Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 9

message: You're going to have to help us to achieve neutrality  and encyclopeidity here.
*You can't stop other's from editing , anonymous, pro -Iglesias and anti Iglesias.
*Stop attacking each other whethere they be anonymous, filipinos, pro-Iglesias, Christians or not.
*You can't post doctrines. eg. You can't say INC was established by Jesus. You can say however, INC professes to be established by Jesus.  
*Please compare wordings with other denominations. Eventually somebody is going to do it. (Me?)
*Divide et impera.Divide and conquer.Break up arguments and try to put these to a vote:
;INC is a Christian religion
*Agree  --  Raul
*Disagree -  Frederick
;INC was established by Jesus Christ
*Agree  --  Raul
*Disagree -  Frederick
--Jondel 02:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jondel, your assistance in making this article closer to NPOV and more informative is appreciated.--Ironbrew 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your assistance is also highly appreciated. Actually I've been trying to see if a consensus based article could be achieved. Eventually those who want to argue , stop and then contributers can work. It would be better if the concerned already create a neutral encyclopedic article based on the procedure above. --Jondel 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been attempted in the past, but a lack of trust and disputes over semantics scuttled the project. The key to making a project like this successful is by having all main contributors adhere to Wikipedia rules regarding POV, neutrality and mutual respect.--Ironbrew 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I do hope this gets resolved. Hear that guys? It is up to the participants(you) to develop mutual respect. Else an impasse. I believe a neutral article can be achieved , acceptable to both. I hope we get there and move on.   --Jondel 05:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality suggestions

message: I have reinstated the link to the "Unofficial Site of the Iglesia ni Cristo" in the link section, as well as deleted the Neutrality Dispute tag above the criticism section until that contributor offers us an explanation. Let me make it clear that my contributions are in good faith and if anyone has any disputes with them, make your case here instead of resorting to edit wars and flames. --Ironbrew 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But why put the link back, isn't it a farse? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This one isn't a farce to my knowledge, it is the one at http://incworld.faithweb.com with a listing of debates between INC members and members of other faiths. I believe you might be thinking about Iglesianicristo.us which is the spoof site.--Ironbrew 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're talking about that one. I thought you meant the INC.US one. It's cool --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building Consensus, part II 

message: I was thinking about this for some time now, and I dont' see a reason not to to do this. The INC article should be cleared out of all it's unsourced content, and I'll be bold and do so. 
After all, the article is controvercial and it must be verifiable. I know this will not go well with many editors, because it wipes out work we all (including myself) have done over the past year. But it would help make the article more on track with the Arbitration Committee's verdict. Once we find a source which can be easily verified (as in read by everybody, such as God's Message articles) which cover the subject, then we can add it confidently. What this will do is avoid edit wars, since the evidence is right there. In order for this article to go forward, we must look for Verifiability, not truth. Of course, there's the other policies which must be followed. I'm aware of them, and I'll try my best to follow them. For reference and such, I'll post the previous version at Iglesia ni Cristo/Workshop. ---LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Forked from Archive 8.
I found a better solution which will help all of us. I deleted all the unsourced information off the article. None of us can verify the information on it ourselves, and it is not our job to do so. We (are supposed to) do research based on published material, and summarize it on an article. At the beginning of our argument Starbucks said something about citing the Pasugo. This article needs to be sourced, or we won't know what's accurate or not. The message that was at the top of the article already stated the article was not reliable. It's now time to dig into our Pasugos and God's Messages and look up where the information of the doctorines and worship service practices are, if we're going to put it back on the article with no dispute. Read this from the verifibility policy:
"Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you?". --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> (forked by LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major article content purge. 

message: The article is locked for 48 hours, so the revert wars may stop, and actual improvements to the article may begin. There's a couple of issues that have been brought up, which need consensus.
* The Insiders web page claims to be a group of INC members who have problems with the administration. One issue from this stems from it's verifibility. The site is a Tripod website, which has no associated forum for other "insiders" to communicate. I haven't seen any other reference to this group other than a link to this site. It may be created by one person (who is either inside or outside INC) who wants to make it look like there's a whole group who agrees with his or her ideas. When the article opens again, should the reference to them be removed since there's no verifible evidence of the "insiders" as a group?
* User:Jondel stated we not post the doctorines in their exact from. I think we should add something to the article which explains what INC belives in, but be understandable to everyone who reads it. How are we to do this? See Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive07#Changes on 21 August.
* DJ Clayworth already brought the issue of the crits section in regards to NPOV.
* Is there a chart in any INC publication which is available to the general public which explains the Heirarchy of INC?
* Should the INC doxology have any part in the Doxology article, and how?
* Any other concerns about improving the article itself?
* Should the "Unofficial site of INC", the faithweb link, be deleted because it's title can be deceptive?
* Should round up all the INC related articles in a new :category:Iglesia ni Cristo?
===comment===
Comment, I would like some idea or sample of the doxology. What makes INC different from Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Judaism, etc?  If Jesus is not as significant, is the new testament still significant or authoratative?  How about Heaven, Hell, ? Does the Crucifixtion guarantee salvation or not according to INC? Did Jesus have to die for us then? What about INCs stand on abortion, priesthood, reincarnation,purgatory, euthanasia, grace by works or faith? Judgement day? Doctrinal Dialogue with the Catholic  church. This is not to critize but a sincere request. I don't want to be misunderstood about not posting the exact form. The reason behind is that wikipedia can not be used as a platform for evangelism or propaganda. But for references, the stand or position of INC with respect to these other issues need to be addressed. Just like the position of other religous or ideoligical groups need to be referenced.    --Jondel 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of the doxology could be found at Talk:Doxology, although they're not cited. There's a lot of differences which I can't explain here. One of the best things is to look through the talk page archives, mostly archive 6 and 7. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be digging up past discussions then proposing article changes here.--Jondel 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions? 

message: Comment, I would like some idea or sample of the doxology. What makes INC different from Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Judaism, etc?  If Jesus is not as significant, is the new testament still significant or authoratative?  How about Heaven, Hell, ? Does the Crucifixtion guarantee salvation or not according to INC? Did Jesus have to die for us then? What about INCs stand on abortion, priesthood, reincarnation,purgatory, euthanasia, grace by works or faith? Judgement day? Doctrinal Dialogue with the Catholic  church. This is not to critize but a sincere request. I don't want to be misunderstood about not posting the exact form. The reason behind is that wikipedia can not be used as a platform for evangelism or propaganda. But for references, the stand or position of INC with respect to these other issues need to be addressed. Just like the position of other religous or ideoligical groups need to be referenced.    --Jondel 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of the doxology could be found at Talk:Doxology, although they're not cited. There's a lot of differences which I can't explain here. One of the best things is to look through the talk page archives, mostly archive 6 and 7. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be digging up past discussions then proposing article changes here.--Jondel 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: There's a post at the Unitarian talk page by User:Mkmcconn who suggested that INC would fit the Nontrinitarian description instead. How about that term? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The last edit by  24.199.136.150 concedes that INC is also unitarian.--Jondel 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nontrinitarian]]