Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 1

message: I believe that the logic behind the deletion of the Catholic Answers link is flawed.  Lbmixpro deleted this link, thinking that it is quite similar to the other links that are posted.
Catholic Answers provides a thorough walkthrough of the 'con' with Iglesia ni Cristo.
** Out of curiosity, how is it different from Examine INC? I've seen both and IMO, Answers is like a condensed verison of Examine. --LBMixPro(Holla back!)
That is why I'm adding it back to the article.  I do not consider my contribution as vandalism for the link has been there for quite some time already.
*note - I have no problem with the 'Catholic Answers' link being there.  I did not delete it and would not do so.  I simply have a problem with having two links to the same 'con' site, which is EXACTLY what we have by linking TWICE to the Bereans' site...which I deleted again today from the 'con' list.  For LBMixPro, again, what is the sense in linking TWICE to the same 'con' site?  Is that proper and professional?  gcessor
** It's all about categories. The Bereans forum is linked under the "Discussion Forum" sub-section; independent of the Bereans' con link. Unless the forum's rules indicate the discussion should only be for one side or the other, I don't see why else it should be deleted. --LBMixPro(Holla back!) 06:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
***As I stated below, the ONLY information on the Berean's 'con' site that is not duplicated by other 'con' sites is (1) the "countries penetrated" list, which is quite outdated and much less accurate when compared to the "worship schedules and locations" link, and (2) the "how to start a conversation with/witness to an INC member" sections - and these sections are by their nature opinions and do not on their own merit warrant a link from an encyclopedia.--gcessor71.32.86.239 10:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Catholic Answers Link 

message: *Glenn, As a user of the Wikipedia- you have the obligation and the duty to follow all binding decisions put forth by Wikipedia administration. As I cannot reach a consensus with you regarding this article, I will step up and try to put our disagreements before a third party before our disagreement turns into something more uncouth than it already is.
*And Instead of complaining to me, why not use the Wikipedia dispute system to see who's really correct in this matter? If you decline to use these means and want to stick to having this article conform to your own personal "conditions," then you have no business here at the Wikipedia --Onlytofind 04:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I have proposed dispute resolution between myself and gcessor for this article

message: *You have reverted this article once again to your own POV even though the link section has been deemed fair by numerous sources. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia is not to promote your own view of the Iglesia ni Cristo and be written under "your conditions." I have already been more than generous by inviting an outside source to determine the neutrality of this article, and if you are not willing to work within the rules of the Wikipedia, I will not stop until you are banned from editing this article or the Wikipedia.--Onlytofind 20:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ATTENTION GLENN CESSOR

message: In light of recent events, I'm now issuing a poll in which I hope all Wikipedia users who read this article participate. The main dispute is how "con" links outweigh "pro" in the external links section, causing an NPOV dispute, with the Bereans link as major subject matter. The links page as it stands is 2 pro to 4 con. I strongly recommend nobody edit the link section until the vote is over, and any edit to it is subject to revert. Some users believe there should be an equal number of links, while others feel a maximum of three for each category. 
(Note: The links section was changed during the voting period  between  06:28, May 19, 2005. and it's current edit. "Delete One" may now have different meanings to different voters. If you have voted before, please include a view to view ratio such as 2 pro to 3 con, or 1 pro to 1 con) in order to clarify your vote.)
What should we do with the External links section? This vote will be open until midnight GMT, May 23, 2005.
*Delete one (2 pro to 3 con) According to Wikipedia's rules, the links section is not a link repository and should be reduced to a suggested 3 link per sub-section listing. So 4 is definetly too many for the 'con' section. Removing links deprives the user of otherwise informative content outside Wikipedia. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
*Delete only one.  It is hardly the fault of the "con" side that the pro side is somewhat opposed to websites, however it is true that Wikipedia is not a links repository and the "con" side should be duly reduced to three links.  Rlquall 04:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that the Bereans link seemed to me the most informativ of the antis and I say that as someone not remotely sympathetic to the Bereans POVDejvid 10:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that you should read my vote carefully. I am saying the forums. Ealva 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the forums should stand, after all, they are places where people can discuss the INC, and I'm pretty sure people have enough sense to wade through some of the truly absurd posts from both sides there. --Onlytofind 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Gcessor: Please let this page be until this is decided.  All of us should let it be until this is resolved.  I am all for fairness.  I think that once the number of links is resolved that we should address things like the Bereans' forum, but let's try to do one thing right at a time.  I think that you can see from my history on this page that my efforts have been only about fairness and NPOV to the best of my ability.  I am more than willing to defer to your vast knowledge of the group as an active and leading member, but this doesn't mean that you should always be editing the article whenever it disagrees with your point of view, although I realize that one person's POV dispute = another's "factual error".  At one point I thought that we were really, really close to a good NPOV article, which apparently was satisfactory to no one other than myself.  Please note that unlike many here, I am neither a member nor a former member of INC any my only interests are fairness and learning – I have no "axe to grind".  (I remain in favour of deleting one con link in the interest of fairness as before.)  Rlquall 02:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Con link removal vote (Closed)

message: :::I have to say that the Bereans link seemed to me the most informativ of the antis and I say that as someone not remotely sympathetic to the Bereans POVDejvid 10:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that you should read my vote carefully. I am saying the forums. Ealva 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the forums should stand, after all, they are places where people can discuss the INC, and I'm pretty sure people have enough sense to wade through some of the truly absurd posts from both sides there. --Onlytofind 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gcessor: Please let this page be until this is decided.  All of us should let it be until this is resolved.  I am all for fairness.  I think that once the number of links is resolved that we should address things like the Bereans' forum, but let's try to do one thing right at a time.  I think that you can see from my history on this page that my efforts have been only about fairness and NPOV to the best of my ability.  I am more than willing to defer to your vast knowledge of the group as an active and leading member, but this doesn't mean that you should always be editing the article whenever it disagrees with your point of view, although I realize that one person's POV dispute = another's "factual error".  At one point I thought that we were really, really close to a good NPOV article, which apparently was satisfactory to no one other than myself.  Please note that unlike many here, I am neither a member nor a former member of INC any my only interests are fairness and learning – I have no "axe to grind".  (I remain in favour of deleting one con link in the interest of fairness as before.)  Rlquall 02:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *After the vote was put up, a moratorium was proposed on edits until the vote is over. Glenn disobeyed the democratic process and restored the page to "his standards.". Glenn, please explain to us why you did that in light of the poll and the moratorium?--Onlytofind 00:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gcessor: Please let this page be until this is decided.  All of us should let it be until this is resolved.  I am all for fairness.  I think that once the number of links is resolved that we should address things like the Bereans' forum, but let's try to do one thing right at a time.  I think that you can see from my history on this page that my efforts have been only about fairness and NPOV to the best of my ability.  I am more than willing to defer to your vast knowledge of the group as an active and leading member, but this doesn't mean that you should always be editing the article whenever it disagrees with your point of view, although I realize that one person's POV dispute = another's "factual error".  At one point I thought that we were really, really close to a good NPOV article, which apparently was satisfactory to no one other than myself.  Please note that unlike many here, I am neither a member nor a former member of INC any my only interests are fairness and learning – I have no "axe to grind".  (I remain in favour of deleting one con link in the interest of fairness as before.)  Rlquall 02:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why, Glenn, Why

message: Can't you find where I called you 'illiterate', but keep saying that I have insulted you?  Either provide the proof or retract your accusation!  YOU made the accusation, YOU provide the proof.  In fact, if you provide proof of even ONE obvious personal insult (and not a simple rebuke) that I have made against ANYONE among the Wikipedians, I'll leave!  After all, that's what you want, isn't it?  And it's not a wager since I'm not requiring anything of you - except proof of your accusation.--71.32.86.239 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why, Onlytofind, Why

message: *I'll take personal responsibility for accusing Mr. Cessor of editing the article after the vote started, which on further examination, he did not do. I still stand by my other statements and criticisms though. --Onlytofind 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I APOLOGIZE TO GLENN CESSOR IN REGARDS TO PAGE EDITING

message: The current dispute is on whether to keep the Bereans' 'con' site.  I suggest it should be removed since the ONLY information on the site that is not duplicated on the other 'con' sites are (1) the 
"countries penetrated" section (which is very outdated compared to the "worship schedules and locations" link), and (2) the "how to start a conversation with/witness to an INC member" sections - and such sections by nature rely upon opinion and do not warrant an encyclopedia's link on their own merit.  That would be equivalent to, say, including to a Republican web page that only has a section named "How to talk to a Democrat".--gcessor71.32.86.239 10:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The how to talk to a Iglesia ni Cristo member makes it quickly clear that Iglesia ni Cristo is has an Arian view on the Trinity.  That was far less clear on the other sitesDejvid 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other sites plainly say that we do not believe that Jesus is God, the 'same' God as our Father.  That should be quite enough to label us with 'Arianism' in your view without ever having to say the word.--gcessor71.32.86.239 14:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Arianism is normally applied to those who share the same view of the relationship between the father and the son.  It doesn't normally imply sharing the same line as Arian as to which organization is the correct church. Has there been a vote to exclude the description of Arian or something?  I really didn't know it was so controversial.Dejvid 15:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only controversial to those who want to use 'Arianism' as a label, insinuating that it is not true 'Christianity'.  As I said, 'Arianism' cannot apply to us because he also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church.  Because of that, Arian cannot be associated with the Church of Christ in any way.  It is this difference that those who want to throw around the 'Arianism' label simply don't understand.--gcessor71.32.86.239 20:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A different route to resolution

message: *I would like to propose the restoration of the link to the Network54 forum 70210 which was recently deleted back to the discussion forum link section. I have seen topics posted there which were deleted on the INC member-moderated boards without explanation and is probably the most visited out of the INC forums, and although not moderated- allows for the most liberal and frank discussion of the INC. --Onlytofind 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Forums

message: ...let's turn the heat down a little.  We can all disagree without being this disagreeable.  Remember, Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  This is supposed to be discussion about how to improve the article, not about how awful, evil, or sinful we find each other to be.  (I certainly can't claim the ability to speak for him, but I doubt that Jesus is greatly pleased by all of this.)  That having been said, I have little interest in moderating an INC forum.  So I'll ask an utterly unrelated question to persons more knowledgable than myself.  Which is proper, INC or InC, Iglesia Ni Cristo or Igelsia ni Cristo?  (I don't have to wonder whether Church Of Christ or Church of Christ is correct, that is obvious.  Why would this not be the same way?)  Rlquall 11:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, Folks...