Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 7

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug. 20 and Oct. 20 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive08. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 04:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

message: *I don't think this question was fully addressed:  Is it the standard practice in other Wikipedia sites on religions to use the 'references' section as a repository of obviously opinionated articles by partisan organizations?--gcessor 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles says: "When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be cumbersome to burden a writer with the onus of providing documentary proof for every assertion. However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented." --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 23:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
**Glenn, I do not entirely understand your difficulty with the previous explanation.  I will try to make it clearer this time.  Wikipedia policy requires us to back up every assertion with a reputable source. We should, therefore, list every source that we consult when writing an article.  Note that this requirement is the citation of every reputable source. The prejudices or stance of the source are immaterial if the source takes responsibility for its own accuracy or if its opinions are the subject that is being sourced. Whenever we consult a source we should list it.  As we have found, there are very few neutral articles about INC, which is why our cited sources seem to be unashamedly partisan on either side. I hope that this is clearer than the previous explanation. —Theo  (Talk) 00:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have enquired about the cost of obtaining a back issue.  I may also be able to obtain a copy through Inter Library Loan. —Theo  (Talk) 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have now ordered a copy. —Theo  (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References in other articles

message: Check out Special:Contributions/Starbucks and Talk:Eduardo_V._Manalo--Ironbrew 09:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think Emico's back again

message: I noticed the Critic section of the article has increased dramatically over the past few weeks, to the point where it's larger than any other section. Can we please do something about regluating it. I doubt it's NPOV, and we now have a 30k limit on our hands. 
I was looking at WP:RS#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet, and I realized that some of the references are actually Network 54 forum posts. What should we do about the article in regards to WP:RC? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 11:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
*I think it would be better to focus on specific criticisms from other religions or external sources in the Criticism section than such generic criticisms such as "The INC hierarchy reflects traditional Philippine culture....." I also feel that the Cultic Research series is a well-written critique, and aside from its format, is nothing different in nature than Truthfinder's or Bible Student's websites. Upon further reading of the above link, it says "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution." If anyone wants to remove both the Pro and Con link sections in the article, I wouldn't mind.  --Ironbrew 18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size and the Crits section 

message: Welcome to Wikipedia (if you haven't been here before). Please understand that it is against Wikipedia rules to use an article to advocate a certain point of view or opinions, such as those of Mr. de Guzman. You might want to get acquainted with the NPOV rules before you make further contributions, or risk having them reverted and a possible ban from editing the article.  --Ironbrew 07:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To 160.36.8.109  

message: My goal, by adding the Kelly and Keating references, was to show how other religions might view the INC. I understand right now that the section is quite long and needs to be pared down. How can we do this? I've examined the criticism section on the RCC and it appears to be similar, but maybe there's something I'm not realizing here.--Ironbrew 05:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two paragraphs which have to do with Catholic Answers. Can we take one out? Also, we have the big edit war with the Sanders/Harper situation which seriously needs to be dealt with. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Emico only wants to quote from the parts of the book which try to find common ground between evangelicals by showing practices which they can agree on, while he conveniently wants to omit the majority of the book which criticizes their practices. I have seen that exact kind of misquoting too during the bible studies, where INC ministers conveniently show quotes from critics favorable to them, but condemn everything else they say. If those critics are as "wrong" and "blinded" as the INC claims they are, why do they insist on using their quotes?--Ironbrew 06:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we make the Criticism section more neutral? 

message: Since Emico shows no signs of letting go and has gotten ruder, more obnoxious and even more militaristic in his views- would it be good just to lock the article and leave the disclaimer on?--Ironbrew 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any edit Emico makes to this article may be removed without comment, any sockpuppet or anonymous ip he uses may be blocked, if practical. He may be blocked under his own account for up to one week. If you make a note of his violation of his editing ban at [] the ban on editing certain articles will be extended from that date. It is not necessary that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an editor is Emico, it is enough that he has the same point of view and style of editing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do that, but it'll likely mean we'll be filling the RFAr page up each day with proxy addresses which other WP vandals already use, since emico has failed in creating sockpuppet accounts to get passed his ban. I think we are all tired of making daily reverts, and I feel we should protect the article in order to get a grip on it. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 12:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly support a lock on the article, and once that happens, I will push for an indefinite ban of Emico from the Wikipedia.--Ironbrew 20:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt an indefinite ban will happen, nor will it work. Bauder already said the only thing they can do is extend the ban 1 week for each violation. If emico can still post under sockpuppets and proxy servers with a one-year ban, what will be different with an indefinete one? I'm tired of playing the revert game, nor do I want to go to desparate measures such as page protection. I think the best thing now is for him to go through mentorship with Theo. That will give back emico's posting rights, but also have him under watch by Theo, who knows more about how Wikipedia should work than anybody else working under the article. After all, his behavior was improving before his ban. I would like to see what Theo has to say about this. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of page protection myself, but I don't see how else we can win a war against a POV-pusher armed with anonymous proxies and a committed drive to push his personal opinions as fact.--Ironbrew 06:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we lock this article? 

message: I've just reverted the article to my edit on Sept. 18th. Recently, there have been major edits made to the article which are being fought over heavily in edit wars. Since this is a controversial article, we need to talk about these additions and ommissions before we go further with ANY editing to this article. If we don't stop and talk about these edits, this edit war will continue and will ruin any integrity this article has. I doubt  is emico, since the person's edits don't seem to fit emico's editing pattern. Although I could be wrong, so don't take my word for it. Most of the articles have been sourced, although they're not sourced the way the rest of the article is. The way the info has been written to the article borders copyright violation. Once again, if you are new to the article, please read the protocol section of this talk page. I welcome any input on both sides about this, as well as the new additions. But I think they need better formatting. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Emico thinks he could trick all of us by revising his editing style. He gives himself away though by the excessive use of open proxies (why the aversion from usernames?), and his shall we say, distinctively inflammatory and sarcastic style of comments on the history page, which is perhaps the smoking gun that links the anon IPs to Emico. Judging by the past, I don't believe Emico's objectivity and view towards others with opposing viewpoints ever changed, I just think that he learned to bite his tongue.--Ironbrew 05:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading further in, Emico has taken it to misquote the book from Ann C. Harper, and has used the sarcastic/inflammatory comment  "Thanks to whoever added this doc to the article." who was apparently user Onlytofind. Although I have stated on numerous occasions that I am not Onlytofind, it seems that Emico still has bad blood with him and after his disappearance is trying to either coax him back or try to start a fight with me as he did with him.--Ironbrew 06:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION!: Changes on September 19th 2005.  

message: This article is in chaos! It's too long, not to the point and full of POV. I propose to fork this article in two articles; INC Pro and INC Contra. Hopefully Mr. Proxy will leave INC Contra alone. If I may quote:
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.
What do you think ? Coffeemaker 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were the case, it would have been done already, but the WP:NPOV prevents it. Although there IS another Wiki-encyclopedia called Wikinfo which goes by a sympathetic point of view, and also allows negative point of view articles, as long as they are on a different article (as this example between Wikipedia and Critical Views of Wikipedia. But most of the rules of WP are the same as WI. They still expect you to cite sources, avoid personal attacks, etc... --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
To Coffeemaker: in case you missed it, this(No personal attacks) is at the top of the talk page. Read also the welcome page of wikipedia. IMNOTEMICO 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should be telling yourself that, Emico.--Ironbrew 06:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork article in Pro and Contra ? 

message: Regarding the Con section, it is definitely too long, and I'm not sure about the necessity of Sanders' quotes.--Ironbrew 10:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopefully, we're back on track now. 

message: Please do not post INC's Doxology lyrics anywhere on this site. Not only doesn't it belong in an encyclopedia, but a consensus has been reached not to post them, since it has been said by Wikipedians who are INC officers, that the lyrics to the doxology may be in violation of their copyright. Any lyrics posted here will be reverted. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting INC's Doxology lyrics