Jump to content

Talk:Couples for Christ

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

Couples for Christ

[edit]

I agree with the various groups around the world, especially from the United States, who are calling for/promoting unity. The following statements are taken from the letter of our elders from Southern California:

"to show our commitment to unity and to condemn all forms of disunity."

"We cannot afford to add more into the uncertainty that is already happening in CFC, nor add into the confusion and heartache that the present situation is bringing to our members, whose hearts bleed at the thought of a split..."

"...To be a lover of peace and worker for peace is one of the distinguishing marks of those who are true followers of the “Prince of Peace, our Lord Jesus”.

Therefore, I believe any note/remark/info that implies disunity must be deleted.

Don , 4 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.5 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reason to remove the Catholic lay society categories?--Jondel 09:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a cleanup on CFC Singles for Christ, a subunit of Couples for Christ. This article could use a cleanup, too. Suggest adding the organization's logo (that's fair use.). Basic organizational facts should be provided (location, size, date established, official name of organization). Needs formatting work, removal of red links, and category info. --Nagle 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a cleanup here, following the style at CFC Singles for Christ. --Nagle 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging CFC-Youth For Christ and CFC-Kids for Christ into here. They're really all part of Couples for Christ. --John Nagle 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - Yes, they are all part of Couples for Christ, but that doesn't make them the same. The ministries of Couples for Christ each also have their own ways of evangelizaton. Having them all described in one page would make the page look to cluttered :([reply]

you can visit cfcyouthforchrist.org for more information - xavy

how about links to other CFC sites around the world?

cfcyouth.com - Official CFC-USA site cfcyouthforchrist.org - Official International site and there was one for Canada's CFC-YFC too but I forgot what that was.

Oh, and since CFC-Y is a youth group, but within the CFC family ministry, we should keep this article seperate for technicality or something. -Filifish

This is a comparatively minor issue, but I am anguished over the fact that Mr. Perpetuo “Boy” de Claro of the CfC is the president and general manager of Wyeth Philippines. He is acknowledged as one of the best marketing executives in the Philippines, and is really hurting the health of the 84% of all Filipino children being raised on Wyeth's (and others') baby formulas. A third of the 1-year-olds in that country are underweight, and that nation's lax standards allow these sellers to make the most outlandish claims for this stuff, like it will make the babies' brains larger, etc. How reasonable is it to see Mr. de Claro as a betrayer of his nation's children for his undoubtedly fine lifestyle? It makes me wish I had the ability to buy Wyeth stock & crash their next shareholders' meeting.

I probably should not be the one editing the CfC article to include this. - Dixieflyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixieflyer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "minor issue": To claim Wyeth is hurting the health of 84% of Filipino children is at best an opinion, which I won't dispute, unless you insist it's a fact. No reason to debate. I live in the Philippines and I do have kids. I buy what's available on the shelf so that my kids will live a quality life. What I am certain about is whatever issue there is against Mr. de Claro as a person has nothing to do with his membership in CFC, in the same spirit that we evangelize people wherever we find them, from offices to streets to prisons. That makes CFC beautiful.

Restructuring the CFC article

[edit]

I have this proposal on how to restructure the CFC article:

  1. History: the timeline is good, but we need to rewrite it into formal sentences and paragraphs. We can keep the timeline in a table format alongside the prose.
  2. Organization: if it is possible, we should draw the CFC structure here. The 25th Anniversary book can be a great help.
  3. Seven Pillars, Philosophy, Mission and Vision: I copied the Philo and Mission-Vision sections verbatim from the CFC website. To avoid charges of plagiarism, we should rewrite them. On the other hand, we need to expand and clarify what the Seven Pillars are. We can insert an short introduction on each relevant links; for example, since there is a Gawad Kalinga article, we don't have to copy it entirely here, we should just write a short paragraph about GK. The same applies for SFC, YFC, and KFC.
  4. ("The Crisis": we should wait until both sides have reconciled and reunified before we ever start writing this section here. Even introducting a paragraph here could trigger an "edit war", and that's not a good way to evangelize the innocent non-CFC who visits the article.)
  5. "The Other CFC": this is a tricky one. I believe that FFL should not use the CFC label because calling themselves "CFC" correlates to respect with authority (the IC/BOE, which to date have acted with great humility in resolving The Crisis), something that hasn't been done. Sure, an introductory section on FFL can be written here; however, FFL should not edit the CFC article to suit its purposes. If it has to come to it, then FFL should write its own article.
  6. Footnotes: we should collect more documents, files that can be quoted. Verifiability is a Wikipedia principle; we need to establish that to further the article's credibility, which eventually reflects back on the community.

I hope that more concerned Titos and Titas (I am a SFC/YFC member) will be able to provide what this article needs. This article reflects on us as a community, so we should write this as a community.

May God be praised!

Jedjuntereal 09:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, NO. This article should be written within Wikipedia guidelines, including (but not limited to) use of multiple third partyreliable sources and a neutral point of view. If you cannot edit the article from that perspective, them perhaps you should find articles with which you are not so closely linked. It should absolutely NOT be used to "evangelize the innocent non-CFC." Pairadox (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Pairadox:
Regarding sources, I hope you could help in finding out other third-party references. I have searched high and low and found very little about CFC's history written by those who are not so closely linked with it, and the few references I found were unavoidably from CFC people. To make things worse, I can't do original research on this matter. And to think I am from the Philippines, where CFC is based.
Now, on the matter of neutrality: yeah, you're right, it shouldn't be used to evangelize the innocent non-CFC. In that case, I hope you could help in making this article more neutral. BTW, I know Jedjuntereal, and I think he didn't mean it that way; when I pointed out this matter to him, he said he wanted to answer to your point, but for some weird reason he couldn't access his account. He was a bit rattled by your writing NO in such strong emphasis, he thought you were shouting; I hope you weren't. So there. :-D
So, basically, my point is: I hope you can help out regarding neutrality and references. Thanks and God bless! Athrun Atreides (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many tables

[edit]

Ease off on the tables; prose is always better than a list. Same goes for sections that are almost entirely quotes. They need to be reformulated into our own words, or the article ends up being not much more than an extention of the church. Check out Wikipedia:Your_first_article for tips on what to do and what to avoid. Pairadox (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I've tagged the article as biased. It's unacceptable to have a glorification piece like this that doesn't contain a single third-party reference! Anyone saying that such sources are hard to find should learn about Google. Pichpich (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only third-party references that I've been able to find about CFC all have to do with its current situation with the break-away group Foundation for Family and Life... Assistance would be great. Ryanenage (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by the fact that the article is in breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policies and the tag should definitely stay for now. The argument that no third-party sources can be found would actually be a very sound reason for deletion. Either third party sources exist, in which case they should be used first and foremost when building the article, or they don't, which means that the organisation, however important it may be, should not have a Wikipedia article. Pichpich (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please nominate it for deletion; that way, we can get the rest we need. Let's just end the discussion on this article. Athrun Atreides (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that the article be deleted, merely that the claim made by some that no third party sources can be found could have unintended consequences. IMO an active membership of close to a million people and recognition by Churches around the world (I know many Churches in my diocese including my own have large CFC groups) is enough to satisfy notability standards. However the fact remains that the article is still written like an advertisement, containing an overtly positive tone and downplaying problems the organisation has encountered (lines such as "Despite the reconciliatory efforts of the CBCP and CFC members" fail to recognise the extent of the rift and make it appear as if the CFC was thoroughly in right without independent sourcing).
I would try to fix this article myself but I am very busy atm and do not have a great knowledge of the history and practices of the CFC. That is where you come in Athrun.
The only way to get the tag removed is to change the article to a neutral viewpoint, and the best way to do that is to use the talk page and get consensus of editors. As such it is advisable that this discussion remains open. 121.218.202.99 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with the above comment. I am not suggesting the article be deleted but rather pointing out how ludicrous is the claim that the article is biased because no objective sources exist. These sources exist, they are not used, the article sounds like a CfC brochure. These are the facts and that's why there's a tag there. It should stay until someone can find a way to balance the article and I'd humbly suggest that this won't happen until someone who isn't a member of the church gets involved. Pichpich (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing my comment from the statements made by Pichpich: "The argument that no third-party sources can be found would actually be a very sound reason for deletion" and "Either third party sources exist, in which case they should be used first and foremost when building the article, or they don't, which means that the organisation, however important it may be, should not have a Wikipedia article." At any rate, I hope those third-party sources can be found. Athrun Atreides (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Talking about third-party references, here is an article from the Vatican website describing Couples for Christ. If there is no objection, I would like to add some text based on this article. Also, I think the section under International Controversy needs to be rewritten, or even removed. There is a number of contradictory statements in there. A short mention of it is enough without delving into too much detail because it tends to degenerate into a case of he said/she said argument without really providing additional information. Lastly, is it really necessary to mention Couples for Christ USA? This seems to be out of place. The recognized HQ of Couples for Christ is in the Philippines, according to the Vatican source, where it has the most number of members. --Svic (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTES

[edit]

Notes 5, 6, 7 CBCP monitor: it should be indicated that the published article is a paid advertisement made by CFC-GMFI in CBCP monitor Stag79 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on fleshing out of the article

[edit]

For the record, I fully support the extensive cuts made in the article. The request for solid third-party references has been there for months without any change. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFC/FFL Controversy

[edit]

I removed these edits as being inappropriate in tone, placement, neutrality and verification. But thought I would mention it here in case any of the content can be used to neutrally improve the controversy section in the article. The wording of the section reads fairly neutrally to me at the moment - but I have absolutely no knowledge of the groups involved so that isn't based on any subject area expertise. -- SiobhanHansa 13:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Future Edits

[edit]

Note that Couples For Christ and Foundation for Family and Life have their own articles. CFC is a Catholic family ministry with Filipino culture, and FFL is a similar ministry which separated from CFC in the Philippines, but continues to use the CFC name. Another example of a group which seperated from CFC is Families in Christ Jesus (FCJC), please see www.fcjc.us

cfc

[edit]

gawad kalinga is not under the couples for christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisalias007 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Couples for Christ. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Couples for Christ. 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) 20:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea, Liveloud is part of their existence, not only for CFC-YFC. --112.198.243.86 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Population

[edit]

Anyone who can provide verifiable reference / refetences about on how many is their population? --Independent Bird (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Couples_for_Christ&oldid=1201200873"