Jump to content

Talk:Philippine Independent Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afd Nomination

[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion, and the result was keep. --Parker007 01:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Aglipayan members, taught by the church teaches that the Eucharist only remain as symbols during the Holy Mass and do not change into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ."

The Aglipayan Church is in full communion with the churches of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, so it must accept the real presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.216.219 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This remains a problem, including the fact that the article states "The church is non-committal regarding transubstantiation and Real Presence in the Eucharist." If the church teaches that the bread and wine are symbols only and do not change into anything, the church is not non-committal. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aglipayanism

[edit]

I have redirected Aglipayanism to Philippine Independent Church without trying to merge the content. The Aglipayanism article was based on the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia, which is fine for some topics, but not necessarily for this one, due to concerns about neutral point of view and timeliness of the information. If anyone thinks there is anything worth using from the Catholic Encyclopedia article, it's still in the edit history. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRM?

[edit]

An editor just marked this for New Religious Movements, but the PIC isn't a NRM, as that term is normally conceived. It's about as old as the Old Catholic Churches, it's in communion with the Anglican Communion, etc., etc. Why is it in the NRM box? Tb (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

[edit]

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Philippine Independent Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Tb (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The next to the last sentence "Aglipay's unitarian and progressive theological ideas were evident in his novenary" points "novenary" to an obviously wrong article about Nonary. What is the correct link?

Bill Smith (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Utrecht

[edit]

This article states "The Aglipayan Church is not a member of the Utrecht Union" but the article about the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic) states "The Union of Utrecht is in full communion with the Anglican Communion, in accordance with the Bonn Agreement of 1931, and with the Philippine Independent Church." Which is correct? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what does Tandang Sora mean?

[edit]

If "Melchora Aquino was a Filipina revolutionary who became known as Tandang Sora because of her age (84)", what does this mean? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Gregorio Aglipay and "Masonic" Clenched Fist

[edit]

The photo of Gregorio Aglipay was taken before he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in 1899. He did not become a Freemason until 1918. The clenched fist is not a Masonic sign or handgrip. IACOBVS (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philippine Independent Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different numbers

[edit]

The number of members is variously given as 6 to 8 million and 917,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.234.135 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1% is roughly consistent with the 917,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.234.135 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

[edit]

Upon reading the article I have concerns including content sourcing and layout.

Lead

[edit]

Presently the article has 13 references with 4 of them (almost 31%) found in the same paragraph with a total of 6 references (over 46%) found in the lead. The lead is an introduction, or summary of important article content, and as such the content should be found referenced in the body of the article. While the same lead paragraph has 4 references the corresponding content found in the first paragraph of the history section is unsourced. When lead content is sourced in the body of the article the only concern really would be if the included lead content is warranted. Currently the referencing is a flip from the broad encyclopedia consensus of sourcing article content over lead summary content.

Other issues

[edit]

There is a lot of content that I cannot readily connect to a source. A lack of sourcing and inline citations begs a solution because of the appearance of original research and the need for article maintenance tagging. There is not even a "General source" that can be looked at. The article timeline shows a 2012 article but it was nominated at AFD (and survived) in 2007. The importance of the subject to the encyclopedia is not in question but the expanded largely unsourced version needs a solution. Otr500 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I have attempted to clean up the article by removing what was unsourced. Veverve (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR

[edit]

@Nuwordlife0rder:

  • you have once again added back unsourced information, violating WP:BURDEN
  • You have also added information with references which do not support them, WP:FICTREF (e.g. josephscalice.com)
  • You have reinstated the following purely WP:OR part: "Visiting other churches while traveling abroad, Aglipay developed his theology, coming to reject the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity and becoming theologically Unitarian. Other IFI officials refused to accept this revised theology. Aglipay's unitarian, rationalist, and progressive theological ideas were evident in"
This part is not supported by any source.
  • Most parts to which you have added source simply consisted in adding WP:FICTREFs.

Either you undo your re-addition of those material, or you provide real source that support what the WP article states, or I take it to the admin noticeboard. Veveerv (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edits show you clearly have not understood, or refuse to understand, what I am asking. You seem to be hellbent on WP:KEEPINGTHECHEWINGGUM, keeping the information that previously was even if it is not properly sourced. Veverve (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done. WP:GOODFAITH, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Bless you. :) Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I added an OR tag because verifiability becomes absolutely necessary whenever content is questioned or challenged.
Lead: "Christian denomination in the form of a national church in the Philippines." 1)- I did not see this content sourced in the body of the article, 2)- According to a "2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Philippines" (Section II. Status of Government Respect for Religious Freedom - Legal Framework) The constitution provides for the free exercise of religion and religious worship and prohibits the establishment of a state religion. No religious test is required for the exercise of civil or political rights. The constitution provides for the separation of religion and state.
There is far too much unsourced content. As per @Veverve: and WP:BURDEN, when challenged, the sourcing requirements are satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The result can be Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
I have only glanced at the article at this time but an Admin, or Admin noticeboard reporting is not required to remove or revert unsourced content that has been contested. If the contributing editor does not provide the required sourcing it can be removed. It appears there may be some advocacy editing which is against policy, as well as NPOV. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For context (for the records): I have opened an Admin noticeboard thread on this case. Veverve (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: do you support reverting back to this version of mine? Veverve (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: User:Veverve seems to be violating Wikipedia:WikiBullying#Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy. Please see Wikipedia:No-edit orders#Unacceptable no-edit orders. Thank you. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: Original research (OR) and Refimprove tags were already added. I humbly believe that a revert is not required. Thanks again. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked on the WProject Christianity, and no one answered. My admin noticeboard complaint of the BURDEN etc. violation was catacterised as a content dispute. Well, it looks like the OR, unsourced and FICTREFed content is here to stay. Veverve (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned in my previous comments, the OR, unsourced, and FICTREF allegations have already been rectified. I acknowledged that I made some errors in the past, however, I already complied with all the necessary protocols as you requested. I am trying my best to contribute and improve the article to the best of my capacity just like any other Wikipedians here. Thank you so much. :) Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the OR, unsourced, and FICTREF allegations have already been rectified: no, they clearly have not. I do not thank you for having successfully managed to prevent a page from being improved and to have managed to make it worse than before. Veverve (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand if you feel that way. But no personal attacks please. This time I will be ignoring this. Take care. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry but I have been sick and unable to look at things. Be assured that nothing on Wikipedia can be labeled: "OR, unsourced and FICTREFed content is here to stay". I could not support a revert as I did not get to look closely. I developed a DVT that broke off and and ended up becoming a pulmonary embolism (PE). Trying to get back in step but may take a while, thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Independientes" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Independientes and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6 § Independientes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippine_Independent_Church&oldid=1251314393"