Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 4

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 23 June 2005 and 7 July 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive05. Thank you. Theo (Talk) 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tagalog INC article
I know this came out of the blue, but I noticed the tagalog version of WP doesn't have an article for INC yet. Once we get this article under control, anybody wanna take a shot at a tagalog version? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 13:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

www.incworld.org
Does anyone known whether www.incworld.org is active? I understand you can get a username and password at your locale for this site. Does any member has experience with this site ? Coffeemaker 23:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon checking the WHOIS, it seems to be non-affiliated with the INC. My friends should have heard about it by now, as they are officers, and even though I left the INC in 2003, I keep in touch with them. Thank you very much for your contributions.--Onlytofind 00:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard about it since around 2001 (I think), and knew a few people who has access. I never had one though, but it's mainly because I didn't ask. Ealva 04:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please respect the limits set
On the pro and con sites, there are to be no more than three of each, IAW with the decision reached per Wiki rules. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see lots more pro-INC sites, but we must still abide by the rules.--gcessor 00:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Would the others please clarify this situation for Glenn? We decided on this because there were no other pro-INC sites known at the time and we concurred that 2:3, not 3:3 was fair. Once I added the third link, which was pro-INC we already went over the vote, which was for consensus at the time Now that there are other users contributing and adding information, it's a disservice to them to bound them to an agreement, (not a rule) we had when they weren't there. As for me, I'm fine as long as it's equal (example: 5 to 5 or 7 to 7). Quite frankly, I support having more links in each section- just take a look at the Mormon and RCC articles- -Onlytofind 00:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep the 3/3. It's a way to maintain peace and order on this article. Besides, Coffee's additions need to checked for accuracy. Though his contributions seems to be pro-INC, s/he is not exempted from citing source. Which reminds me, you need to cite source on your claim that the INC distributed sample ballots. --Emico 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's surprising to hear you speak about "peace and order" on this article, since you're the one who creates the most discord and POV, but on the other hand, I'm not surprised at your hypocrisy as I don't expect much from you. This isn't the first time I've told you this, but check the history, you'll see me and Glenn agreed that they would support candidates in the past. And stop being a hypocrite by asking others to cite sources until you can find some for your biased and blatant POV edits to Bereans and Creationism. --Onlytofind 02:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Onlytofind, YOU are throwing substantially more insults than Emico...and that makes YOU the one who creates more discord. If you'll notice, Emico's statement was plain and contained nothing that could offend except possibly the rebuke on the need to cite a source.  Then YOU go and throw more insults.  If you want respect and kindness from others, then stop insulting them...and stop using false accusations like when you accused me of calling you illiterate, and when you accused me of insulting EVERY INC dectractor.  Instead of pointing at others as excuses for your own misconduct, you should instead show your maturity by using NO insults and NO false accusations, and have the humility to sincerely apologize when you falter.--gcessor 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, Onlytofind, that is known as CONSTRUCTIVE CRTICISM...and in long years of supervising I've found that those who are grateful for constructive criticism turn out to be far more successful than those who become offended at the very suggestion that they aren't as wonderful as they believe themselves to be. Humility or pride, your choice.--gcessor 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Glenn, give me a break. It's hypocrisy and nepotism like that partly why I left the Iglesia ni Cristo. Your arrogance disgusts me and I think everyone else here can draw their own opinions from your statement above. You've already seen firsthand the attitude of Emico towards myself, LBMixPro, DJ_Clayworth and Raygirvan and you know what he's doing is wrong, but the reason you're sticking up for him is that you like with what he's doing since it's in accordance with your personal beliefs and the fact that he is your kapatid in the INC. Emico is trying to fake neutrality to cover up his biased edits and desires for this article and you're supporting him in this. Speaking of constructiveness, I've already tried working and compromising with both of you on numerous occasions, but if you and Emico are going to keep doing this BS, then rest assured I will start arbitration.--Onlytofind 21:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ignore it: there are many new users now who never bought into that agreement. This article needs a good shakeup. There are no wikipedia rules about the number of links. As long as the pro and con links stay reasonably (rather than obsessively) balanced, it'll do it good to open links up to any relevant information people can find. (Personally I think Bible Student's page shouldn't be included becase it does bad things to browser history). - 195.92.67.*
 * I've already stated my claim on the links subject earlier. As long as the links are balanced, and the article doesn't look like an INC link depository, I think lifting the 3/3 would work now, since it's obsolete for the current versions of the article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as the links are balanced - or in the words of someone above, obsessively balanced, that's fine with me. Thanks, Lbmixpro.--gcessor 19:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Glenn, keep your opinions to yourself. I know what you and Emico are doing- and I'm not going to stand for it. Either stop your "turkey statements" or face arbitration.--Onlytofind 21:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you noticed, guy, but my comments were in no way targeted at you...unless you were the one who made the 'obsessively' remark above, but I have no indication that it's you. And as far as your threat that I will face arbitration...okay, let's do that.--gcessor 07:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, my fault for not reading above, but there's a reason whenever I see a comment like that, I automatically assume it's targeted towards me. Contrary to what you might want to believe, I would like people to give the INC a fair shake by hearing all sides of the story, and I'm sure there's a similar reason why you and Emico are so passionate about this page. But, the seeming unwillingness between you and Emico to work with non-INC Wikipedians isn't reflecting well on the INC at the Bereans forum and amongst others reading this discussion page. I'm not trying to threaten you with arbitration- but I have no further options in this matter, as it seems that you are turning a blind eye to Emico's bias-pushing because you agree with his viewpoint, and are trying to discredit everything I do because you don't agree with mine. It's up to you now, Glenn- let's forgive each other and go forward... --Onlytofind 04:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adding Criticisms section
As per Ray's suggestion of rewriting this article among the lines of Scientology, I think the INC's doctrines have been explained, sympathetically, and in-depth enough to warrant the start of this section. Keep in mind that a "Criticism" section is in line with the Wikipedia rules regarding religion by examining all points of view, and the articles on the RCC Roman_Catholic_Church as well as the target Scientology article both feature a section on issues some might have with these organizations' practices. Scientology. Before I start, I'd like to hear input from others on which criticism meets Wikipedia standards and which does not. I know what some are going to say, please keep in mind that I contributed the majority of the section regarding Church structure and practices, which I think even the INC members will agree is neutral and sympathetic.--Onlytofind 00:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to Emico
I've read over the entire discussion page twice, and I see exactly ONE word in a statement by Emico which, if taken out of context, could be seen as an insult. However, the rest of the statement is polite and considerate, and sets the tone for the proper context of that one word. Onlytofind, OTOH, continues to throw insults...and Emico is refusing to allow himself to sink to that level of conduct even in the face of those insults. Well done, brother - it's not easy to keep from firing back when someone keeps insulting you. Please see what I posted at http://thebereans.net/forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg123172#msg123172.

btw, for Onlytofind - you're the only one on this discussion page throwing insults now. Please either correct your conduct - no more insults or false accusations - or we will have to take the dispute resolution route again.--gcessor 19:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried being reasonable to both of you, but it seems that you and Emico will stop at nothing to stop me from editing this page because I do not agree with your personal beliefs. We are going into arbitration, there's no doubt about that. Just remember that it's been you and Emico creating most of the discord on this page and your history, as well as other Wikipedians will prove it.--Onlytofind 22:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bro. Glenn. I must tell you I've been trying to emulate yours and others INCers patience and diplomacy. I was told in a conversation to look at elder brethren for ways of dealing with detractors and I think I'm slowly getting it. On my way to be a true-blue INC I hope. And although I'm not yet ready to apologize for whatever hurt I caused in my posts, I do regret lashing out at those whom I see as liars spreading vile on the internet. I figure they'll get what they deserve one of these days. I checked out you post on the bereans site. I don't think those folks will change. Regards.--Emico 19:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not afraid of starting arbitration with Glenn, after I did the same with Emico, because everyone else here, and at the Bereans forum can obviously see how the both you are tagteaming to cover up each other's actions and circumventing the rules. Your statement does not affect me at all, because the truth will stand, and the truth is on my side. Rather than argue with both of you and fall into this obvious trap, I will start arbitration with Glenn Cessor and let other Wikipedians decide who's right in this matter.--Onlytofind 22:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. By the way, have you had any success finding proof that in the literally thousands of posts I've made over the past five years, that I've insulted EVERY detractor, or even a small percentage of them?--gcessor 05:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW:"I figure they'll get what they deserve one of these days." I don't know if you are trying to play God or take matters in to your own hands, but I can definitely say that your statement is not something allowed under Wikipedia rules.--Onlytofind 23:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I was talking in INC terms. When INCers says they'll get what deserve, that means they'll be proven wrong and defending on how they take it, their minds will either be enlightened or sink deeper into darkness. All INC knows this. You should too if you really were a former INC. All the best to you.--Emico 00:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Emico, you sound a lot like I did a few years back. I would defend the INC's doctrines endlessly, until I got to a point where there were some I couldn't defend, and even as I tried clearing it up with my deacons and ministers, I couldn't reconcile the fact that I felt some of the INC's doctrines were wrong. I set out and tried developing my personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and I think the Lord God has blessed me since then. Although I disagree with some of your conduct here, it seems that you are earnestly trying to find God, and I pray that he guides you, as well as all us of here to the truth. Please keep an open mind and heart always, may God be with you at every point in your life.--Onlytofind 01:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope you get back again soon, Bro. Emico. Nothing a good panata will not solve. Ealva 22:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * May God lead all of us to the truth.--Onlytofind 23:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I'd have to give kudos for Emico's improving behavior. For the last few weeks, he's been much more polite to everybody. Probably when we both realized we must assume good faith about each other's edits. However, I can't say the same about the appearent POV pushing back and forth of the INC related articles. You must realize that our job writing these articles are not to either support or discredit their subjects. That's what NPOV is all about. Basically, it's our job to give a description to those who do not know INC from another building with a steeple.


 * I'm not sure about anybody else who edits this article notices. How come most statements which are critical to INC or its members end up having a statement later on about how wrong or biased the critical statement, or the person who said/wrote it are? I feel the only time it's right to create a statement similar to such, is if the source is commonly known for writing fictional accounts to events, such as tabloids. The sub-section called "Critisisms" is centered around critical views of INC, which makes me question its existence. Then again, WP:NPOV states "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view". --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) June 28, 2005 09:11 (UTC)


 * Criticism by definitions is POV. Opposing view or some explanation needs to be added to make it NPOV. Concerning my behavior and change, I've addressed that in my reply to Glenn above. --Emico 28 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: see how other religious articles manage it eg Roman_Catholic_Church and Scientology.


 * Yeah. There's nothing there about issues currently in litigation. --Emico 28 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. As long as it's NPOV, there's no bar on covering ongoing litigation. When was Michael Jackson cleared? 13th June. But you can see his trial still had an article before that on 10th June. There's even a Wikipedia template Current for ongoing events, so undecided court cases are fair game to mention.


 * You're analogies are not working out. Article in newspapers yes, NOT on encyclopedias. Please stop pushing your agenda. --Emico 29 June 2005 01:29 (UTC)


 * Which bit of my previous comment don't you understand? The MJ trial is an example showing that Wikipedia does include articles on ongoing court cases.

How to remove the ugly hand?
Which parts of the article should be revised in order to remove this ugly hand? Coffeemaker 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We need supporting evidence for Church practices (ex. January 1997 Pasugo, pg 13) and addition of competing viewpoints.--Onlytofind 23:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Favorite Bible Verses?
I understand the INC likes using those verses, but it borders on trivial information and POV, especially as it is not considered canonical by the INC and it can be interpreted as supporting a particular interpretation of scripture. If it could be expanded, it might be useful to explaining some of the doctrines of the INC, but we have to be careful in backing up the statements by using the Pasugo or other INC publications if it does get expanded.--Onlytofind 00:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea of "Favorite Bible Verses" simply does not apply. While the INC ministers might quote these verses more often than other verses, the concept of 'favorite' verses simply does not apply.  Furthermore, I strongly doubt there is any credible reference for that section - most likely it is the result of someone's personal experience or opinion.  If no one else removes that section soon, then I will.--gcessor 28 June 2005 06:36 (UTC)
 * I would have a long time ago, but I knew that you would immediately fabricate another claim of bias against me.--Onlytofind 28 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)
 * "Against you"? I didn't know it was you who put it there!  Why is it that every time I point out something, even though I have no idea who put it there since I normally don't have time to check the history, you think it's some kind of vendetta against YOU?  Onlytofind, you need to (1) realize that this world isn't all about you, and (2) admit your OWN bias against the INC.--gcessor 28 June 2005 12:56 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, when are you going to post evidence of your FALSE ACCUSATIONS that I (1) called you 'illiterate', and (2) insulted EVERY detractor? (and YOU accuse ME of fabricating claims!)--gcessor 28 June 2005 12:56 (UTC)
 * You have to come up with those weak accusations, because you cannot hide the fact that I wrote the majority of the section explaining INC practices, which was considered NPOV by most members, and probably even you, because you did not comment or revert it. Let's start by mentioning that you turned the Criticisms section into a Catholic-bashing session instead of responding to the Catholic.com article which coincides with your history of showing bias against any non-INC religion. Not to mention that you tried to make DJ_Clayworth say something he didn't intend to and how evident your bias towards the INC is, from your edits to the fact that you are relentlessly defending your kapatid, even though his bias and attitude towards non-INC Wikipedians are completely against Wikipedia rules. Remove the plank, Glenn, remove the plank!--Onlytofind 4 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

These comments are not helping us to build a better article. If you wish to argue about your respective honesty and probity, please do so on your talk pages, although I suggest that eb=ven there you will be diminishing Wikipedia and your own reputations. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

Expanding "Worship Service" section
Anyone care to expand the "Worship Service" section NPOV ?

Coffeemaker 23:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which part do you feel is POV? It looks pretty neutral from what I can see.--Onlytofind 01:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It also looks pretty neutral to me. I think it needs more details regarding the format and contents of the worship service.


 * Coffeemaker 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed?
I know that a lot of the statements in the INC article still needs to be sourced, and there is an on-going dispute (?) about the links. But the "totally disputed" tag coming from Onlytofind is really quite surprising. Care to explain what is disputed here? Ealva 23:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to LBMixPro's original template, and put a review template on the "Favorite Bible Verse" section, which isn't really useful in describing INC beliefs, and the INC has never stated that it particularly supports those verses.--Onlytofind 23:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Favorite Bible Verse" section is gone now. If you must insist that it be there, then provide a reference showing that we indeed have "favorite" Bible verses.--gcessor 29 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Do we really need the criticism section? All it really says is that some people disagree with this church, which shouldn't be a revelation to anyone who has read the rest of the article? DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)


 * Articles on other religions have such sections. Besides, there are specific criticisms of churches that aren't merely about disagreeing with their stated doctrines. If you just read the non-criticism part of the Roman Catholic Church article, would you know about the Inquisition, the trial of Galileo or the recent sexual abuse scandal? Of course not. This is just an attempt by pro-INC editors to sidle out of NPOV by sabotaging a Criticism section.


 * "sidle out of NPOV"? It's apparent that ANYthing positive we might want in the article is seen as POV by you, but ANYthing negative in the article is seen as NPOV...by you.  If there must be a criticism section, then there must be a section that REPLIES to the criticism.  Otherwise the article cannot be POV for it then give an OPINION critical of the Church but not allow the Church the opportunity to respond to those criticisms.  I also recommend signing your statements.--gcessor 29 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)


 * Like I said, see how other pages handle this problem, like Roman Catholic Church and Scientology. You're right: they include responses alongside the criticisms. So why aren't you adding them? Simply deleting the criticism looks as if you don't want it to be seen at all.


 * Response is not the problem. It is the using of this encyclopedia as a forum for discussion. This is not the place for that. Because the issue is not resolved, we will not be dealing with facts but with conjecture. Please sign your post. --Emico 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Secular criticism
Quite removing this is as POV. These are real documented criticisms: eg the jibe "Iglesia ni Manalo" is a dig at perceived nepotism. Newspapers are not interested in differences in interpreting the bible, but in the politics. Here are some sources. . A skim of Philippine newspapers will find plenty more. (Unsigned edit by 195.92.67.75 21:10, 28 June 2005)

It's premature for you to threat as fact an issue that is pending in the courts. Until the courts decide, this is POV of both the respondent(?), and you for bringing it here. Wait for the decision. --Emico 28 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)

You're using wiki for your own POV. You're ALREADY charging the INC of something that has not yet been proven to be true. --Emico 29 June 2005 13:53 (UTC)


 * Like I said in my page edit comment: Result of court case is irrelevant. The case itself is prove that INC don't value press freedom. You like George GW Bush who thinks all terrorist hate the USA because of its freedom. Be carefull with the 3RR rule.
 * Coffeemaker 29 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)


 * Result of court case is irrelevant.! So to you, the INC is guilty even if proven innocent. This is exactly what I'm trying to point out. This is the reason why your post are POV because to you, anything bad you find on the internet about the INC is fact. Your analogy actually applies to you. The 3RR rule applies to all wikipedia editors, although it there are users who are tag-teaming I will be at a disadvantage. There's also a rule about sock-puppets.--Emico 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)


 * INC guilty ???? They are not even accused. They are the accuser. Get real! -- Coffeemaker 29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like you don't know what you're arguing about. The issue is wether to put in an encyclopedia, a charge that is in litigation, by an INC detractor alleging the INC is suppressing press freedom. --Emico 29 June 2005 17:06 (UTC)


 * What about the other points of criticism that you removed? Do you think all criticism is based on jealousy about your true doctrines? The world is not only black and white. -- Coffeemaker 29 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)


 * Emico, what you call "tag-teaming", I call "collaboration through discussion and consent". We are not fighting a professional wrestling game here. Please don't call me a sock-puppets. -- Coffeemaker 29 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)


 * I did'nt call you a sock puppet, I said there's a rule about that. tag-teaming happens in wikipedia, I'm simply stating something that could happen.--Emico 30 June 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Emico, would you be kind enough to give a detailed reason to why the secular critisisms should not be part of this article? From what I see, it is because of stated critisisms being put into litigation. But many other articles in WP (outside of religion as well) add information about critisisms which involve legal action. The reason why it's put there is to show that organizations outside religion also critisize the INC. The court case itself proves the existance of secular critisms, which is basically what the section is about. The sources have been cited as well, so accuaracy isn't the issue. You can even cite that INC has taken the critics to court in reaction to such claims. Are the critics in question denying their claims? Have they rectracted them? If we have critisims from religious groups, why can't we have them for secular? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) June 30, 2005 00:53 (UTC)

You can read my post. It's all there.--Emico 30 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)


 * I have made some edits to the 'Criticisms' section in an effort to include responses to the criticisms and to remove some inaccuracies:
 * The INC may not be very open to the outside world, but is open on most matters to members.
 * The INC's bloc-voting in the Philippines has nowhere near the political clout that the Catholic church has had for centuries.
 * The opposition of the publication of the book is because of alleged gross inaccuracies (though I strongly feel that even acknowledging the existence of the book gave it more attention than it could ever have warranted otherwise).
 * Not only the Catholic church but also most protestant denominations disagree with us over much of what we believe we see in the Bible.
 * We do not believe that Constatine 'formulated' the trinitarian doctrine, but that it developed gradually over centuries (if Constantine had indeed been the author of that doctrine, the RCC wouldn't have waited seventy years to declare the divinity of the Holy Spirit).
 * Lastly, I removed the section on LetUsReason.org, for that link belongs in the 'con' section.--gcessor 30 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)
 * I defer to Glenn on this one. --Emico 30 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)
 * Note - I made a small edit to the Criticisms section to correct English mistakes of my own, and to point out that Constatine had been Catholic.--gcessor 2 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Please will those editors who believe that there are inaccuracies in the article, list those errors here as simple bullet points, without reference to who supports any POV. Each point should refer to a specific section, paragraph and sentence(s). I suggest that you do not sign these points. Please do not comment on the identified "errors" until we are agreed that there are no more to list. We can then identify the individual disputes and tackle them separately. I now open the floor (Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:12 (UTC)):
 * Iglesia_ni_Cristo Failure to mention the secular criticisms (eg by newspapers and politicians) that are based on reasons other than disagreement over biblical doctrines. - dealt with mostly
 * The biographical references to Felix Manalo in the background information section of the article.
 * The uncertainty of parts of the article being accurate, due to lack of cited sources or if those cited sources are accurate enough to include in the article (e.g. due to the nature of the topic, the bulk of material about church practices comes from personal experience of INC and ex-INC individual contributors, so isn't verifiable in the usual Wikipedia sense).
 * Whether the term "nontrinitarian" is a correct description to INC.
 * Accuracy/necessity of Footnote.
 * Whether to include issues critical to the INC when this issue is not yet proven true.
 * Whether to continue to include web links when owner are anonymous.
 * I will "close" this list if we have no more additions in the next 24 hours.(Theo (Talk) 30 June 2005 16:41 (UTC))
 * I am now assuming that this is a full list of perceived inaccuracies. I am making a separate section below for each of them so that we can resolve each issue separately(Theo  (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)).

Secular criticism
''Iglesia_ni_Cristo Failure to mention the secular criticisms (eg by newspapers and politicians) that are based on reasons other than disagreement over biblical doctrines. - dealt with mostly''.
 * Specifically, are there any significant secular criticsisms left uncovered?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Can I take silence as assent that the secular criticisms are no longer an issue.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
 * Most of its discussion is taking place at Critical issues. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 6, 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Felix Manalo biography
The biographical references to Felix Manalo in the background information section of the article.
 * Specifically, what errors or significant omissions remain?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
 * Nothing specific, but this biographical detail is completely unsourced. Origin stories for religions need caution as they tend to be mythologised (three days of angst is very trad). [Unsigned by 195.92.67.75 00:40, 3 July 2005]
 * So this is a sourcing issue and can be handled under that heading?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 3 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Sourcing
The uncertainty of parts of the article being accurate, due to lack of cited sources or if those cited sources are accurate enough to include in the article (e.g. due to the nature of the topic, the bulk of material about church practices comes from personal experience of INC and ex-INC individual contributors, so isn't verifiable in the usual Wikipedia sense).
 * Please indicate where sourcing is required by adding at each point where a source citation seems appropriate.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Source requests have been identified as follows:
 * The reason for Felix Manalo's departure from his early church memberships.
 * Felix Manalo's reason for joining the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
 * Felix Manalo's involvement with the Seventh Day Adventists.
 * Felix Manalo's recognition of his mission.
 * Church structure&mdash;essentially the roles within its organisation.
 * Church beliefs and practices.
 * Missionary activities
 * The four internal organizations.

Could someone knowledgeable cite sources for these?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 3 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
 * Most of the subjects about INC's church structure and organizations can be found through various issues and articles of INC's Pasugo or God's Message magazines. But most of the information currently written on this article about those issues are based on direct or participant observation, which appearently isn't allowed on WP. Although a Google search spawned results of all organizations from [a locale's unofficial site]. The problem with these are that the inner workings of INC is generally obscure to the public eye --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 3, 2005 10:03 (UTC)
 * INC's publications are valid sources as far as I am concerned. Personal observation is, as you note, not. We need someone with access to appropriate documentary sources to cite them here. I believe that the Manalo biographical informatuon can all be sourced from God's Message for July-September 1994.  Can someone verify this and give the title of the article?&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 3 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)


 * There are also some book sources for biography. The Harper paper mentions titles, and so does the Pepesblog article (down, but cached here). But they're a bit obscure, like theological presses in the Philippines. Can anyone source the biography here? Although it's at a hostile site, which has been discussed, the general tone and quality of the article and the author's note suggest it's lifted from elsewhere: a worthwhile source if findable. Tearlach 4 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
 * The biography cites its cource at the end so I have added it too our references and cited it as a source for several assertions, which I have now struck of the list of outstanding difficulties.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)


 * For the church beliefs, each doctorine is written in a book that is published by the INC, in which only the locale minister (or head deacon acting as locale minister) use for bible studies (this book is not available to lower members of the church). I do not know the name of that book. Can that be a source for the beliefs section? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 6, 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian
Is the term "nontrinitarian" a correct description of INC? :Which other terms are more accurate? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
 * This issue appears semantic. Despite not believing in the Trinity, INC members appear to reject categorisation as nontrinitarian. Go figure. [Unsigned by 195.92.67.75 00:30, 3 July 2005]
 * Semantic or not, the avoidance of such labels does no harm, in my opinion. The phrase is not used in the body of the article. I have added a link to Nontrinitarianism at the ==See also== section.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 3 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Accuracy/necessity of Footnote
Accuracy/necessity of Footnote
 * Please explain why a footnote is useful. Why is it necessary to clarify the word "Christian"? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
 * I have struck this out because the footnote is palpably redundant now that "Christian" is wikilinked.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

Critical issues
Whether to include issues critical to the INC when this issue is not yet proven true.
 * Specifically, what critical issues fall into this category?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
 * This point seems based on Emico's much-debunked claim about Wikipedia. As evidenced by the Michael Jackson and other cases, reportage of ongoing lawsuits is allowed, along with whatever unproven allegations and unproven counter-claims are on record pertaining to the case. [Unsigned by 195.92.67.75 00:53, 3 July 2005]
 * Assumptions about what is meant by this issue cannot move us on. I would like Emico and anyone else who sees this kind of inaccuracy to identify them individually and specifically so that we can address each in turn.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 3 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)
 * It is a serious mistake to use the inclusion of current litigation concerning an entertainer to justify the inclusion of current litigation concerning a religion. Instead of using such an absurdly different example such as Michael Jackson, perhaps we should instead compare spiritual things with spiritual things.  In other words, are there other religions listed on Wiki wherein the site describes current litigation (as most of the larger denominations engage in litigation every year).--gcessor 3 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, altough there is litigation over the accuracy of the secular critics, the fact that it is in court indicates the existence of critisism from secular sources. Should the wording be changed to indicate the critisisms are based on perception other than fact? I think the current way it's written should stay. It isn't written in a way to indicate that their claims are true and it also mentions what INC is doing about it (although INC's actions should be cited). The ommission of this part of the section may give the reader the assumption of the INC having absolutely no critisim outside of the religious groups, something which has already been proven false. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 3, 2005 09:25 (UTC)
 * Again, this article should follow the form of the other Wiki articles on religions, and not those of individual people.--gcessor 3 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
 * Why? Once something gets into the courts, a lawsuit is a lawsuit. Google (site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/church lawsuit) finds many Wikipedia references to lawsuits, including ongoing ones, involving religions and individuals within churches. The style of coverage is no different from purely secular cases. For example:
 * Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ("Motivated by a belief in an international Catholic conspiracy, a Louisville, Kentucky lawyer filed suit in June 2004 against the Vatican, alleging Roman participation in a cover-up of sexual abuse problems. Legal experts predict an unsuccessful outcome to this case, given the sovereignty of the Holy See and the lack of evidence of Vatican complicity")
 * Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("Six such teenaged boys have filed a conspiracy lawsuit against Jeffs and Sam Barlow, a former Mohave County deputy sheriff and close associate of Jeffs, for a "systematic excommunication" of young men to reduce competition for wives"). Article history shows this post belongs to User:195.92.67.65 on 11:43, July 3, 2005
 * Point taken, but interesting how you now refuse to sign your name, though more than once you pointed out how I wasn't signing mine. Note - I am going to move the 'nontrinitarianism' link to the 'references' section where it belongs, and I am consolidating the two 'references' sections.--gcessor 3 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
 * He can't sign his name, because he doesn't have a name. That was from our anonymous editor. I invite him to create a username, just click the link on the top of the page. I think the references are for external references, any reference to articles within WP are see also, so I put in back into "See also". --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 4, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes he does have a name! Thanks to the benefit of DHCP his IP address is variable, but  your 'anonymous' editor has 'participated' here far more often than I.  Look at the style, the syntax, the intent...while neither of us will say his name, I'm fairly sure you know who it is just as well as I do.  I learned some time ago that when someone makes a habit of showing irrational spite and makes frequent false accusations, it's highly unlikely that he will simply stop participating.  I admit I can't prove it (yet), but if I were a betting man, I'd certainly be willing to lay my money down!--gcessor 6 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Reading the first two sentences of User talk:195.92.67.65 says a lot. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 6, 2005 04:22 (UTC)
 * Good response - and it looks like I was wrong in my suspicion. My apologies to Onlytofind for suspecting that he was acting anonymously.--gcessor 7 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
 * I guess life is all about forgiveness, Glenn... It would have been much better for everyone if you had nothing to apologize for in the first place.--Onlytofind 00:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Would someone who believes that there should be no reference to ongoing litigation please explain the basis of this opinion? We seem to have arguments in favour of inclusion but nothing clear and explicit putting the opposing view.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 3 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Why put something on an encyclopedia when we don't even know what the outcome will be? To be on the safe side, don't even add it until there's a decision. Then what's added is truthful and factual. Besides, things like this are not done in the Roman Catholic article, why do it here? --Emico 4 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)

To my mind, the very fact that the Church has brought suit indicates how strongly it feels about these issues. The act of litigating is significant. If the Church wins, it is significant because it suggests that the Church has malicious opponents; if the Church loses, it is significant because it suggests that the Church acts to suppress valid comment. Either way, it is significant. As I understand such things, cases of equivalent significance have been mentioned in the Roman Catholic Church article and in at least one case the material grew into a fully fledged article.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

I edited the 'criticisms' section by: (1) Pointing out that prospective ministers are recommended by senior ministers before a decision is reached by the Executive Minister - whose decisions, BTW, are largely based on the recommendations of the senior ministers, particularly those who directly supervise the prospective minister. (2) Showing that the 'bloc-voting' complaint (which is raised SO often by Onlytofind) is not illegal in the Philippines (where the VAST majority of the members are), and that political endorsements by religions (also illegal here in the United States) is a common practice in the Philippines - particularly by the Roman Catholic Church which claims over 80% of the population there. (3) I removed the part of the 'press freedom' section that listed an unsourced claim. (4) I removed the section on 'Catholic Answers' since that website is already listed in the 'con' section.--24.16.167.121 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC) Note - my apologies for not signing the edit. I had signed on when I came to this page, but when I opened a second instance of Firefox to the INC page, apparently my sign-in didn't carry over.--24.16.167.121 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)


 * On 2): I notice "is not illegal" shifted to "legal" in the article. More like "undecided". See newspaper comments after the Social Justice Society attempt to get a ruling, which failed on procedural grounds:, ,  and.
 * 4) But the link doesn't give the specifics of the criticism. Why would you want that removed?

To explain my recent changes: [User:24.16.167.121|24.16.167.121]]'s point (1) introduced a parenthetical explanation that duplicated an earlier part of its paragraph. I have commented out that explanation. On point (2), we need sources for these assertions. On point (4) I have restored the Catholic Answers criticsism and deleted their entry from the list of 'con' links, since I agree that they need not appear in both places but think it inappropriate that a reader should have to leave the article to understand the basis of theri criticisms. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Re (1): I wonder if there is a more analytical way of expressing this. Another way of looking at it would be that the INC hierarchy reflects traditional Philippine culture, which stresses family relationships and vertical relationships (which looks like nepotism and an unmeritocratic hierarchy to those who have different cultural assumptions). Tearlach 6 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Masterly phrasing. I suggest that you make that very rewrite. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 6 July 2005 22:29 (UTC) Every once in a while one sees a simple, clear, and succint statement which bears a truth not considered by others, and is the verbal equivalent of an elegant riposte in fencing. Well said, Tearlach.--gcessor 7 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)

Doxology, Benediction and Christian
The doxology sung by the INC is not a song of praise to the trinity. As been said many times on this talk page, the INC do not believe in the trinity and regards it as a false doctrine. So the insinuation that the INC worship the trinity is insulting. The first part of the wikipedia article for doxology reads "A doxology is a short hymn of praise to God the Trinity", therefore the wikipedia article do not fit the INC. The wiktionary entry is a better fit. Similarly for benediction. What is the reason for your preference in using wikipedia instean of wiktionary when wiktionary gives a better, and more neutral definition?

As far as the Christian article is concerned, this article was used as an argument against my insistence on not labeling the INC as nontrinitarian. I removed the wikipedia link for christian, and added the dictionary definition as footnote, hoping this will satisfy everyone. Quite honestly, I prefer the dictionary entry. It's much more closer to the true meaning of the word. --Emico 4 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)


 * I have edited the Doxology introduction to reflect its content: that there are doxologies that don't mention the Trinity, or else mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit without assuming they are coequal. Tearlach 4 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! I have added new sections to Doxology to further emphasise the existence of forms that are not trinitarian. I avoided the phrase 'nontrinitarian' in deference to INC preferences. Since this now eliminates Emico's objection, I have redirected the link in 'our' article to the wikipedia article instead of Wiktionary. If Emico is happy with this, perhaps we could do the same to benediction. I do not understand Emico's reservations about the Christianity article but I think that it would be a distraction to hold that debate here. I will take up that issue at User talk:Emico.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

Anonymous external links
Whether to continue to include web links when owner are anonymous.
 * Please name the web link(s) which fall into this category (one per line).&mdash;Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear of what "Anonymous" means in this sense. Does anonymous mean the webmaster didn't provide ways to contact him/her from the site, one where the webmaster doesn't reveal his/her own name or location, or both? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 3, 2005 10:03 (UTC)
 * I share your confusion. I hope that whowever raised the issue will make it clearer when they cite specific examples for us to consider.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 3 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)


 * Both cases. In order to gauge their credibility/believability, and their motivation. These sites are two from section 10.2 Con, namely Examine Iglesia Ni Cristo and The Unofficial Site of the Iglesia ni Cristo. [Unsigned by Emico 09:26, 4 July 2005 (UTC)]
 * As a former member of the INC, I can understand the desire of critics to remain anonymous on the Internet, especially in light of the Ross Tipon lawsuit. I would like to point out that the gentleman raising this claim is anonymous himself, as he has not signed his post and if it is who I assume it is, then he is using a pseudonym which negates his claim. If the one who posted this claim wants to be taken seriously, then he should start by revealing his true identity and motivation.--Onlytofind 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
 * Forgetting to sign a post is not tantamount to anonymous posting. Furthermore, no Wikipedia editor is obliged to reveal their legal name, or, indeed, any name at all. On controversial pages such as this, it is helpful if we all take particular care to remain civil. Regarding the specific web-sites mentioned: Examine Iglesia Ni Cristo does not hide the name and address of its registered owner. The Unofficial Site of the Iglesia ni Cristo is less transparent but also publishes appropriate, credible contact information. I see no problem with either.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 4 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Based on the events which have been occuring over last few months, I feel that it's time to get some outside help with this article. I have posted a Request for comment for the entire INC article, encouraging some new outside contributers. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) June 30, 2005 01:41 (UTC)

odds and ends
Thanks for correcting my english, wether vs whether. I checked the dictionary for wether, ouch.

enjoy your 4th. I'm going on hiatus --Emico 4 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

I changed the intro "does not accept the ecumenical councils that adopted the doctrine of the Trinity" to "does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity". The first statement was not accurate enough - it is perfectly possible to not accept the authority of ecumenical councils and still to accept the doctrine of the Trinity (this is true of very many Protestant churches, and most Anabaptists). DJ Clayworth 5 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)