User talk:Rickhavoc
|
September 2009[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Iglesia ni Cristo, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Iglesia ni Cristo. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The sections you insist on adding were about an incident involving some members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and not about the church itself. It wasn't in any way a "controversy" or incident involving the church or the church organization itself as a whole---unlike (say) any case involving the INC and the ADD (one case I have in mind is the one that involved a censorship issue that culminated in a Supreme Court ruling; in that particular case, the INC was involved as an organization, and does not just involve a handful of its ministers). The issue here is the relevance of the said edits to the topic of the article. Can you give me a good reason why that particular kidnapping incident should be included on the article about the Iglesia ni Cristo? --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect...I am still not convinced enough with your reasons for wanting to include the said case on the INC article. I'm afraid you stil haven't answered my question.
- First things first (and then I'll get to my point as I go along): the reference material that cited the firearms incident was used multiple times on the INC article and mentioned not just the firearms raid. (In fact, that reference was used seven times within the article.) The said reference article (an investigative journalism piece by the PCIJ) is a study of the INC as a religious organization. I must concede that mentioning the firearms raid was wanting a few things: putting it into context (in the Wikipedia article, it didn't mention the analysis of the INC having found to have possessed firearms, which was on the PCIJ report...okay, I'll get back to that later and edit it myself) and including some of the "controversies" mentioned in the PCIJ article (the firearms incident wasn't the only "controversy" cited in the PCIJ report and, again, certainly not the only item picked out for use in the Wikipedia article). Having said that, this does not hide the fact that the PCIJ article was a discussion of the INC itself, and not just of the acts of some members. Notice how it was pointed out in the PCIJ report that the firearms were found in the premises of an INC temple, and not just in the private possession of an INC member or minister. The reference article, in effect, provides a particular opinion about the Wikipedia article and, thus, merits its inclusion; the firearms raid on the INC Main Temple (as cited in the PCIJ article) was mentioned to illustrate a point of view that the INC is somewhat protective of its own territory.
- Contrast this with the case which you want to have included in the INC article. The case did involve members of the INC and even ministers, and the crime took place inside an INC temple (per the Supreme Court case you cited) and, more importantly, was handled by the Supreme Court (I don't question that). But in including the said case in the INC article, was this case one more of an incident involving private individuals for reasons not related to an INC event or function, or a case that involves INC members and ministers committing a crime during a religious function or duty? Was it significant enough to have provided significant discussion to create a controversy relevant to the INC as a church? This isn't just about particular or specific policies, but also of common sense. Otherwise, you might as well include each and every criminal case that involved an INC member or minister, perhaps even those cases involving minor misdemeanors, until the "Controversy" section becomes essentially a compilation of news articles about crimes involving an INC members. You can add them because they are factual, that's true, but how does that help discuss the "controversies" that involved the INC as a church/religion? (Let me put it this way: there are crimes involving Filipinos abroad. I don't intend to discuss whether the Pinoys involved were guilty or innocent, just that those were reported in the media and received significant public coverage. Now the question is: just because Filipinos were involved, do you think we should include these cases in the "Controversy" section of the Philippines article on Wikipedia?)
- A particular case may be true and may have happened and may have been supported by references (a Supreme Court ruling to that effect may be nice, although it's also better to provide media reports), but it does not automatically give license for including it in a Wikipedia article unless the article was about the case itself (for example, the Subic rape case) or provides relevant and significant information to another topic (say, in the same manner that the Dreyfus affair gets to be mentioned in the Emile Zola article). Wikipedia policy does not permit us to include and compile as many such cases possible: Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
- To illustrate further: As for the sex abuse cases by Catholic priests, the said incident received significant coverage in the media and, more importantly, generated discussions about the Catholic Church. However, you may want to note that on the Roman Catholicism arcticle, the said scandals were mentioned only in an overview, and in particular only contains a summary of how the said controversy affected the Catholic Church (i.e. it affected the credibility of priests and also put into question how the Catholic Church hierarchy handled the scandals). The specific cases have their own article and it is there, not on the Catholic Church article, where you can find the details of each case, including the name of the priests and some additional references about each case. With regard to this particular Philippine case involving INC ministers and members, it remains to be seen (at least to me) how it can possibly provide . Since you are the one who insist on adding this to the INC article (or perhaps on an independent article of its own), I'll leave it to you to provide enough burden of proof that the said incident has received substantial coverage to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (At least in the Internet, I was unable to find any such coverage except for a few blogs, which you can't even use as references on Wikipedia per the external links policy. At the moment, your source is considered a primary source material.)
- You can add the said edit back into the INC article, that's fine by me. But keep in mind that because the INC article is about the Iglesia ni Cristo, you may want to add a little more information on why the said case should be considered a controversy about the church (and of course, provide more references to support those assertions), and not just a controversy that happens to involve members of the INC.
- Some food for thought: a couple of essays about relevant information added to articles, and this section of the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)