Talk:Institute of the Incarnate Word

message: Christophegarcia1972: As an earlier contributer stated, the claims that Carlos Buela didn't found IVE are unsupported. In fact, the links that YOU ADDED to this article explicitly contradict your claim.
Christophegarcia1972: If you are who I think you are, I know that you are a former IVE priest with an anti-IVE agenda. According to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, you should not be editing this page.
71.178.69.218 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: As far as I understand, the founder stepped down in 199 and 2010 plus the IVE was investigated by the vatican. Such things may or may not be a negative judgement but they are important. The timeline is nice but it includes unimportant events (one more parish in the States) while skipping other key ones (the Vatican investigation).
As well, there is not a single reference, even to the IVE site.
You can read my profile, I am a member of a religious community that doesn't have a perfect history (the Legion of Christ) and I am not out to bash the IVE. I think that having a WP:NPOV page will only help. As it is now, I personally would not trust this page and seek other sources.
Can somebody please clean this up? I don't have time right now. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci)  14:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV / Reliable Source Issues 

message: Dear IVE supporters. I understand your zeal but this is not your website so you need to follow the rules:
1. Few if any external links to your site in the article.
2. Include controversies
3. Don't get carried away about secondary things like running 1-2 parishes in country X or how Fr Buela did something the same day as JP2. Those may have meaning for you but not for Wikipedia.
4. If you want help, write on my talk page. I too am a religious who checks my community's page but I know what WP:NPOV means. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci)  16:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IVE supporters: please stop 

message: When "controversies" are published, and their only supporting evidence are bloggers who think they know what is going on or minor newspaper outlets who prematurely report on non-conclusive investigations, then those "controversies" are really examples of defamation. A good reputation should be the first thing guarded, and not NPOV. There needs to be some serious discernment regarding what is a credible news source and what is not.Cbetheridge (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are not permissible as reliable sources. Newspapers are. Wikipedia has no obligation (beyond the policy of WP:BLP) to "guard a good reputation" of any organization. We simply report what is available in reliable secondary sources, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Institute of the Incarnate Word. 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/20160329083548/http://www.vostokmedia.com/n279632.html to http://www.vostokmedia.com/n279632.html
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) 23:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Under "Government of the Institute" it appears that Buela was in charge until 1994, when he was succeeded by Solari. Yet both CNS , and CNA  say Buela retired in 2010. Manannan67 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation please