Talk:Foundation for Family and Life

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Xavyniceday (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

I have this page on my watchlist for some reason and I can't help but notice the constant editing disputes.

Settle down, guys. A few issues:

1. Arguments over content disputes are not vandalism. Don't use the edit summary for slinging angry comments to this effect back and forth. Read WP:VANDAL to understand what IS vandalism.
2. Keep the 3 revert rule in mind or you'll probably find yourself blocked. I'm not saying I'm going to get you blocked, I'm just saying that edit warring gets noticed (recent changes, etc) and violations of 3RR typically result in a block
3. On that note: You really need to bring these content disputes to the talk page. Talk about what you should actually be writing, rather than just edit warring back and forth. Reach consensus, and then proceed. Sure you should be bold, but that doesn't mean it always works well. Settle down, slow down, discuss — TheBilly^(Talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. I apologize for being harsh on repeated edits with opinions and/or no cited sources. Hopefully such actions will be able to avoided by everyone in the future. Cfcyfcsolid (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concern about the page lacking NPOV The statement seems copied verbatim from the www.cfcffl.org website. As for this entire article, none of it has any 3rd party information, leaving me to question the validity of the page as an article. I do not recommend the page for deletion, but bias must be removed. The visit www.cfcffl.com link of the bottom seems to make the article appear as an advertisement. Added primary sources tag to page. Lukeydukey (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the temp. edit block. hopefully this will solve the junk edit/etc. problem. Cfcyfcsolid (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the bickering. Either get real, neutral sources or do not add to this wiki page. I've observed this page for awhile and the edits on it are ridiculous, unfounded and 9/10 times it's purely an edit-war. There should not be room for this he said she said nonsense. Again, read over the guidelines for a wikipedia article and please use some common sense before editing the page.

I recommend placing a lock on the page again for awhile because clearly, people do not get the message.

Lukeydukey (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate the same request above: Stop all the comparisons with CFC and be objective. None of these "smaller scale" or "better than thou" nonsense. Write verifiable items about the topic at hand and none of the "he claimed this but they claim that". Do not write your own "original" opinion on the issues. Better yet, if you feel you need to say something about the current issues, refrain from writing it here. Write a newspaper article, write a blog, etc. As much as possible, refrain from using FFL's own website to source info. There is no need to make this a big article. Keep it simple, keep it clean! Akosikenn (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can add as much objective (3rd party) articles to this page as we can (I already added a few changes). I will also replace some subjective statements that I found here and eliminate some redundancies. Hopefully, we'll have this page up to Wikipedia standards soon. Akosikenn (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The organization of the article needs a bit of cleanup too. Some items in the Summary should be in the History or Misc section, for example. I will move some items around to make it more organized and may have to rewrite the summary to make it more affirmative and objective. Akosikenn (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Athrun Atreides : Though I respect your intentions, it is not proper and fair to just delete everything that contributors have written and replace it with your own version (which is what you just did). I agree with the contents you have written but you should have discussed wholesale changes here first. Another problem is that you removed a good infobox and lots of references. I will not be surprised if one of the administrators/editors will undo all you've written .
I suggest you revert it back to its original format, change the appropriate sections as you see fit and then make sure you include references. Thanks. Akosikenn (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Akosikenn: Well, why don't you? :-) I guess you're right. My only intent was tabula rasa: I revised this article to give it a fresh start (using what I've written) without being seen as another overt advertising work (such as whenever someone copies the content from the group's website). Regarding the contributors, well, most of them are biased, so I thought I was doing a favor by removing all their slants and biases. Sorry for the removed references, I was hoping you would be the one to reintroduce them, seeing that you are more knowledgeable at this matter than I am. So there, removing revision...done.

To all other contributors (particularly those from CFC, like me): Paraphrasing HAL 9000 in 2010: Odyssey Two, "ALL THESE ARTICLES ARE YOURS, EXCEPT FFL. ATTEMPT NO EDITS THERE." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athrun Atreides (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athrun Atreides: I hope I didn't seem harsh with my request as that was not my intent. I just prefer to point things out first rather than fixing it immediately (unless its vandalism) in the hope that it fosters a corroborative atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akosikenn (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, Akosikenn. Just some background story: when I started this article under a different user, it was initially a redirect page to CFC, and back then the FFL was just a section in the CFC article. As the months passed, I found it tedious to keep that section there because most of the contributors end up altering the entire article. So I gave up, and transferred that entire section to this article, with the note: "To the FFL, please take care of your article."

Now I have no idea what am I pointing at. Maybe I was just talking to myself: my intent back then was to keep away from this article. I guess now with you around, I'll just watch around this article and not make any major edits. But don't worry, it's not about you. I always end up remembering all the hurt and anger whenever I attempt to edit this article, so for my sake, I'll avoid this part of Wikipedia.

Gee, I wish all of this just didn't happen. Disunity was never God's will...and 421 days (since February 13, 2007) of disunity has passed. I just hope this would all be over before Day 1000 (November 9, 2009).

So there. "ALL THESE ARTICLES ARE YOURS, EXCEPT FFL. ATTEMPT NO EDITS THERE."

Athrun Atreides (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to write

Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (FFL)

(This suggestion hinges on showing that they're still with CFC, while at the same time they're not with CFC. The spelled-out "Couples for Christ" would satisfy those who left, while that same spelled-out phrase being struck out would satisfy those who were left behind.)

or

CFC Foundation for Family and Life (FFL)

(This suggestion hinges on not spelling out "CFC". It could mean anything, like Chlorofluorocarbon Foundation for Family and Life, Catechism for Filipino Catholics Foundation for Family and Life, or even Collingwood Football Club Foundation for Family and Life, if you get what I mean. The acronym "CFC" would satisfy those who left, while the fact that the acronym could mean anything other than "Couples for Christ" would satisfy those who were left behind.)

However, the acronym should be FFL...at least for the moment. Athrun Atreides (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...until FFL is legally recognized as CFC-FFL, I don't see the need to rename it. The claim should definitely be mentioned (weaved into current text) as a current dispute. Lukeydukey (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the current "naming" dispute in the history section, hopefully to avoid an edit war. PLEASE change it only to make technical corrections (grammar, spelling, etc). I think the sentence is neutral enough and is sufficient until the dispute is finally resolved.Akosikenn (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity7 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)PLS PUT THIS PAGE UNDER SERIOUS PROTEST.[reply]

The inputs herein have obviously been entered by someone sympathetic to the Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation Inc. (CFCGMFI, and are definitely erroneous and self-serving.

First, Archbishop Stanislaus Rylko, the president of the Pontifical Council of the Laity, through a communication sent to CFCGMFI director Joe Tale, has disapproved the latter's request to change the name Couples for Christ that is registered in the Vatican to Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation Inc.

Second, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Republic of the Philippines has approved the reactivation of the original Couples for Christ Foundation,Inc that was registered in 1984 giving legal and juridical personality to the movement as a bona fide corporation.

Couples for Christ Foundations Inc. (CFCFI) has assumed and fully assimilated all functions and responsibilities of as Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (CFCFFL).

This renders the petition for a cease and desist order filed sometime ago with the Securities and Exchange Commission by CFCGMFI against CFCFFL, moot and academic. In fact because CFCGMFI was incorporated in 1993 while CFCFI was incorporated in 1984, the SEC approval and subsequent certification now gives the favor of the legal maxim "first in time, first in right" in favor CFCFI.

That means the use by CFCGMFI of the prefix "Couples for Christ" now rests solely on the good graces of CFCFI.

-Affinity7Affinity7 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few wikipedia editors have strived to make this article neutral and objective. Although the person who originally created this article is a CFC-GMFI member, I am a CFC-FFL member and actively watching this. This has been a hotbed for edit-wars before we wrote the article in its current form. If you think there are erroneous and self-serving statements, please point them out, suggest changes and we will discuss. We are not perfect but I think most editors actively watching/editing this article are members of CFC (both affiliations) and are reasonable/objective folks.
With regards to the name, we need further clarification first. I believe CFC-FFL is still the "global" name and CFC-FI is just the official Philippine entity. But if its otherwise, then we have to change this whole article or create a new page for CFC-FI. And in that page, we have to include the whole history behind the CFC-FI name (unlike here where history starts in 2007). Then there is also the ongoing dispute regarding the name which we probably need to weave into the text.Akosikenn (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference:

- Couples for Christ (CFC) has filed a cease and desist order in the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Foundation for Family and Life (FFL) to stop using the CFC name, as FFL has formally severed all ties with CFC. Therefore, this article should not have the CFC name with FFL (ex. CFC-FFL). The full formal name of FFL is the Foundation for Family and Life, Inc. FFL is still pending official registration in the SEC.

-cfcyfcsolid

Please stop biased edits on this Wikipedia article.

ex. "FFL practices the true and authentic charism of the original CFC"

It is incorrect to refer to CFC as "CFC-IC", as the Couples for Christ International Council is only made up of top CFC leaders; thus the name CFC-IC would imply that all of CFC is part of the International Council, which is not true.

It is incorrect to refer to CFC as "CFC-GK", as this is not the name of CFC, and Gawad Kalinga is only a ministry of CFC.

It is unnecessary to refer to CFC as "CFC-GMFI", as CFC's full name since its inception (in 1993) has always been the Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation, Inc.

Finally, it is incorrect to refer to FFL as "CFC-FFL" as a motion has already been filed for FFL to cease usage of the CFC name, as FFL has separated from CFC.

Please use due diligence and Christian love, instead of initiating an all-out edit war.

God bless.

CFCYFCSOLID —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfcyfcsolid (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I disagree on not referring to FFL as "CFC-FFL" because the motion to cease usage is not authorized by any court of law^[1] and the formal name registered by the group at the SEC is indeed "Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life" (otherwise, it wouldn't have been challenged).
That being said, for the purposes of this article, editors and contributors should follow that convention if only to avoid an edit war. Also, another reason is that the registration of the formal name is still pending in SEC so just wait for the outcome. Until then, use Foundation for Family and Life or its acronym FFL.
Akosikenn (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey people of God, pls stop all of this, lets all be civilized, whether you are with cfc or with ffl, lets respect each others decision and opinion. lets just all move on,, this is not about who has the right to use the name or not but its all about how God wanted to use us that will bring glory to Him.. We are all called to be His fishermen. whatever happened to our community its up to us on how we'll take it.. for me we can just be happy abt it bec atleast now we'll have focus on our service w/c ever way works for you. God allowed it to happen bec our community is too big for a small work it has to be divided so there will be two groups working. . we are all families here lets just accept that both groups co-exist, and lets not argue on this lets just Go and do our calling. we are all on a spiritual battle against satan not against each other. we are all children of God, and i bet He is not happy abt all this. God allowed it to happen and we cant do anything abt it. lets accept it and move on with our work. Lets love one another as we love and accept other communities and religion,. this not about us, or the people w/in each group but its all about God and how we bring joy to Him..

Sorry, was trying to streamline article because of lack of sources. Would be greatly appreciated if more sources were available that were as subjective as possible. Ryanenage (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "objective" as possible. Some of the changes, especially with the sentence construction, seems fine. I just didn't think it was necessary to remove the infobox and the Organization section. I agree that although the 3 references on the Organization section are public documents, it's location is in the organization's web portal. An acceptable solution is to add a {{primarysources}} tag (see below) for now to notify readers what the article needs. I will argue however that because no analysis or interpretation was done and the section was purely descriptive, it is still within Wikipedia guidelines on primary sources.

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Foundation for Family and Life" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

--> Akosikenn (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm sorry for the hasty editing. I'll put up a primarysources tag and hopefully more objective articles can be found. Ryanenage (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that CFC-FFL be merged into Foundation for Family and Life. The two articles have essentially the same exact content, i.e. they are duplicates of one another, and should be merged as one according to Wikipedia policies. Please see Wikipedia:Merging for more information. — Anthony Fok (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFC-FFL was a redirect until someone copied text from the destination article in August 2012. Hence, I'm making it a redirect again. The Discoverer (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]