This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
Is there a reason to remove the Catholic lay society categories?--
Jondel
09:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Did a cleanup here, following the style at CFC Singles for Christ. -- Nagle 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
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 :(
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)
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.
I have this proposal on how to restructure the CFC article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
gawad kalinga is not under the couples for christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisalias007 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://cfcyouthnj.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/1/1/381123/count_me_in_-_database.docxWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bonadea, Liveloud is part of their existence, not only for CFC-YFC. -- 112.198.243.86 ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who can provide verifiable reference / refetences about on how many is their population? -- Independent Bird ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)