Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 2

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)
thread_title: Con link removal vote (Closed)

message: Consensus is in favor of the reducing the con section to three links. Three say remove one link, two say keep one link for each category and two say keep as is. The decision to reduce the con section stands, and I'll now remove the Con link to Bereans. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
* The forums should be removed, there is a majority vote to remove them. Besides, they're not authoritative and mostly garbage is posted there. --Emico 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

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)
thread_title: Discussion

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)
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... 

message: Anybody care to merge the info from INC's central office article to the central office sub section here? I mean, that notice looks ugly on the page. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't know how to merge information, but I've already integrated the information into that section. Would it be OK to delete the notice now, or is there something else to be done so that the Central Office page reverts to this article?--Onlytofind 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  INC central office 

message: I quote from Rlquall left on my user talk page:
"Apparently I am the only admin (to date) with a great interest in the INC article. As previously stated, I am neither a member nor a former member of this group, but rather someone interested in learning truthful and objective facts about it and other Christian-related groups (and other religious bodies, for that matter). I think that our problem here results from some followers, whom I will give the benefit of the doubt as being well-meaning, whose world-view is so shaped by that of their church that they see it as The One True Path to Heaven, and feel that this viewpoint is no longer a point of faith but rather a matter of fact. From this perspective, everything about the church is good and any dissent or questioning is evil. (Of course I don't know because I don't know you, but assume that this attitude was at least part of the reason for your being a former member). We will continue to work on this as practicable, as time permits. Of course, I do have other interests besides Wikipedia (everyone should remember that we on the admin side are getting paid exactly what you are for your contributions) and also Wikipedia interests other than the INC article. That having been said, I'll see what I can do. If you can attract the interest of admins of higher status and longer standing than I, please involve them as well." Rlquall 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we can never reach consensus regarding this article 

message: I question the motivation and intention of Onlytofind and lbmixpro with regards to their entries on the following articles Iglesia ni Cristo, Felix Manalo, Erano Manalo, Eduardo Manalo and Bereans. They colluded to get around Wikipedia rules. Emico 15:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation and Intention 

message: No verifiable source for the contents of this article. The intention and motivation of the contributors is suspect. Beware of misinformation. Emico 16:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   No Verifiable source cited 

message: I created a specific section about the INC's missionary activities, and went into each of them in detail--Onlytofind 19:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created Missionary Activity section 

message: www.iglesianicristo.us looks a well-presented and informative Pro link. How about a trade-off: add this to the Pro, and the Anne Harper to the Con? (I should add, in case the address rings alarm bells, that it used to be an anti- site, but is under new ownership). RayGirvan 02:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: INC link found

message: I'm  tired of your constant whining when you don't get what you want. I see this behavior in 5-year olds and it gets old very quickly. Add to this whining is the baiting, not only of those you disagree with but also with those sympathetic to you. This is to align support for your next step of threats. In my opinion, you are manipulating the system and the users/contributors to further your own agenda. Your overzealousness for this and related articles is cause enough to suspect your intention. --Emico 14:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A point I have to take with Onlytofind 

message: The link's appropriate and useful. I don't think it should be suppressed. There was no consensus to restrict the number of links about this organisation. Controversial organisations are going to tend to have a fair bit written about them, not always positive. If Emico wants to put the link with the Cons, then he should do so, but he ought not to try to suppress it. Grace Note 02:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few voted for "2 pro and 3 con".  One interpretation of the vote is that they felt that a small disparity was acceptable but not 4 to 2.  As we have more links on the pro side then it is arguable that to increase the cons is accptable.  If those who voted for the middle position are still around I'd be interested to know how they feel their vote should be interpreted.Dejvid 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The Ann Harper link is not a polemic and to the exetent it critisizes it spends as much time critisizing evangelicas as the INC.Dejvid 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Have you read the the Ann Harper article?  The source is not neutral, that's true.  However it is not writen to persuade INC members but to show how her fellow evangelicals have been qui9te counterproductive (in her opinion) in their dealings with the church.  Along the way she is quite informantive about the church.Dejvid 17:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The purpose of this paper...reassess our apologetic and evangelistic approach to this group. --Emico 17:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly, Emico. The paper is written to evangelical Christians in order to get them to change their attitude. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also. As I've said before, despite its overall purpose, it's the single most informative document I've seen on the subject, and of vastly higher quality of research and analysis than the polemic elsewhere. It should go in for that reason alone. As is being suggested, I've replaced one of the Con links with it: Let Us Reason is nothing of the sort, just a theological rant. RayGirvan 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  Then add it to the Evangelicals article, not here. The INC's here have been more than gracious for even discussing it. It's a tutorial for evangelizing INC members, it does not belong here. --Emico 17:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever its origin, it contains useful and interesting info about the INC. If INC published a manual on how to evangelise others, then I would suggest making a link to it here. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Useful information such as? Let me pick the simplest one I can find:Members are not to read the bible for themselves. Aside from being false, it makes the INC sound controlling. Which is totally untrue. --Emico 18:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit swivelling. How many times have you put "Consider replacing one of the other con links" in your Edit summaries? It's done - and now you don't like it. Read WP:NPOV#Religion. As long as there's fair statement of what believers do believe, articles are allowed (and expected) to  include external views of the same subject. RayGirvan 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What looks like swivelling to you is really me trying to maintain harmony that was on this article for a short time until someone started breaking the concensus. All of this could have been avoided if not for the selfishness of some.  --Emico 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link warring 

message: "However this is not the point. Even if you believe that the Trinity is wrong, an article about a group that does believe it is the wrong place to explain why it is wrong. DJ Clayworth 02:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: gcessor is indeed taking what I said entirely wrongly. I said what I said about the Trinity because the article in question was not about the Trinity. In an article about the Trinity it would be reasonable - no, essential - to present different views about it. In an article about INC it is equally essential to present different views about INC - positive or negative. DJ Clayworth 13:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But their rejection of the trinity is what makes the INC stand out.  The article does need some space on their reasons for rejecting the trinity. Dejvid 15:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of INC I would agree. However my comment was about the Bereans, who accept the Trinity, and therefore don't stand out on this regard at all. I'd have no trouble with putting in some of the reasons for the INC rejecting the Trinity, as long as it didn't become a lecture. Plus the INC's reasons aren't that different from the Mormons or JWs. DJ Clayworth 17:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  You forgot to mention the bible. Unlike other religions, the INC's sole basis for it's doctrines is the bible.  --Emico 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the Bible interpreted by the INC administration. Many religions adhere to a bible-only doctrinal system, hence the term Sola Scriptura. --Onlytofind 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Many Christian denominations take the Bible as their sole source of authority and doctrine. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article needs cultural context of this sort. The INC believes in its uniqueness, external observers claim similarities with other religions (for instance, its non-trinitarian and Sola Scriptura basis very much resembles Biblical Unitarianism in many respects). Those viewpoints should both be mentioned. RayGirvan 19:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A good statement by DJ Clayworth