Jump to content

Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

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)

  • 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)
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)

Talking of references: one of the newspaper articles cited led to reference to a recent, nonreligious, academically respectable source. Might be useful, if anyone can find it:

Robert R. Reed The Iglesia ni Cristo, 1914-2000; From obscure Philippine faith to global belief system, BKI 157-3 (2001):561-608.

BKI is Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) - Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania. See here and here. Tearlach 13:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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)
I have now ordered a copy. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have today received a copy of the book. At a first glance the article seems to be thoroughly researched and extensively referenced. Its tone is one of strong admiration for INC and I imagine its author to be a member of the church. I have no problem with this perspective; it is clear from the editor's repeated use of the word "founder" to describe Manalo that he is not a church member so we can assume that he is comfortable with factual accuracy of the article. I will come back to this when I have read the article with care. —Theo (Talk) 21:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes on 21 August

Thank you, Coffeemaker, for your extensive changes today. I have copy edited for a variety of reasons. I restored the three deleted "beliefs" because I think it useful to have the single coherent summary even where they are addressed in more detail elsewhere. I found it hard to believe that a main focus of the sermon is comparison with other churches; I have left this in but is it really true? The inclusion of the long section on the Bible lessons felt like too much detail for this article and I am concerned that it may violate copyright; I have moved it to Iglesia ni Cristo/Fundamental beliefs so that we do not lose it while we discuss this. I have added the book as a ==Reference==. —Theo (Talk) 19:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the 27 lesson titles for the same reason. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Is that reason too much detail or copyright violation? Coffeemaker 20:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Too much detail. Besides, isn't most of the lesson titles covered in the doctorines area? I feel it would be repeating the same information twice. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I restored the "Iglesia ni Cristo Central Office" wiki. I don't see why there could not be an separate article about it in the furture. The New Era university has its own article. Coffeemaker 21:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There was an article a few months ago. But it was merged into the main INC article because there either wasn't enough information to warrant its own article. If the article is returned, I'd seriously doubt it reaching above stub status. Unlike the NEU article, which covers as a educational facility, the central office is centered only around the administrative operations of INC, which makes it best as a section on the INC article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with LBMixPro. I believe that anything said about Central Office is too integral a part of the Church administration to be covered elsewhere. The University has a significance outside the Church because it coexists in the world of academe. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I just thought given their obsession with real estate and their large membership there might be a glossy feature article in it. But that would be vanity. How about a picture in central office section? Coffeemaker 20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with a picture. Please be careful to respect copyright. I think it will be very difficult to offer a fair use defence on a picture of a building. —Theo (Talk) 21:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom final decision

A reminder: As a result of the Arbitration Committee's final decision, The person who owns User:Emico is no longer allowed to edit any INC related article until August 21, 2006 (pending appeal or mentorship granted by ArbCom). As well, the person who owns User:Onlytofind is banned from editing WP until 19:52 UTC August 28, 2005, and Emico is now banned from editing WP until 19:52 UTC Monday. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a way we can improve the look of the infobox? It looks so bland compared to any other one I've seen at WP. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Or better yet, can we convert it into its own article? -LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
A separate article makes sense. Presumably each of the roles merits a brief description. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I like the infobox. But can we trim it down to only the english translations? After all, this is en.wikipedia.org. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

New category

Does anybody here feel we should add a new category called "Iglesia ni Cristo", to organize the INC related articles? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

How many such articles are there? If it is less than six, I feel a category would be unnecessary. —Theo (Talk) 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
We have five. The INC article, FYM, his two sons, and New Era University. If we decide to convert the infobox into an article, we'll have six. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, this does not merit a category because each article is linked from this main article. —Theo (Talk) 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of the Blog

Moved to Category talk:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Emico#Forked from Talk:Iglesia Ni Cristo.23Deletion of the Blog

I think Emico's back again

Check out Special:Contributions/Starbucks and Talk:Eduardo_V._Manalo--Ironbrew 09:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


Article size and the Crits section

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)

To 160.36.8.109

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)

All the recent ip number posters seem to use open http proxies except this one. Open proxies: 203.223.42.9, 80.68.53.169, 142.179.200.121. Coffeemaker 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • By the writing style, I am 100% convinced this is Emico trying to circumvent the ban by using the open proxy system. This article needs to be locked and Emico permanently banned from editing anything religious on Wikipedia. I will report this to the arbitrators.--Ironbrew 05:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

How can we make the Criticism section more neutral?

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)

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)
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)

Should we lock this article?

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)

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 [[1]] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

ATTENTION!: Changes on September 19th 2005.

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 194.143.190.8 (talk · contribs) 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)

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)
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)

Evidence of Onlytofind/Ironbrew sockpuppet

The similarities of post pattern and grammar are undeniable. These will be part of this article. You cat deny it all you want, your post will reveal you sooner or later:

  • 1.
    • Remove the plank, Glenn, remove the plank!--Onlytofind 4 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
    • (cur) (last) 06:27, 20 September 2005 Ironbrew (Take out the plank from your eye.)
  • 2.
    • (cur) (last) 18:30, 21 June 2005 Onlytofind (I'm not allowing Emico to wrest control of this page)
    • (cur) (last) 07:43, 21 September 2005 Ironbrew (→From religious groups -I'm not going to let advocacy paralyze this article)
  • 3.
    • it seems that you and Emico will stop at nothing to stop me from editing this page because I do not agree with your personal beliefs. We are going into arbitration, there's no doubt about that. Just remember that it's been you and Emico creating most of the discord on this page and your history, as well as other Wikipedians will prove it.--Onlytofind 22:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)


  • 4.
    • I've already apologized for what I've done earlier, and right now, the evidence greatly stands against your claim of INC members trying to take this article towards neutrality. Would you claim that Emico's contributions are beneficial for this article? Or that Glenn Cessor is being fair when he disparages other religions on the talk page? How about you accusing me of hatred against the INC when I have contributed both positive and negative information, all provable by many sources?--Onlytofind 21:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Browsing the edit history of this article, it seems many INC members take this view towards the article. I'm especially concerned about the lack of neutrality towards other religions from their edits.--Ironbrew 08:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice analysis. Even though the editing styles are different, I cannot deny the attitude Ironbrew has between himself and Emico is very similar to the one Onlytofind held. But why isn't this on the ArbCom page? Yet alone written by someone with a username? If this you Emico, you can still post everywhere else on Wikipedia, including that ArbCom request page. You are not completely banned. Just log in under your original account, copy what's written here, take it to the restriction violaton section of your ArbCom page. From there, we'll see what the arbitrators have to say. How difficult is that? But what's got me here is why would someone fight so hard just so Onlytofind gets his one week ban renewed? Even if ArbCom finds Ironbrew as Onlytofind's sockpuppet, and we find no more edits which fit Onlytofind's style and attitude within a week of finding out, then Emico will have nothing on Ironbrew. By the way, where is Ealva and Glenn? I haven't seen them here in a while...--LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I AM NOT EMICO!! And you answered your own questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.4.42 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Questions still not answered:
--LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Emico has been identified by TheoClarke as AypeeESME and Starbucks even though he has denied ownership of those usernames. It also interests me as to how an editor with such advanced knowledge of Wikipedia doesn't have a username. Why don't you just admit you are Emico and ask Theo about mentorship? --Ironbrew 05:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Take out the plank from your eye. Onlytofind posting as Ironbrew in violation of a ban on him for namecalling; "Emico is an INC zealot ... POV-pushing and belligerence.... His efforts been pushed on by other INC sympathizers.--Ironbrew 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.4.107 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm beginning to suspect LBMixPro is a sockpuppet of Ironbrew. or vice versa. or something... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.4.42 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If the orange bar on the top of your screen didn't remind you before, I have sent you a message. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Contrary to popular belief(sic), I'm not a sysop, any nomination would be appreciated though. -from lbmixpro's user page.
  • I would love to see you as a sysop for the Wikipedia. --Onlytofind 05:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.4.107 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Could you please tell me what's going to be on tomorrow's episode of The Mysterious Poster? Is this the one where I'm going to be accused of being (gasp!) Emico's sockpuppet? ;)--Ironbrew 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fork article in Pro and Contra ?

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. [2]
What do you think ? Coffeemaker 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps you should be telling yourself that, Emico.--Ironbrew 06:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully, we're back on track now.

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)

Posting INC's Doxology lyrics

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo/Archive_7&oldid=95812032"