Talk:Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines

message: I need to add the important assembly news about Lagdameo's major remarks on the assembly held. The CBCP took active part in the midterm elections.
--Florentino floro 12:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

message: I removed the sub-section called "Controversy" for two reasons.  It only listed one controversy and that controversy was not with the CBCP but with some individual Catholic bishops and dioceses.  This article is not about Catholic bishops in the Philippines but rather about the Catholic bishops' CONFERENCE. The Conference was not involved with the donations from the sweepstakes, as far as I know. The article linked to only mentions that the CBCP is conducting an investigation, not that the CBCP received money. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section called "Controversy"

message: User:Raabbustamante keeps re-inserting copyrighted material, material copy-and-pasted from online news articles, with only a word or two changed.  This is not allowed.  I have removed it now for the third time, indicating it is copyrighted material but User:Raabbustamante insists on putting it back in.  Am I wrong?  Is it not copyrighted?  Raabbustamante please explain your rationale here. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: let him reword it then.  he seems active enough.  User:Raabbustamante please reword.Reijiro (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No copyright material 

message: Should there be a section about the PCSO  Pajero bishops in this article?  I believe that we should not include any information on the PCSO scandal.  My comments are in the above section.  This includes the subsection entitled "CBCP and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCSO Pajero bishops 

message: This is poorly written and includes some original research.  It clearly needs to be re-written and maybe put into a different section or into its own section entirely.  It has some WP:Third-party sources but is still lacking.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection titled "An Opinionated and Influential CBCP in Philippine Politics" 

message: I think that this entire section violates copyright law and is illegal.  It is copy-and-pasted from the cited article.  It should be removed or completely rewritten.    --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think deletion is best for now. An external party must say that CBCP is spreading HIV/AIDS Misinformation and Promotes Misconceptions otherwise this will have some WP:V and WP:NPOV issues --Lenticel (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection: HIV/AIDS Misinformation and Promotion of Misconceptions 

message: This is within the Controversy section. It should be moved perhaps into a "projects" or "activity" section. However I think that an argument can be made that it is not notable enough to be included anywhere in the article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a notable feature/app since I can't find later mentions after the 2008 article at Cite 24. It's better off deleted. Cite 25 is dead so I can't comment on its usefulness--Lenticel (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

text: It was also reverted because it contains a lot of copyright violations. Neutral Point of View is simply one of the issues we are discussing here. --Lenticel (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because "it...has been reported several times, nationally and internationally" does not make the criticism relevant to this article. This article is not about Catholic bishops in the Philippines or even Catholic priests.  It is about the Episcopal Conference.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection: "Bible Animé" project 

message: Added more reliable sources for ref. clearly it is relevant as this has been reported several times, nationally and internationally, a relevant problem that was not included until recently. before recent edit, article was very biased  to one side. to revert to original article is to purge any valid criticism. read leadership and individuals are mention with out sanctioned CBCP approval.Raabbustamantel (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also reverted because it contains a lot of copyright violations. Neutral Point of View is simply one of the issues we are discussing here. --Lenticel (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because "it...has been reported several times, nationally and internationally" does not make the criticism relevant to this article. This article is not about Catholic bishops in the Philippines or even Catholic priests.  It is about the Episcopal Conference.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Paedophia

message: With all the back-and-forth and reverting that has been going on, I think that it is important to remind people -- including myself -- that edit-warring is prohibited in Wikipedia.  There is no excuse for an WP:Edit War.  None.  Zero. Zip. Nada.  "I am right" is not an excuse.  How do you know if you are engaging in an edit war?  Look to the three-revert rule, see WP:3RR, which says, 
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions  
If an editor finds that they are reverting for a third time, they should stop. Simply stop. There is no justification for reverting three-times.  Stop until an WP:Consensus has been reached (which is not the same an unanimity of course).  I've stopped editing the main article because I came close to that 3-revert bright line.  --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely proper to notify relevant WikiProjects in cases of content dispute. That being said, please see WP:COPYVIO. Copy pasting copy righted material onto Wikipedia is against policy. Furthermore, please see WP:NEU & WP:CRITICISM. This article is being inundated with criticism of the subject in a manor that is making it appear to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE of the subject. While I am not saying that we should go for WP:TNT at this point, for the pillar of neutrality the criticism of the subject needs to be integrated into the content of the article and the article needs to be grown to balance out the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder: No Edit Warring ever, for any reason, period 

message: For example, on wikipedia, the "HIV/AIDS Misinformation and Promotion of Misconceptions" section states:
The "CBCP and the Philippine Anti-discrimination bill" section (which is near the top and not the "CBCP and the Philippine Anti-discrimination bill" lower down) states:
is a 2015 source which does not mention a bill number, does not mention "senate", it only states that in 2011:
The "CBCP and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" section states:
yet, the source is clear that it is reporting about comments by unnamed critics and not making the claims itself:
The source does not mention if the recipients are social service organizations that are contracted by the government:
Are these social service organizations? 
The "CBCP in Philippine Politics" section states:
The 2008 source (philstar.com) titled the user generated content (which it calls INBOX QUESTION) as "Do you agree with the CBCP that the President should revisit laws on e-VAT and oil deregulation in light of the oil crisis?" That is not a reliable source.
If the "the Vatican 'did not support popular uprising as a method to remove government'", what method did they support?
So, three priests who ignored their discipline and ran for office were suspended for ignoring their discipline. Is that a story?
The "Paedophilia" section should be dated correctly and placed in sequence and specify what the CBCP did or did not do.
The added content should have better sources and quit warring. 107.10.198.48 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources are misrepresented 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130713094022/http://cbcpnews.net:80/blog/2013/07/07/villegas-elected-cbcp-president/ to http://cbcpnews.net/blog/2013/07/07/villegas-elected-cbcp-president/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. 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  tag to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=83818
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901232739/http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=84013 to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=84013
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222172035/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=75587 to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=75587
*Added  tag to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=104678
*Added  tag to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=109727
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) 23:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not sure if this is the correct template, but it does seem like the eventual protection status of this article isn't needed anymore. I therefore propose unprotected, normal status for it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This page isn't protected, not since 2015; requests for lowering protection go at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   It seems it can't be moved, though? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it is move protected; since the protecting admin is inactive you'd go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level and ask there for reduction. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for unprotecteded, normal status