Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 5

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 10 July 2005 and 13 August 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/Archive06. Thank you. Theo (Talk) 11:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal Comment Moved from main article

 * Note to the members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo: Brethren, Let us make sure that this article contains only the truth about the true church. This article is a good tool for missionary activities therefore let us not allow our detactors to use this site to belittle the Church of Christ.

This statement was written by on the top of the INC article. Since it's a comment written for the editors of the article, I've moved it to where it belongs. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 02:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia (or WP as it's sometimes called) has a set of rules and policies, which are made so not to belittle the church, any other subject on the site, nor this site in general. For all new editors to the article, please read WP site policies. Most importantly, this one. Any contribution which fits in the rules of Wikipedia are most welcome, as this article is edited by both supporters and opponents of INC. No matter what their view of the church is, everybody is bound by the Neutural Point of View and must realize that WP is not a tool for advocacy of any kind. Also, you may want to create a username for yourself by clicking the link in the top right hand corner, so you can be easily identified and have many more features than of an anonymous contributer. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC) (updated 14:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC))


 * Browsing the edit history of this article, it seems many INC members take this view towards the article. I'm especially concerned about the lack of neutrality towards other religions from their edits.--Ironbrew 08:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us which parts of the article you feel are particularly biased, so we can tackle down the issues? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the major issues have been hammered out already, but it seems the same lady or gentleman who wrote the above POV comment is beginning to insert their personal opinion into this and other INC-related pages as seen by their edits to this and Eduardo Manalo.--Ironbrew 04:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The other side of the coin is that they are preventing you from inserting your personal opinion to the said articles.
 * You have removed contributions with succinct evidence and proof because it seems that you are afraid of any statement which portrays the INC in an unfavourable light, no matter how factual it is. You can either abide by NPOV or have your malicious edits reverted.--Ironbrew 18:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'll have to agree with whoever's reverting Ironbrew's edit. Not for POV pushing, which I believe the edit is perfectly NPOV, since it states why religious groups critisize INC, but for the reason of not having a sufficient reference link. The disputed text here is " with the INC holding the belief that it has the sole authority from God to interpret and preach the Bible, and that other religions do not. " But one problem remains. The link referenced shows proof about INC's belief of sole authority, but it doesn't show proof of why it is critisized.Until you provide a reference link which actually cites critisism for sole authority, I'll have to assume it as original research or personal opinion, sorry. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would this be a suitable source? --Ironbrew 00:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I've added it back, and cited it as well in the References section. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Forum links
I removed the following from the main article:
 * Iglesia ni Cristo in a nutshell (Doctrines exposed) - Postings by Cultic Research in 2002/2003 on an INC forum.
 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(1) (2) (3) 11 12(1) (2) 13(1) (2) 14 15 16 17(1) (2) (3) 18(1) (2) (3) 19(1) (2) (3) 20(1) (2) 21(1) (2) 22(1) (2) (3) 23(1) (2) 24(1) (2) 25(1) (2)

because it feels like just too much. Is there some way that this can be consolidated into a single source? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bob make my day. Added this now as one link.
 * Coffeemaker 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

An outsider's comment
I am not familiar with the INC, and hadn't heard of it before reading this article. I have to say that the introduction is quite strange and not particularly clear. --K. 05:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The intro indicates that most notable thing about the INC is the architecture of it's church. Is that correct?
 * Did Felix Manalo found the INC? If so, the intro should state it.
 * I don't what to say about the grammar of this sentence: "It claims to be the reestablishment in the last days of the first church established by Jesus through fulfillment of biblical prophecies."
 * "It is a Christian church that does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity." Why is this in the intro?

From a physical perspective, yes. But from a religious standpoint, they're mostly viewed in a way which violates NPOV. According to members, Manalo isn't the founder, but Jesus is, hence the name "Church of Christ". Which brings us to your next question... A clearer way to say the above could be: INC claims to have been the reestablshment of the original Church, ran by Jesus; which is the fulfillment of prophecies based around the Revealation. The reason why that sentence about the trinity is in the intro paragraph because it's a distinguishing feature that sets itself apart from most Christian chruches. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)

I have taken the suggestion of LBMixPro and recast that confusing sentence. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 10:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point about Manalo founding the church. But saying "it was registered" sounds like it was operating in the Philipines prior to that, which doesn't seem to be the case. It needs to be worded differently.
 * I am amazed that the spires are most notable thing. I've never heard of a church being notable for it's spires! Seriously though, what source says that it is noted for the spires? --K. 11:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the about.com entry about INC, it says this: "One way to recognize them is that they are built to be aerodynamic and include structures on the sides of the church building that could be mistake for a rocket; INC members believe that a time will comes when Christ removes his church from the earth for a period of time during which non-believers will suffer tribulation -- and when they say "remove his church" they mean that the actual building will take off into the air and up into heaven, and that the believers who are inside at the time will go with it..." So from a physical standpoint, in a sense you only know about INC just by looking at the outside of a chapel, it is noted by its spires. It's other source of noteritey is the anti-NPOV perception of INC being a cult. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Checking back in - hi K.! - it's neo-Gothic architecture, which has spires, and there are many other churches elsewhere with similar designs. That may well be uncommon in the Philippines, but the explanation about aerodynamics looks absolute tosh to me. About.com is far less accountable for its contents than Wikipedia. Tearlach 22:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Tearlach. I have to agree. Even the about.com article puts that mid-way into the article, not at the very top. I really don't think that statement belongs in the first paragraph. If at all, it should be further down the page. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I always get a laugh when I hear this "rocket" thing. :-) The not-so-funny thing is: some people (who are not that aware of the INC) actually believe it. The INC chapels do stand out when you get to see them in the Philippines. Ealva 23:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue on INC's founding is discussed in the "General Beliefs and Practices" section.   The statement about the trinity has been discussed and argued before here  and here . Ealva 23:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * WHAAAAAAT?!?!? We do NOT hold ANY such 'rocket' belief!  That's yet another OUTSTANDING example of others' misconception of what we believe!  Such a notion is...nauseating.  We DO believe that those who are inside the Body of Christ - the Church (comprising of members whose faith is true) - will be saved come Judgement Day.  It would be appreciated if those here would ASK what our beliefs are before posting them as some kind of 'fact'....--gcessor 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not clear what you are refuting here. Is it the suggestion that the physical church building will leave the earth? Or the suggestion that "Christ will remove his church"? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 18:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am refuting the ridiculous notion that the physical church buildings will leave the earth! I don't know what's worse - the fact that someone intentionally spread such a lie, or that someone else believed that was our doctrine! But just to give a little 'proof positive' that the 'rocket' doctrine is NOT ours, what about the several INC Chapels that have NO spires?--gcessor 18:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In a spirit of fun, and intending no disrespect, I guess that those won't be able to fly! On a more serious note, I see no assertion in the article that the buildings will fly, so encyclopedically speaking no harm has been done. Thank you for clarifying the point. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a former indoctrinee, and it seems that gcessor is talking about the INC's belief that all members of the church will join Jesus in heaven on judgement day and anyone not in the church will be sent to burn in the Inferno.--Ironbrew 18:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I seriously believe that Rocket statement was a joke. I can't imagine anybody believing such a thing, yet alone people spreading it so to make others believe, unless they believe that Santa Claus comes down people's chimneys. But the claim that the buildings fly is very unencyclopediac to say the very least. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 23:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe me LBMixPro, some people will believe anything negative that concerns the INC, this rocket thing is just the tip of it. Growing up at a time when the INC was just making inroads in the Philippines, I can say I've heard (and experienced) things far worse than this. Ealva 07:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we really need comments like these? Ealva 23:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I think that they probably do help. Because I came to this as a neutral, seeking only to resolve a dispute that was getting heated, I arrived in considerable ignorance of the topic. Comments like these help me to get a clearer picture of the similarities and differences between INC and other manifestations of Christianity. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * TheoClarke, you're getting a taste of how INC detractors twist thing by a play of words. If Ironbrew is kind enough to quote exactly how he heard this belief, it would come across differently. It is evident that these twistings are sometimes effective in making the INC look bad. If you have time, you may try to listen to the teachings yourself. Apparently, the rocket rumor has been around for a long time. I'm told the sect which started it no longer exist. --Emico 18:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that the INC members here at Wikipedia have been removing and downtalking information criticizing their organization, even though backed up by supporting evidence with reasons that can best be described as original research or opinion. Reading Emico's history of edits, one can see a history of bias against organizations like the Catholic Church, Protestantism, the Bereans and Trinitarians in general, confirmed by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Here's my challenge to the INC members: According to your doctrine, is it true or not that one will burn in the "lake of fire" (to use the INC's preferred term) if they refuse to join the INC?--Ironbrew 23:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I am interested to learn the answer to this question, I see no need for it to be presented as a "challenge". Please could we all treat each other with courtesy and respect, even where we have differing beliefs? &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 00:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Theo, while you're at it, maybe you could also take a look at the Erano Manalo, Felix Manalo, and Eduardo Manalo articles? We could really use your help there. Ealva 07:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I second Ealva's request. --Emico 14:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do. By the way, here is a cached page from Google showing a Pasugo article from a pro-INC site which is now down, supporting my above comment --Ironbrew 20:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you read just a few statements before that? Why does the Church continue to spread the pristine gospel of Christ? ... Save others, snatching them out of the fire... To save others, snatching them out of the fire is a great and monumental task... Emico is right, you twist things by a play of words. Ealva 07:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's more Ironbrew, from your link: "THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO has embarked on an intensive propagation of the gospel from the time it was preached by the messenger of God in these last days, Brother Felix Manalo, up to the present time... Church officers and members are mobilized in a worldwide plan of sharing the faith. Countless hours are spent by the entire Church in reaching out to as many people as it could... It is for this reason that the Iglesia ni Cristo today continues to spread the gospel to the whole world..." Ealva 07:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ironbrew didn't even bother to read the article's title: The importance of propagating the Gospel. What suits him is iglesia ni cristo lake of fire. Ealva 07:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Notice how Ironbrew framed his post with "I am a former indoctrinee" implying he heard INC doctrines first hand. But he did not post what he heard verbatim, as I requested. He claims in his next post that "lake of fire" is "INC's preferred term", when it's actually a direct quote from the bible. As I've stated before, be wary of those who claim to know the INC --Emico 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have some comments with the new intro: It says "in fulfillment of prophecies in the Book of Revelation". The biblical prophecies that the INC cites is not limited to the Book of Revelations, "biblical prophecies", as it was before, is quite enough. Ealva 22:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. I have fixed that. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by Emico's vehement opposition to my post as he has taken greater liberties with information regarding other religions in the past. I see Ealva and gcessor are outraged over a supposed condensation over one of the INC's doctrines while there was no outrage over the anti-Catholic and Presbyterian bias often inserted into this article and the biased edits from some INC members towards articles relating to other religions.--Ironbrew 06:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Evading the topic. How convenient. Ealva 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that both of you (Ironbrew and Ealva) are likely to inflame argument (rather than help us improve the article) with these comments. Ironbrew: Please ask other editors (courteously) to stop doing specific things when you see them arise. Pointing out the inconsistency in someone's behaviour is not helpful; we are all human here.  If someone does something you dislike, tell them your problem and ask them to change it and not repeat it.  Ealva: Sarcasm is particularly inappropriate when addressing a controversial topic such as this. Please do not do it again.  We will get the best article here if we focus on the article. So, please let us all return to the key issues here: the neutral coverage of the topic and the obtaining of verifiable sources. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 09:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"It's deja vu all over again"
Ironbrew, concerning your claims of 'bias' against the INC, please bear in mind a few things. First of all, perhaps you should ask INC members about the bias, the prejudice they receive from trinitarians in general. Talk to some of the older members who remember members (even children!) being killed simply for being INC. Even now I have to deal with the prejudice my child receives from teachers who seem to think that 'freedom of religion' actually means 'freedom of religion as long as you believe like we do'. Yes, we believe that trinitarians are deceived and will not be saved from the lake of fire - but your belief demands the same in reverse, so how dare you accuse us of bias?

Second, let actions speak! How many millions of innocents have been killed by trinitarians, whether protestant or Catholic? There are tens of thousands of denominations out there, every one of which is absolutely sure that they are the true Church...and who are sure that whoever doesn't share their belief is going to hell. Yet you accuse us of bias!

Third, you relegate just about anything we say to 'personal opinion' and 'original research'...without pointing out specific examples. Accuse enough times, and people will believe you - is that it?

Lastly, I noticed you accused us of bias against "Catholic Church, Protestantism, the Bereans and Trinitarians in general". I wasn't aware that the "Bereans" were to elevated to the same level as the billion-strong Catholics and the nearly-as-strong protestants.

The reason for the title of this section is that the style of your accusations (claiming to be NPOV and accusing us of being anything but NPOV, and interested in Emico enough to track his history) reminds me greatly of another detractor who used to post here - are you also known as 'Onlytofind' perhaps?--User:gcessor 19:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's something interesting:
 * Onlytofind:
 * Ironbrew:
 * Onlytofind's last edit: 23:36, 15 July 2005, Ironbrew's first edit: 21:26, 16 July 2005. Coincidence? I don't think so.
 * Let me be the first to remind everyone of Sock_puppet policy on circumventing a ban. --Emico 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be on the watchout for anon edits and sockpuppets from both of you since the final outcome would most likely have you and OnlyToFind banned from editing this article. --Ironbrew 22:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As a point of fact, most Christian denominations do not believe that they are the only true church, or that other denominations are going to hell. For most Christian denominations the differences between them are relatively minor. Please don't assume that everyone is like you. DJ Clayworth 02:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nearly all Christian denominations, sir, DO believe that, if they are not THE true Church, then certainly that they are PART of the true Church...and that all will be condemned who do not have what they believe to be true belief and faith. Please don't assume that I have never been like you - I was at various times Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran.  I do have a clue whereof I speak.--gcessor 03:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been a Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, and Pentacostal, and the only church who seems to support that statement other than INC is the Southern Baptists. In contrast, the presbyterians, who belive in most of the general christian belief, state one should look into the meaning of the verses and teachings for themselves (summarized from one of their brochures). Not to turn this into a complicated religious discussion, but isn't the core belief in order not to go to Hell is to accept Jesus as the one who took the blunt for our sins? If I remember correctly, INC holds that belief as well. Just my two cents on the situation. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 10:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well Gcessor, thanks for changing your tune. There is a very big difference between believing that you are part of the true church and believing that you are the true church, which is what you said originally. As I said, and as you will know if you were actually part of these churches, most Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans would consider each other, and most other denominations, to be part of the true church as well as them. INC of course seems to take a different view. DJ Clayworth 03:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is not as much difference as you think. Yes, I was actually part of those churches,, and perhaps you should do a little more research.  When you say, "they consider each other and most other denominations", be aware that "most other denominations" applies only to those whose beliefs are not greatly different from their own.--gcessor 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a lot of difference, and I've done extensive research. In a sense you are right, because the differences between most denominations are relatively minor. However, quoting from this very article, the INC believes that "Membership in the Iglesia ni Cristo is essential for man's salvation.". I cannot name a single mainstream denomination that takes this view about itself. I've no doubt there are some way-out extremists who think this, but almost all other Christians are a good deal more tolerant. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream" What an interesting word.  Again, I recommend more research, for until Vatican II, the RCC held that very same belief about itself!  So does a billion people count as "mainstream", in your opinion?--gcessor 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see your reference showing that the Catholic church believed that you could only be saved if you were a member of that church. I think you won't find it. DJ Clayworth 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is from http ://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp, italics mine: "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity. " --Emico 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Note to all - I added a line to the link to the U.S. government website, for it DOES contain gross inaccuracies despite its apparent pedigree (does anyone want to try to tell me that we supposedly require 'membership fees', or that we have 'guards who forbid entrance by non-members'?). I also deleted one of the links to letusreason.org, because it is NOT right to have two links to the same organization's website, whether pro or con.--gcessor 03:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you brought the inaccuacies up to the US site owners? Maybe they can change it based on what they learn about the religion. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 10:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done so twice. The description that is presently on the Wiki site is certainly insufficient - "some" INC members dispute what the link says?  You'll never find an INC member that AGREES with it!  I ask you, LBMixPro, when you have a site with the pedigree of the U.S. government containing what you know are gross inaccuracies, what is the proper procedure especially when one is being stonewalled by the government?--Gcessor 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr Cessor, I see that your last edit was reverted due to a POV violation, and I'm not surprised by the way that you try to deflect the attention on criticism regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo by using original research (give me a specific example, provable by outside sources of someone who was killed because they were an INC member) gross exaggerations (Bereans, calling trinitarians murders) and accusing other users of being sock puppets. Whatever your reasons maybe, it is obvious that they are self-willed and designed to promote your personal interest. If you check the Arbitration Committee's report on Emico, then you will discover that your edits have been described as biased and in violation of POV on many occasions. Just so you're not surprised, I will readd the link to the Let Us Reason page, as it is a crucial source to back up the claims made in the Criticisms section.--Ironbrew 06:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, OTF, the POV text that was reverted was NOT typed by me. If you'll look at any "last" option the history page, when a reversion is done, the page is defaulted to give the editor immediately previous credit for whatever the reversion corrects - even if that editor had never typed what is being corrected.--gcessor 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Theo, do you think we should use a link to the INC section of the Let us reason, instead of having ref links pile on from one initial source? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 10:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur.--gcessor 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that your criticism of the U.S Government article is purely based on original research and I have edited the comment to present it more as criticism and not fact. Also, there are no Wikipedia rules against linking twice to the same website, just as one can link to two different articles on say, NYTimes.com about Tom Cruise for instance. I am also interested in why you proclaim to know my beliefs when I have never stated my religion. --Ironbrew 06:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course you would say that, OTF. Fortunately, there are some here who are able to separate their personal and professional opinions.  Unfortunately though, until cooler heads prevail, it looks like thee and me shall have another edit war.--gcessor 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr Cesoor, I compliment you on your brilliant efforts to destroy the credibility of the INC critics at Wikipedia. All I did on my last edit was try to restore source and label criticism as such. So you can stop the speculations, I frequent the INC forums and edit general-interest Wikipedia articles under my real name. I have kept track of the disputes in this forum with interest and quite frankly, there is enough as it stands. Although we disagree, there's no need to start an edit war. Let's be the cool heads here.--Ironbrew 22:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

References section
Please do not remove cited sources from the ==References== section. If a source was used, it should be cited (irrespective of its accuracy or attitude). Also, this section is not the place to comment on the merits of a source. If there are doubts about the veracity of a source that should be mentioned in the article, remembering that such doubts must themselves be sourced. I recognise that this raises difficulty for a subject like this where there appears to be few published sources from the Church itself. That, however, is the Church's problem and nor Wikipedia's. I have, therefore, restored the deleted source (the argument that it is a duplicate is specious: it points at a different page). Ideally, there should be pointers within the article to the various references (which is why we use Inote until a consistent note system is agreed by Wikipedia). I have also removed the note about the US Congress report. To complete this process we should go through the article identifying statements derived from the US Congress report and indicating who has challenged such a statement and where the challenge (or an opposing statement) was made. Perhaps those who have contacts within INC could persuade the Church administrators to publish some of the Church's past magazine articles on a website. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I use my own status as a representative of the INC Administration to state the INC's dispute of the information in the government website on the grounds that it contains gross inaccuracies. Of course, you'll probably ask who the heck am I to make such a statement, so please tell me how you want to verify my identity and status as an officer in the INC Administration.--gcessor 17:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Theo, there should be a distinction between what is a "reference" site, and what is a "con" site. As badly inaccurate as the U.S. government site is, that is certainly a "reference" site.  The letusreason.org sites, OTOH, are by definition "con" sites, and should be placed appropriately.  As it stands, it looks like the "reference" section is becoming a dumping ground for excess "con" sites.--gcessor 16:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Better yet, why should ANY links to pro-INC sites, such as to reprinted Pasugo articles, or con-INC sites, such as letusreason.org, be in the "references" section? These are NOT reference articles!  Government sites, newspaper articles, encyclopedia sites I can agree with - but links to sites that are obviously pro- or con- should NOT be in the references section.--gcessor 17:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I've heard, doesn't one have to be a district minister or an appointed spokesman to officially be allowed to represent the INC in public? I'm not trying to create any antagonism here, that's what I've heard and I'm wondering if it's true or not.--Ironbrew 22:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gcessor: I think you may have misunderstood me. When I say that the ==References section== "is not the place to comment on the merits of a source" I mean that it should only contain source citations without editorial comments or annotations. Every assertion in the article should be linked to a source that is listed in the ==References== section. If the assertion is challenged in another source then the body of the article should reflect this. I will illustrate this with a slightly absurd example that is utterly unconnected to the subject at hand so that we do not get sidetracked into discussing the example:
 * According to Department of Transport records </nowiki}} George Foobar drives a green car. Newspaper reports  say the colour is blue.  (The three sources (Vehicle Owners Log, Daily News and Thunderer, would all be listed in the ==References== section, without comment.)

A "reference" is anything that is used as a source. Its stance on the subject (pro, con, neutral, or otherwise) is immaterial to its status as a reference to a source. It is called a "reference" because it allows the reader to refer to the source of the assertion. If we follow the process that you suggest, you (as "a representative of the INC Administration" and so, presumably, pro-INC) would be prohibited from contributing to the article. The only reason for excluding a reference is because the source has little or no credibility and if an assertion cannot be supported by a credible source, it has no place in an encyclopedia. That is not to say that unsourced statements are false or that our personal observations are wrong; only that the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is to bundle information published elsewhere. That is why I suggested that the INC would benefit from the wider dissemination of its publications (such as the Pasugo articles).

If the INC were to publish its description of itself and its teachings then that publication would be a reliable source of information about the church's perception of itself and its teachings. It would not be a reliable source about other parties' perceptions but that is a different matter. The reason why the reference section contains more "con-" references than "pro-" references is that the Church and its supporters have not published much about the Church. The references section of any article will always reflect the balance of published material, just as the article should reflect the balance of published material. I hope that this is clearer than my previous post. Perhaps you will now delete your annotation of the ==References== section and make your point in the main article. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 18:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the multiple links to one site is not, IMO, appropriate. As I stated below, we should see if such is or is not the practice at other similar Wikipedia sites - and if it is not, then that should not be the practice here.--gcessor 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that by this statement, "it should only contain source citations without editorial comments or annotations" you mean that it should not contain opinion not substantiated by anything other than, say, religious belief?--gcessor 19:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean that and more. I mean that it should contain no opinions at all . The ==References== section is a list of citations of the sources used to write the article. Religious or any other belief is irrelevant to such a list.  Anything that is used as a source of information for the writing of the article should be listed as a reference.  Ideally, it should be posible for the reader to link individual assertions in the article to specific sources that the reader can check to verify that the article is a fair representation of that source. Again, I hope that this is sufficiently clear that you will delete your editorial comment from the ==References== section and incorporate it into the main article. Perhaps there are grounds for a section about the US Congress report on the church with a summary of its strengths and weaknesses. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 21:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, Theo, I hate to have to tell you this, but everything you said there should support my contention that Pro and Con sites belong in the Pro and Con sections, and NOT in the Reference section. Almost everything, when it comes to religion, IS opinion in case you haven't noticed.  The links to reprints of the Pasugo and the links to letusreason.org should all be moved OUT of the Reference section to the Pro and Con sections, respectively.
 * Thank you for expressing your disagreement courteously and respectfully. You are patient with my continuing failure to clarify my point.  Please forgive my lack of clarity.  Herewith my next attempt: Think of the references section as a series of statements along the lines: "I referred to a sentence (or sentences) from when writing this article", where might be a sentence from a newspaper article, a book or a web page. The statement is a matter of fact (and not opinion). Either the writer referred to the source or s/he did not.  No middle ground; no judgement; simple objective fact. So the References section is a simple list of ' 's and the "I referred to a sentence (or sentences) from [&hellip;] when writing this article" is implicit.  Because previous authors of this article have not cited their sources we now have to find the sources that we might have used had we been writing this from scratch.  The implied phrase becomes "I could have used&hellip;" but it is still not opinion.  The ==External links== section, which is here divided into the duallist Pro and Con, is for sites that provide additional material not included in the article.  It is common for some sites to appear in both the External links and the References sections in other articles.  I understand that religion is about belief (which is a form of opinion).  I think that I have failed to convey that the elements of the ==References== section are just the titles of the sources with enough information to enable a reader to find a copy for his/herself; they are not the contents of those sources; they are pointers (signposts, if you will) to the places from which we have come on our journey to the current form of the article.  If, in an extreme case, all the sources are hostile to the subject then the reader will be able to conclude that the article is unbalanced. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 23:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And I would caution you that by allowing a significant imbalance in the pro and con sites, the Wikipedia would become another example of, "If you accuse someone of something enough times, they'll be convicted in the court of public opinion". --gcessor 19:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a court of law. Nor is it a PR platform for any specific point of view. Each Wikipedia article should be synthesised from published sources and should aim to reflect accurately current human understanding of its subject. Where there are significant published disagreements about that subject they should all be represented (note that 'significant' and 'published' are important here: 'significant' so that we do not perpetuate the ideas of the deranged and 'published' so that our material is verifiable and by extension credible).  So, we seek sources for every assertion. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 21:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you wholeheartedly - but you did not, as far as I can tell, address my point about making Wikipedia skewed by a preponderance of 'con' sites regardless of the dearth of pro-INC sites.--gcessor 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Wikipedia is not skewed by any pattern of citation except omission of sources used in the writing. If the article is properly researched and that research is properly cited, then the references will reflect the distribution of published human understanding of the subject (without necessarily listing every such publication).  I recognise that I may be wrong about this but we may be talking about different things so please can we postpone this discussion until we have a clear shared understanding of the difference between external links and references? &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 23:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple references to same domain
Personally, I see no problem with multiple references to the same domain because they make it easier for a redaer to find a precise source. ==External links== is the place for broad general links to domains that carry additional information at a level of detail inappropriate to an article here. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 15:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Where should the line be drawn when it comes to multiple links to the same domain? One link?  Two?  A dozen or more?  I recommend that other religious sites on Wikipedia be checked to see if it is indeed the practice of Wiki editors to have more than one link to "con" sites.--gcessor 16:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See my comments in the previous section, which I believe also address this point.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear the other Wikipedians' comments on whether the "references" section should be a repository for "pro" and "con" sites.--gcessor 19:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not about the viewpoint of the sites, but the fact that they are the backbone to this article's credibility. It would be nice to have some printed sources for this article. --Ironbrew 07:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with theo. Basically the references section is us following a much more important rule, the WP:CITE one which tells us to cite our sources. The references section tells us which source is cited. They're other articles which references section links to the same domain more than once, and they should, because I don't want to start digging around one reference's domain, to find what one part of the article refers to. This rule cannot be adjusted just because it is a religious topic. There is no reason for a source citation to be omitted, if that source is mentioned in the article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 21:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * So what, then is the difference between the 'Pro'/'Con' sections, and the 'References' section, if opinion and criticism "belong" in the 'References' section just as they do in the other two sections, instead of keeping the 'References' section only for non-opinionated information about the subject of the website?--gcessor 01:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To be as blunt as I can, references are citations for the article, links are pointers for more information about the subject which aren't mentioned in the article. I see Theo's been using inote templates in the article. I have this feeling in the future, those inotes will be transformed into those footnote reference markers where one would read something in the article, and it'll have a 1, which links to the correct citation in the references section. One may want to read WP:CITE and WP:EL to come up with a difference. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 21:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * gcessor, what is your suggestion as to the best way to work with what we have?--Ironbrew 05:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts
It looks like the software does not warn about edits occuring at the same time. My last edit overwrote TheoClarke's. My apologies. --Emico 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?

 * "The Bible with abundance of references like history etc. is the sole basis for spiritual guidance." (my italics). What does the italicised part of this sentence mean? does it mean "the Bible, together with other historical references..." or "the Bible, which has an abundance of historical references,...". I'm assuming the latter but I'd like to be sure. DJ Clayworth 20:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed a links to a ring of blogs, because blogs (with a few supremely notable exceptions) are not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Should all external links should be encyclopedic? The NET-25 link isn't. The Xanga link gives more information about the INC and its members. When the administration refuse to put up its own website, closing down local INC sites, makes the Pasugo Online the Pasugo Offline, this is all you get. INC members showing their worldly and self-centered lifestyle afraid being monitored by the church administration.
 * Coffeemaker 20:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * INC members showing their worldly and self-centered lifestyle afraid being monitored by the church administration. Theo, how about this comment? Ealva 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I had disregarded it as Coffeemaker's only edit. I felt that the time to address such misbehaviour would be if s/he returns to repeat such unpleasantness. You may be right in your implication that we should comment (courteously and directly) on such things as soon as they arise.  (sigh &hellip;) &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 09:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/Hierarchy
Poster using ip 69.231.227.190 removed my edit and claim "Last edit biased towards INC, link irrelevan". Let's discuss it.

Reminder to some users who may be tempted, please see rule on sockpuppets. --Emico 18:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that, I would like to see the user from 66.xxx.xxx.xx explain his edits. <small[Unsigned at 13:54, 11 August 2005 by 69.231.208.157]

As I said when reverting your reversion, Emico, I agree with the anon editor here. I think that the changes that you made are making an argument rather than simply stating the pertinent facts. And I do not understand the relevance of the TV schedule link. How does the TV station fit into the article? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. No apologies needed. You're the most neutral I've seen so far that's why I asked for your mediation. I guess I need to reword my post? English is not my first language so what I may see as neutral may be, as you say, argument. Remember that the original paragraph was an observation(dare I say opinion). It is a fact that catholics and the church of england, as well as the INC, believe that their leaders are elected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. With regards to the TV schedule, and the webcast, these presents doctrines of hte INC. Anyone can listen and draw their own conclusion. --Emico 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the Agustinongpinoy site regarding the Message linked to is a site designed to defamate the original blogger going by that name . Please scroll down to see the complete message. <small[Unsigned at 11:13, 11 August 2005 by 69.231.208.157]


 * Irrespective of the validity of any of these claims. I have been looking for this TV station on the web and can find no other trace of it.  I do not think that we should be describing a broadcaster that does not even have a web-site.  I have removed the link to the blogged schedule and I will delete the para in the main article if someone does not provide a reputable source for the TV station's existence.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The INC, at present, do not have a TV station outside the Philippines. Here are the links to the TV channels which broadcast The Message program: International Channel(Sunday 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time) - http://www.i-channel.com/programming_grid_det.aspx?pID=1940&timezone=PST&startdate=8-7-2005 Vision Canada(Saturday 3:30 p.m. Winnipeg) - http://www.visiontv.ca/Programs/mosaic_christian.html#message KTSF Channel 26(Saturday 1:00 p.m. Pacific) - http://www.ktsf.com/ktsf_e/index.asp KHIZ TV CHANNEL 64(Sunday 10:30 a.m. Pacific) - http://www.khiztv.com --Emico 14:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Added my previous post to Structure section rather than Criticism section. Now, it's a statement, not an argument. Also, added link to aired to point to schedules site for The Message. Also added the same link in Pro section. The schedule now has links to websites of tv stations, to address Theo's concern. --Emico 15:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for deleting the section inferring that your site was created by the blogger Agustinongpinoy when indeed, it is not. I would also like to hear from Theo whether your site should be linked to twice in the article. Unlike the References section, this is the exact same site.--Ironbrew 06:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Using edit summaries
Two things arise from User:69.231.208.157's unsigned comment at 13:54, 11 August 2005. The first is, please would everyone who posts on this (and any other) talk page please sign their contribution. You can use four tildes ( ~ ) and they will be converted when you save the page. The second is, please could everyone complete the Edit Summary box for every edit they make. The software adds the section heading to reduce some of the work but it is still helpful if you add a brief summary of what you have done and why. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 13:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion, sect, cult or denomination?
Some quotes from the wiki cult page:
 * In religion and sociology, a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices.


 * Which proves INC isn't a cult, because it is not relatively small - INC's membership spans multiple continents, nor does INC have doctorines which are far outside the mainstream. Cults like Heaven's Gate is a clear example of a cult. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Coffeemaker 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Religions are also distinguished by being publicly open and accountable. .... Such features common to religions clearly distinguish them from cults, which generally do not allow unimpeded public access to their rituals and full access to doctrines. Cults, on the other hand, require some degree of secrecy to be kept from those outside the church, and require some degree of self-disclosure to its authorities within.


 * Well, just as the article says, one may attend a service and see for themeselves what the place is like. There's an article somewhere at WP, (Talk:List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets) which lists what is a cult, and by what degree of authenticity it is. On it's scale of 1-8, where 1 is definetly a cult by all accounts, and 8 is one that's called by non-reputable sources, INC would probably count as 7, since it's only accountable by anti-cult groups, and below. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider it a cult. Most media speak about a chistian sect.     In the christian denomination article I would classify it as "Non-mainstream Christianity". Size is not the issue here and even 3 million can be relatively small. The "multiple continents" is only for marketing reasons. On all cult checklists I have seen the INC score 80% or more.    . Another test is: What where they praying and preaching right after 9/11 or the invasion or Iraq? Was it about the victims and world peace? Or was it about calamities, the end of the world and themself? Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. Coffeemaker 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On the INC's "The Message" 9/11 television program (I have the video), they showed the INC members who survived the disaster, and many of them claimed that God saved them from the disaster because they were INC members. I found it shocking that the INC would use a tragic event like that as a tool to attract more people into their organization, especially after the host said "Although their lives were saved, their souls won't be because they haven't accepted the Iglesia ni Cristo" which made me wonder how much sympathy he had towards those involved in the event. The worst thing is that INC member Rex Reynaldo Ferrer perished in Madrid on the day of the 3/11/2004 terrorist attacks whilst boarding a train on his way to an INC worship service. I wonder what the members interviewed would say now if they found out about Brother Ferrer's death.--Ironbrew 07:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As with Coffeemaker, you are also entitled to your own opinion. And base on your post, I for one do not expect to hear positive things about the INC from you. As far as the TV program is concerned which I saw when it was broadcast, what I saw were people thankful to God for getting another chance at life. I did'nt see the "using" of the event that you claim, rather the usual warning that life is short and that prophesies written in the bible are being fulfilled. --Emico 07:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your own opinion. But your own post, as Lbmixpro clearly pointed out and which you were not able to dispute, proves the INC is not a cult. At least one of the links you posted list the INC as one of "5 major religious groups in the Philippines" which contradicts the basis of your claim(that cults are small). In your last post above, you seem to back out of your previous stand by saying "Size is not the issue". A website list Judaism has 14 million adherents, relatively small compared to 1.2 billion muslims. Does this make Judaism a cult? As the article states, the INC is now in 84 countries, or as you say, "multiple continents". So, it's not only useful for marketing, it is also factually true. She grew faster in it's first century compared to the catholics or the protestants in their own first centuries. --Emico 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Election of leaders guided by the Holy Spirit
Can someone explain how the choosing of the executive minister is guided by the Holy Spirit. Is there any information available about the election process of any officer. Sources? Is the expelling of members also guided by the Holy Spirit? If it is, better put it in to make it more NPOV ;-) Coffeemaker 00:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure many, if not most religions professing to be Christian believe in one way or another to be guided by a divine power. What sect do you belong to? How are your leaders "chosen"? Is there expulsion in you church? Let compare. --Emico 06:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Exposing? How?
To Coffeemaker, can you explain what you mean by saying the forum is "exposing the INC bible lessons."? --Emico 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)