and edit warring. For example, Karl Keating's criticism is a personal criticism that rooted after an organized debate between him and the INC on 70's or 80's. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, should consider the point of view of the many and not of an individual. The first paragraph, the one that's from "Let us Reason", of the criticism section captures the majority's criticism to the subject. PCIJ was integrated to social influence. Perhaps we can still retain the "Ross Tipon" issue. Thank you very much. ForwardGWR (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC) — ForwardGWR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's a problem that must be solved without suppressing legitimate criticisms. Surely the leading Catholic apologetics site has some authority about the leading anti-Catholic organization in the Philippines. The fact that there is much disruption and edit-warring over criticism is unfortunate, but not a good reason to present a rosy positive article without much hint of the negative about it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I brought back Keating's criticism, but the phrases that seems to explain his point of view still looks an individual criticism for me. Thank you for your response. ForwardGWR (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section
There are entire articles dedicated to Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would like to start by saying that the Charles Caldwell Ryrie controversies are relevant as it shows the reception of other religious leaders to the doctrines and scriptures of the Iglesia ni Cristo. As an act of good faith, I'm going to try to integrate the criticisms into the main article.--Ironbrew (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I also want to point out WP:CRITS "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironbrew (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its enough to cite only the popular criticisms like the ones in the old version. Responses of other religions do not matter if we consider encyclopedic contents. These responses have its own place on forums, blogs, but not on an encyclopedia which only aims to only inform readers and not make arguments. Pheagle (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC) — Pheagle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I disagree with Pheagle and support Ironbrew's efforts to expand the criticism and integrate it into the rest of the article. I attempted to do this a while ago and was blocked in implementation. I wish Ironbrew good luck in trying again. Elizium23 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with Pheagle as my section was made in good faith and is consistent with the previously mentioned articles and WP:CRITS. It's not enough for Pheagle to revert edits because he feels they aren't encyclopedic, all of us have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironbrew (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that is a brand-new account who has never done anything but edit this article. There has been a revolving door of such accounts editing disruptively here, it's really becoming quite boring. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pheagle has now been blocked indefinitely due to his username representing a Filipino news site, Philippine Eagle. Let the door revolve again. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iglesia ni Cristo protected
Because of the non-stop reverting and disruptive editing by various IP addresses, this template has become unstable and it has now been protected from editing by non-established editors. Let's get some consensus of what should be on this template and what it should be linked to, that follows all WP:policies. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 11:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Images
I noticed a number of images on this article are screenshots from various INC-published videos. To whoever is uploading these, the copyright belongs to the Iglesia ni Cristo Executive News division and are both not freely licensed or created by you. Your actions are a liability to the Wikimedia Foundation. Please upload images that you shot yourself or have permission to post under a free license. Thank you. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 00:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015
the articles are half truth by neglecting thousands of scandals, immoral acts of its members and its ministers, as Felix Manalo did with his wives which were threatened ( it can be proven by the Court of Appeals of the Philippines.

also their "Holy Book" which is called Pasugo is not included in these articles on which they hung themselves with deceit to their members and all other posible members. may u open this page for editing purposes and u can surely get the truth.

WagPoGenius (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) No! No! No!

Fcbelmontejr trying to engage in censorship.
Wikipedia is not censored. Just because you don't like what's going on in the INC doesn't mean the rest of us have to stick our heads in the ground.--Ironbrew (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris Brown and Recentism.
This article's history section has a section talks about Chris Brown's APB, but is it something that would be relevant to the INC in ten years? I think it does when it comes to the Chris Brown article, but not when it comes to describing INC's over one-hundred year history. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 02:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue of Chris Brown is more of a commercial dispute between Maligaya Development Corp. which happens to be owned by INC members and Chris Brown. I think it is much irrelevant to the Church's history compared to the recent apparent leadership dispute. This info might be mentioned in passing but not as if it is really a significant event in INC history.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we start a new article on the events currently going on?
A former minister along with a high-ranking current minister has confirmed the INC administration kidnapped them and the Manalo family. The section is getting quite big regarding the hostage controversy.--Ironbrew (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but should the title reflect on the whole issue at hand? It seems to cover more than the excommunications, I'll see what the sources call the event and see what title should be. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 22:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started discussions regarding the changing of the title of 2015 Iglesia ni Cristo expulsions to a more appropriate one. I encourage other concerned users to participate. Thank You.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Iglesia ni Cristo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inc.kabayankokapatidko.org/introduction/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130731132315/http://incmedia.org/wpmedia/videos/the-real-history-of-christianity-part-iii to http://incmedia.org/wpmedia/videos/the-real-history-of-christianity-part-iii
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inc.kabayankokapatidko.org/is-the-holy-spirit-god-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Christian Family Organizations
On the INC's website http://incmedia.org/inc/ under the section of "Edification" you can see details about the Christian Family Organizations that you can use as a source.

It says there:

Edification

2601:601:8000:29A0:4864:4EA8:4845:6391 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Possible WP:COPYVIO deleted in above comment. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iglesia ni Cristo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111005190812/http://www.sacredtribesjournal.org/stj/images/Encyclopedia/Iglesia_Cristo.pdf to http://www.sacredtribesjournal.org/stj/images/Encyclopedia/Iglesia_Cristo.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo leader's family member, Felix Nathaniel "Angel" Manalo, asking the public for help, saying his life is in danger, from within the organization of Iglesia ni Cristo.
GMA is the one of the largest News and TV Networks in the Philippines Source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/527066/news/nation/manalo-clan-s-family-feud-becomes-public-as-iglesia-ni-cristo-marks-101st-year

The 1-minute 54-second video shows Felix Nathaniel "Angel" Manalo, asking the public for help, saying his life is in danger. "Nananawagan po kami sa inyo dahil nanganganib po ang aming buhay. Sana'y matulungan niyo po kami." (We are appealing to you because our lives are in danger. We hope that you can help us.)

The second half of the video shows a picture and the voice of Tenny Manalo, widow of Iglesia ni Cristo's late Executive Minister, Erdy. Mrs. Manalo pleaded for help for her children and their friends.

To be noted for the criminal and terrorist activities of Iglesia ni Cristo. TrulyLightWiki (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does this source even mention "criminal", "terrorist", "heretical", "heresy" or the "Catholic church". Likewise, the source at the end of the sentence (this one) does not substantiate these claims. Wikipedia's policies about verifiablity and original research require that information added to articles be traceable back to sources (and in particular, reliable sources). If you want to claim that the majority of Catholic Filipinos consider this organization heretical, you will need to find a source that explicitly backs that up. /wiae   /tlk  06:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The cases of Iglesia ni Cristo and involvement are criminal cases. The Catholic Church states Iglesia ni Cristo as heresy. 81% of the Filipino People are Roman Catholics and have the same believe among others. As you can see in the article does not only have to be presented what the 2% Iglesia ni Cristo, but also what the majority and other groups, public and law says. For your information, this Article can be read by people from all around the world. So is good to contribute to a complete and transparent view. There are sources in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Iglesia_ni_Cristo_leadership_controversy and more are coming to contribute to a complete view of this article. No need to be in hurry or take it personally. For heresy you can see a mention here http://www.catholic.com/tracts/iglesia-ni-cristo and also your comment belongs to the section above "Iglesia ni Cristo is a criminal and terrorist organization, this topic should be covered also as the request of many WikiPedia Users as can be seen in the edits and recognized national and international news sources and law proceedings" and not to this one. TrulyLightWiki (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The link you posted from the japanese site, all the references are too old and outdated with the current situation of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and according to the law. Pagusoa and God's Message are magazines issued by Iglesia ni Cristo Church for the purpose of their propaganda, what do you want they telling?! New Era University is also Iglesia ni Cristo university and better to not go to the corruption and practices as lobbying of all those against different religions. You seem trying to defend Iglesia ni Cristo than to contribute to the article. This make you disqualified for the recent topic. Is good to contribute of course, but please don't vandalize or trying to present the one side of the coin only. Example, if a person was a good man for his whole life and then he commit a crime, he will be judged for his crime and and not for his past, but his past will be considered and evaluated also. Login and common sense, right wide thinking applying with rules. TrulyLightWiki (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You were warned by not to write content that isn't explicitly sourced. Especially claims such as yours. You were also warned if you did it again you would be blocked. You stated that you would try to edit the article using a sockpuppet if you were blocked. I have blocked you and prevented new accounts from editing this article as a result. Once your block is released, please present sources that actually say what you are writing. If English is too difficult for you to understand and write, you are welcome to edit the Tagalog version.. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 10:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is correct, this must be shown on wikipedia in a devided header "controversy". --112.198.77.51 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Denial of "Whore" and "Beast" Allegation Really Necessary?
"Keating criticized the Iglesia ni Cristo for believing that the Whore of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church and that the Beast of Revelation is the Pope, a belief shared with other Christian religious organizations,[87][88] and an assertion which the Catholic Church denies."

I would recommend dropping "and an assertion which the Catholic Church denies."

I mean, can't we at least take for granted that the RCC does not regard itself as a whore, or its leader a beast?

As the passage stands, it sounds like something they would run in the Onion.

To Jytdog Re. Deleting membership figures
(1) First of all, the information that is currently there about its membership size is incorrect. The data I provided came from the official Philippine government's decadal census of 1990, 2000, and 2010 per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22 and The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf).

Yes, my book is a criticism of the INC religion, but the data I provided is valid and the membership size is based on historical trends of where they were in 2010 by pushing it forward with the natural growth rate of the nation of 1.9%/year per http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics to the end of 2015.

I cited my book because it contained the data and analytical table. 2.76 million ±5% is the most accurate number. Not three million, and especially not ten million (which I already heard in 1989, before the 1990 census showed the real number was just 1.4 million). The page already cited the fact the INC is 2.45% of the Philippine population during the 2010 census--what do you think 2.45% of the 2010 census comes out to? Do the calculations yourself: 2.45% of 92.34 million is 2.26 million. So, according to the pre-existing data, the INC was 2.26 million in the 2010 census. Furthermore, the same statistical data showed the Philippines' natural growth rate in 2010 was 1.9%. So, on the assumption that rate stayed consistent for five years, the INC in the Philippines would be 2.49 million by the end of 2015 before the 7% addition due to net converts. I explicitly cited 2.5 million in my edit. Wikipedia couldn't ask for a more accurate estimate. Why then delete it while keeping the completely unsupportable 3-10 million?

You will note that I did NOT criticize their theology or practices. You kept Karl Keating's Catholic Answers figures despite that data is pulled out of the sky. If someone who bought my book posted my information and not myself, would it have been acceptable?

Consequently, please restore my edit because my figures are the best available.

(2) Furthermore, the ethnic composition, while anecdotal from my personal observation when I attended several INC worship services, can easily be verified by just going to one of their churches during services and looking around. AFAIK, there are no formal studies done on their ethnic compositions but it hardly seems necessary since it is axiomatic the largest concentration of foreign INC members would be in countries outside the Philippines. That's just common sense. Given that there are around 10.5 million overseas Filipinos and the emigration and the OFW phenomena is not religion-specific, this then means no more than 2.45% of the 10.5 million would be INC. Again, let's calculate: 2.45% of 10.5 million is 257,000. So, quarter of a million overseas INC is the maximum amount. We're now at 2.747 million INC. How many foreign INC would there be in overseas congregations and who are they? I used 5% in my calculations despite I estimated the maximum number in my visits to different congregations to be no more than 3%. So, 5% of 257,000 is 12,850 foreign INC members, resulting in 2.76 million INC (2,747,000+12,850), or 99.5% Filipino by ethnicity or place of origin. If we're ultra ambitious and say 10% of foreign congregations is comprised of foreigners, this then puts non-Filipino INC at 25,700 out of 2.77 million (2,747,000+25,700), or just 0.93% of total INC membership. Again, with the calculator: 1.00 - 0.93 = 99% Filipino.

Consequently, please restore my edit because my figures are the best available.

(3) Lastly, what I said about fear by outsiders is absolutely true - just ask non-INC Filipinos, especially Philippine-based publishers. Just google "Iglesia ni Cristo" and "violence" - I've personally experienced attempted intimidation and others I've spoken to, told me stories of how it was with the forced conversions during the Marcos era when I asked (in 1990) why there was a massive INC chapel in Conception Tarlac that could seat 2000 people when there were only around 300 people attending. The people I spoke to informed me that they were scared into joining because the minister would walk around with bodyguards armed with M-16s, but when Marcos was overthrown and Aquino became the new president, that the power of the INC over them was broken and they mass defected back to Catholicism. There are enough affidavits that can be tracked down of people filing complaints against the church and its leaders, but that wasn't my intent. I did state "real or imagined" in my edit.

One thing that is absolutely true is my book is the first systematic refutation of the INC, and since the section was entitled, "Reception from other religions," why wouldn't my edit be valid? If someone who bought my book posted the same thing, would it have also been deleted?

Would it be more acceptable for me to detail how they distort the Bible?

Consequently, please restore my edit.

Thanks! EdwardKWatson (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson
 * Your book is not a reliable source, per WP:SPS. Please also address the issues raised at COIN before we go any further here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iglesia ni Cristo. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://philippinenews.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=586e5943f3ab9a2049e883c382ca1842
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111070218/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319172006/http://www.ifi.ph/history to http://www.ifi.ph/history

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) 03:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

States and Territories
In a recent evangelical visit in Rome, Italy, our Executive Minister said that the INC has reached 134 countries and territories. Mind if you add that up? Also, soon he said, Poland and Hungary will be added to the list. Making it 136 countries and territories. Please add it on the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaSC082903 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't how Wikipedia works.  Articles are based on reliable sources, preferably independent ones. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cult accusation in opening paragraph?
Really?

The Catholic Church, the LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, are also accused by many as a cult, yet their opening paragraph doesn't have such statements.

It appears that such accusations should be placed where it belongs: in the criticism/reception section, not in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph.

I can't be the only one seeing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.43.223 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree.

The opening is tendentious in other ways as well - it might call itself a Christian church, but does anyone else agree? It looks to me like it is rather a Filipino version of the Jehovah's Witnesses. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

By most secular definitions, that is proclaiming to be followers of a Yeshua ben Yosef who claimed to be Masiah, both the Iglesia ni Cristo and the Jehovah's Witnesses are considered Christian. Using a sectarian definition, in particular that of mainstream organizations on non-mainstream organizations, would seem to violate NPoV regulations.

Wikipedia should be involved in neither affirming nor negating doctrines and beliefs, it should only document in a non-partial manner. Any issues regarding what constitutes a Christian should thus be placed in the section specifically reserved for such reports, and written in the context of one party to another, using neither weasel words nor unproven conspiracies with the same level of authority as proven fact.

It bears repeating that Wikipedia shouldn't become a mouthpiece for, or against, organizations. The project is meant to document and record verifiable information, as an encyclopedia ought to do. 2601:601:9600:1CF0:C1C4:A36D:DE98:C698 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The very existence of those words in that paragraph is a clear sign that this Wikipedia page is being violated in it's sanctity of impartiality. The claim comes from an expelled evangelical worker being interviewed; who continues to espouse the teachings of the church to this very day despite being expelled from it. The accusation is moot since the accuser is still "believing" most of the Church's doctrine. The article is also one where you get to submit your story and get interviewed. Thus the article is not to be recognized as an impartial one. It is one-sided and clearly predisposed against the church and should not be at the first paragraph as it creates a negative impression with the choose of words. The Church is a religious institution that had since upheld it's respectable and Christian tradition for more than a hundred years and it's Wikipedia page's first paragraph should not include a poorly made phrase accusing it as a cult. It should be moved to it's proper venue in the criticism portion. The page should not be against nor should it be for any religious institution. It is imperative that this page becomes impartial and unbiased. Rickordy (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Been there a very long time and already discussed to death. See the archives. You would need an RfC to get rid of this. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iglesia ni Cristo. 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/20120821051154/http://www.incmedia.org/inc/history.html to http://incmedia.org/inc/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213230302/http://www.nhi.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=1 to http://www.nhi.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728203542/http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf to http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729032247/http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/268954/96th-anniversary-iglesia-ni-cristo-tuesday-july-27-2010 to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/268954/96th-anniversary-iglesia-ni-cristo-tuesday-july-27-2010

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) 15:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Iglesia ni Cristo. 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/20131204003308/http://nhcp.gov.ph/122nd-birth-anniversary-of-ka-felix-manalo/ to http://nhcp.gov.ph/122nd-birth-anniversary-of-ka-felix-manalo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826002343/http://repository.cc.sophia.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/123456789/5124/1/200000079942_000012000_95.pdf to http://repository.cc.sophia.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/123456789/5124/1/200000079942_000012000_95.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204223359/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090902-223133/Iglesia-ni-Cristo-leader-Erao-Manalo-dies to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090902-223133/Iglesia-ni-Cristo-leader-Erao-Manalo-dies
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812205136/http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-iglesia-ni-cristo/ to http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-iglesia-ni-cristo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604011402/http://www.catholic.com/library/Iglesia_Ni_Cristo.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Iglesia_Ni_Cristo.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731130853/http://incmedia.org/inc/organization.html to http://incmedia.org/inc/organization.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309093607/http://felixymanalofoundation.org/about-us.html to http://felixymanalofoundation.org/about-us.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726063817/http://mb.com.ph/main.php to http://mb.com.ph/main.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714141416/http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/10/3707617/church-profile-iglesia-ni-cristo.html to http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/10/3707617/church-profile-iglesia-ni-cristo.html

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) 13:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate Population Figures in Opening Section
So, I was looking at the opening section of the page and noticed this portion at the end:

"In 2010, the Philippine census by the National Statistics Office found that 0.0025 percent of the population in the Philippines are affiliated with the Iglesia ni Cristo, making it the smallest religion by number of adherents in the Philippines, Roman Catholicism (87.1%) and Islam (1.6%)."

Take note of the bolded portions. These parts have several things wrong with them, which I will enumerate:

1. The first source, which uses the 2010 national census, indicates an adherent population of 2,251,941. Now, if we are to accept the claim that the adherents only represent 0.0025 of the population, it would have to mean that the Philippine Republic, as a whole, has a population of 900,776,400. This is clearly not the case, seeing as the very same source indicates a total population of merely 92,097,978.

2. The second source, which uses the CIA World Factbook, has the population of adherents at around 2.3%, which is three orders of magnitude larger than the quoted portion of the wiki entry above.

3. The adherents are clearly not the smallest religion in the Philippines. The Iglesia ng Watawat ng Lahi has an adherent population of around 10,000 or so according to their wiki entry. Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only reported 728,295 adherents in the Philippine Republic.

As it stands, the adherents' population is actually the third or fourth largest, depending on if you count all Evangelicals in the country as a single, unified, religious body.

Also, while we're on the subject, Roman Catholicism is actually 80.58% or 80.9% based on the first and second source, respectively. Meanwhile, Islam is either 5.57% or 5%, which is several percentages larger than what the quoted portion claims.

2601:601:9600:1CF0:C5F9:F729:E840:F4C0 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, part of the Infobox was also altered. I recall it being "Undisclosed; Potentially 2.5 Million" or something to that effect. As of this moment, it says "Not disclosed; over 2.5k".

2601:601:9600:1CF0:C5F9:F729:E840:F4C0 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

INC International
An IP in the Philippines has called the INC "international". As its members are mostly of Philipino origin, I am not sure that this is true.

Depends on how one defines what an "international" religion is. It certainly operates a large number of churches in the United States, among other countries. The fact many of the pioneering members are Filipino immigrants doesn't really say much beyond how it initially propagated. It doesn't help that the places where it's most established, eg. Hawaii, California, have a high number of ethnic Filipinos to begin with due to over a century of historical migration. And then we have to factor in all the Filipinos who didn't convert until after they migrated to said locations. Of course, even taking into account all of these factors, there still remains a large number of non-Filipinos who are converting, case in point the Hispanics in the US and the Native Africans in both South Africa and Lesotho, among other places.

And it's Filipino, not Philipino. 2601:601:9600:1CF0:1581:13E5:8601:663B (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rovic Gloria Canono.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Request to add more information on personalities mentioned in the article

DancingWithTearsInMyEyes (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DancingWithTearsInMyEyes (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
 * If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
 * If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
 * You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rgcanono.jpg

name in Spanish?
Why is the name given in Spanish? What does that have to do with anything? Tagalog yes--2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:29E4:7C0E:55C9:4364 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC) --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:29E4:7C0E:55C9:4364 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020
The note of that article gives rude and unrespectful behavior. I noticed that some sentences are used against the church. Almost everything is not in right context and some facts are outdated or doesn't support solid evidence. The editor of that article had biased opinions, and not changing it for the truth just means that we tolerate fake news. And it's contradict to the Wikipedia's mission, to give genuine information. Righteousgirl (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusing sentence about "Canono Human Rights Award"
Under the heading "CONTROVERSIES: Suppression of critics", the last sentence states "Rovic Canono is recognized with The Rovic Canono Human Rights Awards by Rotary Philippines for his valuable work as a Human Rights advocate." This is confusingly written, because in standard English usage, to "recognize" someone with an award is to give them the award. What it seems to be intending to convey is that Rotary Philippines now bestows an award named after Mr. Canono, to other persons. Accordingly I changed the sentence to "Rotary Philippines now gives an award named after Canono, known as "The Rovic Canono Human Rights Award", in honor of Canono's work as an advocate of human rights." Bricology (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022
Under Controversies > Abductions and murders:

First paragraph, first sentence. Change "have gone missing" to "went missing". It's in the wrong tense.

Second paragraph, second sentence starting "Villocino". Change "Villocino has" to "Villocino had". The activity is no longer being conducted.

Second paragraph, third sentence starting "Several". Change "the abductions committed" to "suspected abductions, allegedly committed" to remain impartial when a statement is not objectively true. 81.97.185.1 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Sirdog (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Choir member opening prayer
Please 151.210.166.129 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)