Talk:Philippine Independent Church

message: This article was nominated for deletion, and the result was keep. --Parker007 01:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afd Nomination

message: I have redirected Aglipayanism to Philippine Independent Church without trying to merge the content. The Aglipayanism article was based on the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia, which is fine for some topics, but not necessarily for this one, due to concerns about neutral point of view and timeliness of the information. If anyone thinks there is anything worth using from the Catholic Encyclopedia article, it's still in the edit history. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aglipayanism

message: An editor just marked this for New Religious Movements, but the PIC isn't a NRM, as that term is normally conceived.  It's about as old as the Old Catholic Churches, it's in communion with the Anglican Communion, etc., etc.  Why is it in the NRM box?  Tb (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRM? 

message: Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Philippine Independent Church  have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Tb (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate

message: The next to the last sentence "Aglipay's unitarian and progressive theological ideas were evident in his novenary" points "novenary" to an obviously wrong article about Nonary.  What is the correct link?
Bill Smith (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Novenary' link under Gregorio Aglipay section

message: This article states "The Aglipayan Church is not a member of the Utrecht Union" but the article about the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic) states "The Union of Utrecht is in full communion with the Anglican Communion, in accordance with the Bonn Agreement of 1931, and with the Philippine Independent Church."  Which is correct? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union of Utrecht 

message: If "Melchora Aquino was a Filipina revolutionary who became known as Tandang Sora because of her age (84)", what does this mean?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does Tandang Sora mean? 

message: The photo of Gregorio Aglipay was taken before he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in 1899. He did not become a Freemason until 1918. The clenched fist is not a Masonic sign or handgrip. IACOBVS (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Gregorio Aglipay and "Masonic" Clenched Fist 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Philippine Independent Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319172006/http://www.ifi.ph/history to http://www.ifi.ph/history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327035829/http://josephscalice.com/index.php/2008/04/02/pagsisiyam-sa-virgen-sa-balintawak/ to http://josephscalice.com/index.php/2008/04/02/pagsisiyam-sa-virgen-sa-balintawak/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327035834/http://josephscalice.com/index.php/2008/04/03/novenary-of-the-motherland/ to http://josephscalice.com/index.php/2008/04/03/novenary-of-the-motherland/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408081329/http://ifinc.org/history/ to http://ifinc.org/history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The number of members is variously given as 6 to 8 million and 917,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.234.135 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1% is roughly consistent with the 917,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.234.135 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different numbers 

message: Upon reading the article I have concerns including content sourcing and layout. 
===Lead===
Presently the article has 13 references with 4 of them (almost 31%) found in the same paragraph with a total of 6 references (over 46%) found in the lead. The lead is an introduction, or summary of important article content, and as such the content should be found referenced in the body of the article. While the same lead paragraph has 4 references the corresponding content found in the first paragraph of the history section is unsourced.  When lead content is sourced in the body of the article the only concern really would be if the included lead content is warranted. Currently the referencing is a flip from the broad encyclopedia consensus of sourcing article content over lead summary content. 
===Other issues===
There is a lot of content that I cannot readily connect to a source. A lack of sourcing and inline citations begs a solution because of the appearance of original research and the need for article maintenance tagging. There is not even a "General source" that can be looked at. The article timeline shows a 2012 article but it was nominated at AFD (and survived) in 2007. The importance of the subject to the encyclopedia is not in question but the expanded largely unsourced version needs a solution.  Otr500 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to clean up the article by removing what was unsourced. Veverve (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: There is a lot of content that I cannot readily connect to a source. A lack of sourcing and inline citations begs a solution because of the appearance of original research and the need for article maintenance tagging. There is not even a "General source" that can be looked at. The article timeline shows a 2012 article but it was nominated at AFD (and survived) in 2007. The importance of the subject to the encyclopedia is not in question but the expanded largely unsourced version needs a solution.  Otr500 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to clean up the article by removing what was unsourced. Veverve (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Independientes and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Independientes" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]