Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo

Protocol: Read this first!

Welcome to Wikipedia's Iglesia ni Cristo article talk page. This article is about a controversial subject and feelings often run high around it. Because of this, please take particular care to avoid personal attack or personal criticism here. If you want to say anything about an editor please do it at that editor's talk page.

Please also refer to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles for information about dealing with articles like this one. For all new editors to the article, please read Wikipedia's site policies (This policy about religion in particular) and talk page guidelines. These will be strictly enforced! Any contribution which fits in the rules of Wikipedia are most welcome, as this article is edited by supporters and opponents of INC, as well as editors who have neither view of it. No matter what their view of the church is, the article must be of a Neutural Point of View. Wikipedia is not a tool for advocacy of any kind.

All anonymous edits to the article which do not conform to Wikipedia's policies will be reverted mercilessly and all violations to wiki ettiquette will be ignored, removed or reported to Wikipedia administration. Avoid treating this talk page as a general discussion forum.

Archives

00:52, 1 April 2005 Archive 1 (3 January 2005 to 30 April 2005): Archive 2 (30 April 2005 to 17 June 2005): Archive 3 (17 June 2005 to 1 July 2005): Archive 4 (23 June 2005 to 7 July 2005): Archive 5 (10 July 2005 to 12 August 2005): Archive 6 (12 August 2005 to 19 August 2005): Archive 7 (August 20, 2005 to October 20, 2005) Archive 8 (October 20, 2005 to November 17, 2005) Archive 9 (November 17, 2005 to November 28, 2005) Archive 10 (December 13, 2005 to July 20, 2006) Archive 11 (July 21, 2006 to October 19, 2007) Archive 12 (Next to start)

Resources

• /summary - This is a barebones summary for use in initiating articles in other languages. Please do not expand. Please feel free to add only bare essential information.
• /Workshop - This is where substantial edits are being made before being moved to the main article.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo article has been clearly manipulated in order to serve as a free advertisement tool to the member of this religious organization. I think that the entire article should be simplified indicating the basic information about the topic.

First, i suggest eliminate any adverse comparison to other religions (this is an encyclopaedia article and not a comparative assay.

Second, eliminate any weasel sentences, which are unnecessary for the integrity of the article, and Third, eliminate any sentences that does not have external reference source

G51b7 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

December 2009

Cult

Ang Dating Daan is listed as being a "cult" because they do not believe in the trinity, why is the INC page not also listed as a "cult" for the same reason? Can we please include this? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No! It is very wrong for you to make judgments like that. Let us be clear. The Cult listing is in terms of religious doctrine. Not in a social /civic sense. Else you should list Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any other non-trinity religion/organization etc as cult. Btw I went to the Dating Daan article and could not find the cult listing. Please respect other religions and freedom of religion.--Jondel (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you need to double check, it has been changed again by INC members to list it as a cult, since they are both branches of the same religion the INC should be listed a cult, as it does not recognize the trinity

Where? I used Find and the 'cult' brings me to 'Philippine culture right away.--Jondel (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism does not have a heaven/hell and have references to jesus, there for it is not a Christian religion and is not defined as a cult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, you are saying that in terms of 'Christian religion', INC is a 'cult' ?--Jondel (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So I went to the Ang Dating Daan page. It is a radio program for the Member's Church of God International(another headache for neutrality police). Look, these are internal 'family' quarrels. Cult labels should be removed for both unless, these organizations harass or harm individuals and (Philippine)society, psychologically, physically, through embezlements, etc. --Jondel (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's some input from the lead section of the Cult article: "

Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister. [...] The popular, derogatory sense of the term has no currency in academic studies of religions, where "cults" are subsumed under the neutral label of "new religious movement", while academic sociology has partly adopted the popular meaning of the term." The Cult checklist article also has some possibly relevant info. AFAICS, this article does not currently refer to INC as a cult except to mention titles of a couple of critical books and articles which use that term. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Any church or group that rejects the trinity is a cult , Per the wikipedia page " The organization does not believe in the Trinity, nor that the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Biblical.[21][22][23]" Falls under a cult, as the link listed below explains, the article uses "weasel words" to get out of it. http://www.thebereans.net/prof-inc.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line if Members of Church of God International are listed as a cult, than So should Iglesia Ni Cristo. Since Church of god international is a break away from the INC. Both reject the trinity, and either both should be listed as cults, or the word "cult" should be removed from the Members of church of god international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So islam is a cult? just because it rejects the trinity teaching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.136.185 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Deputy Executive Minister

I'm probably the only contributor here currently in the INC (regretfully), but it has been declared that Eduardo V. Manalo is the defacto current leader of the Iglesia ni Cristo by virtue of succession with him being Deputy Executive Minister which is part of the Iglesia ni Cristo's line of succession. It is widely expected for him to take over, but in the meantime, he is the acting leader of the church until the position of Executive Minister is declared by the Church.--Ironbrew (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"declared" and "de facto"? a bit of a contradiction of terms aren't they? can you cite your source? thanks. Conrad940 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that I'm a member of the INC and you're not, Emico? And you need to read that sentence again. As far as I'm concerned, I removed Erano's name because a dead man cannot be the leader of any organization.--Ironbrew (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

you're obviously making things up. "declared defacto"? And who's Emico? And since you're a self proclaimed member of this church your edits could either be biased for or against this article and should be examined with a good deal of suspicion. Conrad940 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh...may I humbly propose a better compromise here so that the edits you've recently made won't look like an edit war.

Take a look at how the Mormons did it on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. The infobox says the founder is simply Joseph Smith, Jr. but it also includes a reference, which contains an actual reference to a reliable source material (in this case, a book). Nothing is elaborated on the infobox because, to begin with, the discussion about how the LDS was founded is already in the article.

So...you may want to write something as simple as this on the Infobox:

Founder = Felix Y. Manalo

add the founding/registration (I don't know which should be it) date in the same manner as the LDS article:

Origin = July 27, 1914

and in any of these, add a reference that says something like:

July 27, 1914, was the date Felix Manalo registered the church with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, INC doctrine holds that Jesus Christ founded the church. Please see the article for more information.

Then add the information on the article itself, if it's not there. So that none of your edits will come off as original research to other disinterested readers (i.e. non-INC or non-Filipino readers), please make sure it's properly sourced.

Note that I didn't mention "Biblical times", because the mention of Jesus Christ would already imply that. If one of you insist that it should be included, please do so on the article body, not on the Infobox. The Infobox, as far as I know it, is meant to summarize important facts about the article, not discuss it; that's what the article itself is for.

I was tempted to do this myself, but thought of first posting it here, so that both of you can come up with a more reasonable compromise. Since it appears that both of you are in a position to know better about the topic, please work it out between yourselves on this Talk page. Reminders, please be civil, and please refrain from getting a little personal. The discussion should be limited to improving the article. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and try it. it should be better than the obvious unsourced, POV and original research of Ironbrew Conrad940 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i really suggest making a new article about this one. let us make this factual and unbiased. ironbrew i could give you some idea if you want and conrad. i don't know why this topic is so emotional. when we could make it more educational and informational. lynx3007 —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Official website of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.

http://incmedia.org/incms/ - Seeking the right path "Watch & Listen"...

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.75.68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 

There is a link

• www.churchofchrist.tk - Home of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
• www.gemnet.tv - View news of INC Events and watch livestreaming of INC Programming
• Net25 - Feed Your Mind - "Net 25 is the free TV channel of Eagle Broadcasting Corporation (EBC), a pioneering broadcast institution in the Philippines."
• DZEC1062 - Live audio stream.

Why there is no official website of the INC? Knock knock a wake up call to the Church Administration there are many misleading websites that say they are the official website of the INC. Please take notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the INC to have their own website? It's none of our business, besides, you already said that there are many made up INC official websites, so I don't think it's necessary for the INC to make one. The important thing is you know for a fact that this websites are misleading.

For me, this page of wikipedia about the Iglesia ni Cristo is not necessary, if anyone want's to know about the Iglesia ni Cristo, feel free to visit their local church nearest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.203 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful for the INC to have their own website as it may help spread correct information about the church. Simply my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.5.113 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability /Other languages/Rationale

The main rationale is the same as for example, say 'Arnis' . It is a Filipino phenomena or part of (our)the Filipino society and culture. If the Mormons, Latter day saints, Buddhism etc have articles on their their religions then there should be one on Iglesia. This also the reason why it should be translated to other languages. So that other foreigners/countries know about the religion/s (we,) Filipinos have here. How do you expect for example, a Frenchman, not knowing English, to know about Iglesia. Also whether it is a cult or not should come from a civil judge or recognized civil authority. --Jondel (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an Iglesia member. My stance is neutral.--Jondel (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI

I have not seen any edits or editors that qualify under WP:COI guidelines. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sermonizing capitalizations

looking through this article, I was struck by the large number of incongruous capitalizations. The article seems to be presented in what might be termed "serimonization mode". Capitalization style in this article appears to be noncompliant with WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents. One illustrative sentence: "These Executive Ministers leads the Church to the way of true Salvation and to let every member of the Church be one/united, to guide every member who experience problems as he/she face's the world, to make sure that every Church member will attain the promise Salvation as according to their teachings until the day of Judgment." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Death

I removed that chunk explaining at length INC doctrine about death since this isn't the place for indoctrination.Squidvillanueva (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think there are many other places where the article can be tightened but I leave this up to better editors (as well as reverting what I undid should it be decided thus).Squidvillanueva (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to explain details of the INC dogma, but they should be sourced to specific, verifiable documents, preferably independent secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Denial of "Whore" and "Beast" Allegation Really Necessary?

"Keating criticized the Iglesia ni Cristo for believing that the Whore of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church and that the Beast of Revelation is the Pope, a belief shared with other Christian religious organizations,[87][88] and an assertion which the Catholic Church denies."

I would recommend dropping "and an assertion which the Catholic Church denies."

I mean, can't we at least take for granted that the RCC does not regard itself as a whore, or its leader a beast?

As the passage stands, it sounds like something they would run in the Onion.

Ultimatum

Please provide appropriate sourcing on this article, or I will start deleting whole unsourced paragraphs on May 1. The "cleanup" and "weasel words" tags have been there since September 2009. Many passages in the article are based on own research, as far as I could tell. Source them, please, or they will be deleted.

I don't want to be a bully, but Wikipedia should be encyclopedic, and entries should not be based on own knowledge of the writer. Mvching (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section

There appears to he a bit of an edit war in progress about the addition of a section headed Controversies with cite-supported content. Anonymous users have repeatedly added the content, and User:Conrad940 has repeatedly deleted the content with edit summaries saying "unverifiable google source" and "photoshopped source".

The supporting sources cited in the candidate content cites the following items as supporting sources:

A. University of Manila Journal Of East Asiatic Studies The Iglesia Ni Kristo: A Study, Julita Reyes-Sta.Romana Articles from the Philippine Magazine Vol. IV, No. 3 July, 1955, p. 428

B. part 1 Photocopy of the Bombshell Newspaper: “Felix Manalo Angel or Sex Maniac?, October 21, 1954”

C. part 2 Photocopy of the Bombshell Newspaper: “Felix Manalo Angel or Sex Maniac? October 21, 1954”

D. Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. By Ongsotto, Et Al, p. 165

Item A Appears to be a legitimate verifiable source.

Items B and C do not appear to me to have been photoshopped, but neither my opinion nor the opinion of other Wikipedia editors regarding this carry any weight. The images are hosted at imageshack.us, which does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source. Those images appear to have been copied from Behind the Iglesia Ni Cristo’s King Maker Role: A Chain of Crimes and Mythical Numbers, January 30, 2009, phillipgarcia at wordpress.com, also apparently not a reliable source. These items appear to be images of pages from the September 29, 1954 issue of a weekly tablod named "The Bombshell" and may or may not be verifiable, but my guess is that even if the cited item is verified, that tabloid probably would not be regarded as a reliable source.

Item D is probably better cited as something along the lines of

• Ongsotto, Rebecca Ramilo; Ongsotto, Reena R. (2002). "Module Six : Second Phase of Contemporary Philippine History". Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. Rex Bookstore, Inc. pp. 164-165. ISBN 9789712334498.

The book appears to be a textbook on Philippine history. Its Introduction says that the book presents a comprehensive narration of events in the history of the Philippines. This appears to be a verifiable source which is acceptable to be published as an expression of the opinions of the authors, to be given due weight along with other similarly prominent opinions.

Via this google search, I've located several possibly verifiable sources with more information regarding this. Unfortunately, none of those sources are viewable online.

I have not found it online but, from references to it which I have seen, the case of People versus Trillanes, published in the Official Gazette, Volume I, No. 1, July 1954, p. 394, docketed as Case No. 8180, April 21, 1942 may be instructive.

Perhaps some of the above might be useful in resolving this edit war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Wtmitchell's assessment. I'd add, just to make it explicit, that sources do not need to appear in Google in order to qualify. The same editors are also warring at Felix Manalo. I have warned both of them about 3RR and will block if necessary. Instead of edit warring, they should use the talk page to work out a consensus version.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The entries seriously besmirch the character of the the subject Mr Felix Manalo and the church he preached Iglesia ni Cristo. Can you vouch for the anonymous writer that the entries were 1. accurate as per source and 2. were not taken out of context? Use you best judgement. If this is yours, tells a lot about you. Conrad940 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't vouch for anybody. But let's focus on the issue at hand, whether the sources are reliable, and whether they say what they're purported to say. The Journal Of East Asiatic Studies would appear to be a highly reliable scholarly source. Does anyone have access to it?   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

you said "Does anyone have access to it?"! Exactly my point! By threatening to ban me because I reverted an unverified entry detrimental to the character of the subject you are party to the libel. Shouldn't we err to the side of caution and first verify the accuracy of such damaging accusation before allowing it? I'm not censoring, just be fair. Conrad940 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the references used in the article are not accessible to everyone via the Internet. That alone is not a determining factor. We're not here top besmirch the history of the INC and Manalo, but we're not here to whitewash it either. Our just here is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. At a minimum, we can all read the Google copy of Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. By Ongsotto, Et Al, p. 165 It says that Manalo was accused of immorality, and so lost some followers. The loss of followers makes it relevant to this article. Also note that the Philippine History book contains just a short history of the INC, so the fact that this is mentioned indicates it's significant. Can Conrad suggest better sources to cover this matter?   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Not here to besmirch" and yet you allow unverified entries doing precisely that. Whitewash is when you try to cover up something bad. Except you have to know that the 'bad' is true to whitewash it. Otherwise it's not whitewash correct? So it looks like the only verifiable source is Ongsotto and therefore I will edit the entry to reflect that. Do you agree? Conrad940 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are all kinds of things in this article and the bio that I haven't verified. As for the text you added, I don't see why you wrote "supposedly". That seems to be a non-neutral term which casts doubt on the assertion. See WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, purported, alleged. We could add it to every assertion in the article, so it's unhelpful. Also, a minor point: we don't use courtesy titles like "Mr".   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And, re reliable sources, I would disagree about the only verifiable source is Ongsotto. The aforementioned Journal Of East Asiatic Studies is a verifiable source. Not being conveniently verifiable is not the same thing as not being verifiable. BTW, I managed to get a peek at seemingly relevant snippets with [1] and [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Snippets are fine if we're talking about something non consequential, not when were talking about the character of a person living or dead and the degree of seriousness of the claims being leveled against that character. "Supposedly"? Even the authors are not sure of what source they have. The authors are a high school teacher with a degree in literature, not history; and a Mathematics major. It's clear their forte is not history nor investigative journalism. Conrad940 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we limiting sources to those written by history majors? If we want to impeach the source then we should do so directly rather than in a backhanded way by saying "supposedly". For example, we could say, "According to a history textbook written by high school teachers..." As for the snippets, reading the entire article is certainly preferable, but it sounds like Wtmitchell has seen enough of it to confirm that the IP editor was not mis-characterizing the contents.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. Your version is better feel free to add it. If you read the entries of anonymous he didn't even add anything from Ms Ongsotto's book. He added Ms Ongsotto's book as a reference just because it's the only one available online. really funny stuff. Conrad940 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Conrad940, re your comment about snippets, I just mentioned that in passing to illuminate this present discussion a bit. The full text is available in that verifiable source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

got it. Snippets are dangerous and almost always out of context. Conrad940 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what either of us are saying.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if a blog is acceptable but the Filipino Catholic priest and apologist Father Abe Arganiosa has posted the contents of the East Asiatic Journal regarding Manalo THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO 1914. Father Abe Arganiosa is well known Catholic defender and apologist in the Philippines and he has his own TV show in the Philippines. You may contact him in his email http://www.blogger.com/profile/11289042244942397934. He may be able to provide a photocopy of the book for it's veracity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.18.86 (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable in and of themselves. But the underlying source is the journal article. This blog seems to just be reprinting an appendix. At the end it says "The Bombshell, October 21,1954. The author would like to remind the reader that all the typical attacks against Manalo and the Iglesia on these pages are quoted verbatim from the sources indicated in the footnote." So this isn't an excerpt from the body of the journal article. Rather, it appears to be from The Bombshell, a tabloid which probably isn't reliable. So this doesn't really help us.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous, I hope you asked Mr Arganiosa's permission before mentioning his name here. It may not be what he wants. Will the real Mr Arganiosa please comment here and stand behind what he writes on his blog on a bigger stage, so to speak. Conrad940 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There was, some time ago, a full article on controversies related to the InC, although largely covering some of the conflicts between the InC and the Philipine state. If this article is retrievable, I recall that it did cover this topic, and better sourcing may be available. 86.13.28.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Is it really necessary to include this section? Please make Wikipedia more objective and not subjective. Kindly remove the criticism section.

INC's not Unitarian?

In a section on INC's view of the Trinity was this sentence: "The Church opposes the doctrine of the Trinity and is not to be mistaken as to follow the beliefs of Unitarians or Arians who also reject the Trinity as outlined in the Nicene Creed." I've edited it because of the double negative. But I also don't understand how INC's position differs from Unitarianism. There is no explanation and the quote that follows seems to suggest that it is in fact Unitarian. Can someone enlighten? Perhaps a clarifying sentence or two. By the way, I have also tried to clean up some of the wording, especially by removing unneeded words. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, perhaps the original writer meant capital-U Unitarianism. I did find an article on Nontrinitarism that I linked to. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe monotheistic is the correct/better term. Conrad940 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But Monotheism#Varieties covers much wider ground. Nontrinitarian covers it nicely. I've edited the assertion further, removing assertions that INC is not Unitarian or Arian. That would need amplification if included, and if the article mentions these particular nontrinitarian examples of what INC is not, it should probably mention others as well. Nontrinitarianism#Forms describes four general categories of nontrinatariasm. Perhaps it would be useful to clarify where INC doctrine places it in relation to these categories. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"nontrinitarian" is a wikipedia only term. I've yet to find a dictionary entry of the word. Conrad940 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What to call them, Iglesia or INC?

In most newspapers and other publications Iglesia ni Cristo is usually referred to as INC in short. Should we adopt this standard here? I noticed in serval places it referred to as Iglesia. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Website of INC

http://incmedia.org/incms/ - Seeking the right path "Watch & Listen"...

http://incmedia.org/incms/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.75.68 (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, there is no offical INC website. But can this website for the TV station GEM-TV used as an alternative website? It looks official for me. IronBreww (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

listen and explore the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF Iglesia Ni Cristo: incmedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.75.68 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Accused

• Manalo was accused of immorality at one point which resulted in the loss of some followers.
  • Philippine History Module-based Learning I' 2002 Ed. By Ongsotto, Et Al, p. 165

Why was this deleted?   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted this. The link, as it was, took me to an empty page, and I decided that this was not good enough for an edit accusing someone of immorality (wp:blp). My perception of this as a malicious edit was exacerbated by the editors obvious agenda-type edits and that editors seemingly very poor writing abilities. However, having delved further into Google books from a different starting point, I see the page in question, 165, is viewable. Check out the following two links:

link1

link2

If you go for link_2 first, and empty page appears - at least it does from where I am in the UK.

If you go for link_1, the page has text on it. If you then go back to link_2 after visiting link_1, the page still has text on it, and will continue to do so until your browser is closed. I have no idea why this would be.

Anyway, the article is appropriately tagged as 'agenda-ridden', and so it's not worth wasting time on. I'm going to replace the existing link (link_2) with link_1. Hopefully it won't cause problems for viewers in other parts of the world. Mannafredo (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Google can be fickle. One quibble - I don't think WP:BLP applies in this case.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Disinformation of POV editor with ip 77.68.106.13

Can you spot the difference? Entry of POV editor with ip 77.68.106.13:

The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) has expressed concerns that INC may have influenced the outcome of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez’s murder case

What the source say:

The VACC expressed alarm over reports that lawyers of the religious group are also allegedly influencing the trial of road rage murder suspect Jason Ivler

Conrad940 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The only significant difference I see is the word "allegedly". Rather than deleting the entire material you should add that word. Also, there's a question for you above.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

don't tell me you're minimizing the significance of the word "allegedly". It's supposed to be a lesson for the anonymous editor whom I hope you also blocked since you blocked me, an established editor Conrad940 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes

As is all too common with this article, an anonymous editor has made significant changes without any discussion.[3] Some edits are clearly inappropriate, and others are equivocal. I'm going to revert the article back to September 8, but if anyone would like to discuss those edits before restoring them then that'd be fine.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

'Beliefs' Section of the Iglesia ni Cristo article

Hello, I have revised several of the explanations of the main points of the 'Beliefs' section of this article. As I was reading this section several weeks ago, I noticed that these explanations could have been more fully elaborated to give a clearer understanding of the beliefs this church observes. I also noticed (and I do not mean this offensively in any way) that, due to the wording and how this section was written in general, it is probable that the one who first developed this section may not necessarily speak english as his or her primary language (which makes sense, as most members of this group are from the Philippines). I would like to help further the development of this article, specifically this section, in hopes of contributing more knowledge about this subject which is, quite frankly, unknown to the english speaking world. Although I will be citing heavily from the church's publications, it is not my intent to be bias in any way. Rather, I view it logical to utilize publications of the church itself when explaining the doctrines and beliefs it upholds. I am very new to this and will greatly appreciate any feedback, guidance, and/or criticism should I overstep any boundaries or policies. Jongarlt (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. However I'm afraid that your suggestion is not the best approach, according to Wikipedia practices. Church documents are primary sources. They may be used with care, primarily for illustrative quotations and facts, but the article, or even any major section, should not be based on them. Instead, the article should be based mainly on secondary and tertiary sources that are independent. See WP:PSTS. Another issue is verifiability, WP:V. Church documents and publications are not widely held in libraries, nor do they appear to be available online. Yet another important issue is the NPOV policy, which requires that we give all views weight according to their prominence. We can't present only the church's view of itself, or even of its beliefs, which should be explained in a neutral, and accurate manner.

Let me ask you, or any lurking on this page, about the Tagalog version of this article. tl:Iglesia ni Cristo. I see that it is short, stable, and appears to use a nice variety of independent sources. Is there any text that we should translate for this article?   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for the feedback. As you know, I am new to this and have not yet fully grasped the wikipedia policies and guidlines. Your guidance is fully appreciated. Unfortunately, outside sources on the beliefs of this church, ones that are not propagated by anti-cult ministries for that matter, are rare. However, they do exist, particularly in the form of scholarly articles put forth by various tertiary institutions. I am currently enrolled in a major US university, although for my own discretion I will not dictate which one, and upon a recent search in the university's library data base, I have learned that it contains a plethora of various articles and books relating to this church which, fortunately, I have direct access to. I will strive utilize these sources more often in the future.

I would just like to ask if the sections I have edited appear not to be neutral to the reader? It is not my intent to be bias in any way and if the articles seem like they are, please tell how they can be reworded or rewritten in a manner to obtain a higher level of neutrality. Any help is encouraged and will be greatly appreciated.

As for the Tagalog version of this article, it does not contain a section explaining the beliefs of this church and, unfortunately, cannot be used in context with this particular section. Again, thanks for the help. Jongarlt (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Material should be presented with the neutral point of view, WP:NPOV. That's not quite the same thing as "neutral". To someone inside the church, all outside views may seem non-neutral, but even so we need to include them. As you've said, there is an unfortunate lack of non-partisan sources on this topic, but there are a few. If sources are lacking on a topic, then we limit what we say to those sources rather than loosening our standards so as to be able to include more material.

An aspect of NPOV is that when we find two different views of an issue, we don't decide which is correct. Instead, we present both versions. "Some say the church was founded in 1911, while others say it was founded in 1912." That kind of thing. So if there is material in the article with adequate sources it shouldn't be removed just because there is a source that says something different. Instead, the other material should be added alongside.

Also, the more remarkable a statement, the better the sources need to be, and opinions should be attributed. Apparently, one conflict is over the founder of the INC. The INC members consider that it was founded by Jesus Christ, while it looks like most outsiders say it was founded by Manalo. In this case, we should probably say something to the effect that most outsiders view Manolo as the founder but the church regards Jesus as the founder.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent revisions are mostly good, but I don't see how anyone in the U.S., at least, can verify the contents of the source you're using, Pasugo-God’s Message. Are you working from your personal collection or are these publications in any libraries, or online? Independent, scholarly, and widely accessible sources like "A Study of the Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Politico-Religious Sect in the Philippines" are perfect - why can't we use that instead?   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Will for the help/feedback. I have been working hard with these revisions and I am glad to see that they do wikipedia and this article, in particular, justice. I am working from a personal collection of the church's publications which, although widely accessible in the Philippines, is unfortunately not the case in the US. Although the church does present readers of its publications the option to get the magazines mailed to them directly, it is unlikely for the average wikipedia reader to do so.

I am currently working to make further revisions more dependent on the non-partisan scholarly sources, as these sources provide a refreshingly non-biased view of the church and its practices and beliefs.

On a different note, I would like to propose to change the name of this particular section of the article to 'Doctrines and practices' as I feel the definition of doctrine:'a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system' more accurately reflects the contents of this section of the article. Would such a revision be inappropriate? Jongarlt (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How widely accessible are past issues of this journal in the Philippines? Which libraries collect them? Even if they were widely verifiable, there'd still be an issue with basing the section mainly on what the INC says about itself. I realize you're doing your best to represent these doctrines and practices in a neutral manner, and I think you're mostly succeeding, but it'd really be better if we mostly used secondary sources and only used the INC sources for short quotations or precise data. (Can you imagine what the articles on issues concerning the Catholic Church would be like if we only used official publications for sources?)

I don't have any problem with your proposed heading change.   Will Beback  talk  07:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, along with the libraries of the various campuses of the the New Era University throughout the Philippines, institutions such as the University of the Philippines and the Philippine National Historical Society carry collections of past church publications, albeit none are archived online. That, however is beside the point. Thanks to the point you made on the Catholic Church, I now fully realize how using only official publications would indeed make the article non neutral. From this discussion page, I've seen how malicious editors can be on this article and ones relating to it, considering that the church is a highly controversial subject in a country where, culturally, emotions on religion run high. I do not, however, want to be counted among these editors and I appreciate how you've worked with me in developing this article, in particular this section, to better reflect wikipedia's guidelines. Jongarlt (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cult warning sign

I would like to suggest to add a warning for the readers to all pages about religious groups to be aware of the fact that there are many religious groups that use mind control to get new members and to manipulate their mind. So the reader can compare the facts about that particular religous group with a checklist about cults and destructive groups.

Something like the warnings for smokers for example.

See this link regarding the checklist:

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhas58 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Please read and understand the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (Yes to the No, that is — No to the suggestion). Re the offered supporting example, note the lack of a warning in the Tobacco smoking article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Montclair california chapel.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Montclair california chapel.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Ok I'm going to summarize what I've done so far to preempt any clamor for explanation from anyone. See this for the actual diff.

• Infobox: Specified the hospital and university. It's indicating two then but I believe it's trying to count either the College of Eva. Ministry or the New Era University in Dasmariñas, Cavite. That shouldn't be since the College is part of New Era and New Era in Dasma is a campus (not a separate university). Doubts? Go check CHED's list of private universities and the criteria for university status (which the New Era in Dasma doesn't pass; thus implying that it cannot be a university by its own right). Membership number has been clarified. Specifying regional membership is speculative (not entirely consistent with sources cited) and not needed. General membership figure is now sourced.
• History: Major de-adverting work. Many statements are not in cited source or do not have any source. Statements like "However, the members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo believe that the success of the church is the work and guidance of God." are entirely inappropriate in tone and POV-ed. All statements are now sourced
  • "At some point in his life, his own studies brought him to what would be the basis for the teachings of The Iglesia ni Cristo." – which point of his life is now specified. Brief background of the church before its founding is now given.
  • "As written by Ann C. Harper, evangelical preachers and missionaries were mostly racist and prejudiced." – she did not state that.
  • "In 1916, Manalo began establishing congregations throughout the provinces." – current version now specifies where the INC established congregations and when. With citations, of course.
  • Info on the broadcast stations should be in a separate section (maybe outreach or missionary).
  • The last portions of the old history section are so dense, and are quite misplaced.
• Doctrines and practices section have been split.
  • "which have led some to place the Iglesia ni Cristo outside the realm of Mainstream Christianity" is weasled and speculative. It should be in the criticism section and should specify who placed INC outside the realm.
  • Doctrine section presents more background now. It now specifies when the church apostatized, how is it viewed by the church in relation to prophesies, and the implications of its restoration by Manalo.
  • A section on the Bible has been expanded.
  • The Trinity (or lack thereof) section have been merged. Previous Trinity sections were mostly unsourced and may be OR.
  • The Manalo section has been reworded per sources.
  • Death section made into eschatology section. Unsourced claim about cremation, removed since it cannot be found elsewhere (in the Internet at least).
• Church organization restructured and moved up. It just seems more logical that it comes first since it dispenses the teachings.
  • List of exec ministers made into box.
  • Photo cropped to remove unwanted elements (wooden scaffoldings)
  • Specification on the actual building stats were moved to architecture section.
• Architecture section moved up, expanded and sourced. Participating architects are now named. It also now features an actual description of the interior and exterior of the average kapilya (including details like seating capacity).

That's pretty much it. Moray An Par (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. That helps a lot.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Classification = Restorationist?

Hardly. The INC cannot be lumped with so-called restorationist/christian primitivism BECAUSE teachings from restorationist teachers such as the ante-nicaean fathers run counter to the teachings of the INC. Conrad940 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Apostate church

In this edit, I've restored some material from an earlier recent edit to the initial paragraph in the Church subsection in order to provide some clue about what the heck the article is talking about when it says "this apostate church" in the final sentence of the para. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Masonic References in the logo?

Shouldn't there be some kind of reference in the article to the clear masonic compass in the logo? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't have any feelings about the Masons either way, but I think it's a fairly clear reference and should be mentioned. S eoJ (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Puffery and POV

Too much in this article has been written by, what seems like, people who have a vested interest in this religious organisation. Many of the criticisms mentioned here in the talk page have never been addressed and still stand. Hopefully someone who is not connected to this organisation can re-write the article from a neutral point of view and weed out the huge amount of puffery and COI edits that have again cropped up in the past weeks. - Takeaway (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted, and I am normally vigilant about reverting changes that are too POV, but I have been busy lately, and so has INC. I would discern that there is a concerted effort to introduce pro-INC POV here on Wikipedia, if only from the slow but constant and incessant stream of attempts to redact their scandals and some of the more unappealing aspects of their belief. I try to be fair, because as a Catholic I represent a threat to them, but there is no excuse for the kind of whitewashing that is going on here on a regular basis.

I propose a drastic revert. Would anything significant be lost if we rolled back several months, perhaps to this revision? We could always manually edit in the new, worthwhile changes, but in my view, this would fix a lot more problems than it creates. Elizium23 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with a revert to the version that you indicate, as it seems to be the last version that is devoid of POV and puffery. It seems that someone is doing a regular cleanup of the article at the moment though. I have no feelings at all, neither against or for, the INC. All I am worried about is that this organisation, or its fans, is using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their POV. - Takeaway (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have effected a revert. Anyone is welcome to improve the article, but that means being mindful of policies such as WP:NPOV WP:RS and WP:COI. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption from Manila

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathematician 11 as a first report in a series against the WP:SPA editor(s) coming here to disrupt this article with persistent unconstructive edits. In a nutshell, these edits have run afoul of many policies we adhere to on Wikipedia, including but not limited to, WP:COPYVIO WP:NPOV WP:OWN WP:OR WP:RS. Because these reasons are so grave, I have opened an RFC on the topic now and I invite newly interested editors to take a fresh look at this article, comment where appropriate, and boldly make their own improvements where they see fit. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

We probably should wait until the investigation is finished to determine if the sockpuppetry is confirmed. Having said that, at least from a personal view, my own opinion regarding a lot of these potentially divisive topics is that maybe the best way to proceed is to find what independent, highly regarded reference books have to say on a topic and ensure that the matters discussed in those books is included, and then, maybe, file RfCs or other forms of discussion regarding recent changes which might not appear in those reference books, in this case including the INC having bought the town of Scenic, South Dakota for no immediately apparent reason. I could try to prepare any such material from well regarded reference sources I can find and e-mail them to others, so that anyone interested can share the information. I'm personally not sure an RfC is necessarily the right thing to do here, but if it gets attention, I guess it might not be bad. But, for the sake of form if nothing else, it might be a good idea to indicate specific content contained in the article which is questionable, and then maybe to ask the responders whether they think it should be included or not, or perhaps to discuss some other more clearly defined matter which are in general what is done at RfCs. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhzhw came up as positive. This topic has gone through the wrung over and over again through every level of the dispute resolution process. Some people are clearly COI and don't care about the encyclopedia. Only that it promotes what they believe. I would rather stick to Werifiability and Reliable sources and delete any content not in line with it. --107.206.152.174 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)