Talk:Coaliția pentru Familie

Needs a relevant "Criticism" sub-chapter with quotes from both sides, as well as more documentation about who runs it and where it gets its funding from. Adamyoda (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Adamyoda

Add a history

I believe a history of the organisation would add value to the page.Plinuxs (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

It appears that the views on the subject are controversial, please take your time to discuss what's what and why you're doing or undoing things in the article.

@Adamyoda, have a look at an established page like Family Research Council please and see if you can emulate the format there; it looks concise and places the controversial aspects of the organisation under different headings.

@Biruitorul please discuss things here before undoing written sections. We don't know what quoting "editorials and blogs" means exactly and it appears that you're quick to undo things without adequately arguing why you're doing so. Plinuxs (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My excisions

1) This is the blog of an organization on the very opposite of this issue. Not an unbiased source, by any definition. The subject matter may be quotable, but the source is not.

2) Editorial, editorial, editorial, editorial, editorial, invalid per WP:NEWSORG.

3) Not pertinent, as it makes no mention of the coalition; may be pertinent for Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania.

4) News article, news article, news article (of sorts), news article, news article, but no mention of the coalition.

5) Blog post, unquotable per WP:SPS.

And again, Adamyoda, please review WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PSTS, WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK and all other relevant policies. Oh, and kindly don't do blind reverts: not only are they often uncivil, but in this specific case you miss the point that I've also been fixing stylistic errors of yours. Are we done here? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please not use that sort of tone, @Biruitorul? You can certainly help a new wikipedian understand why blind reverts can be problematic and lending a hand with language issues are always appreciated, but "are we done here?" type of attitude doesn't bring any value to the discussion, as I'm sure you know all too well.

You're making a few mistakes in the claims above as well.

For 1) the cited source is an official stance - and not a personal point of view - of an organisation whose mission is the protection and promotion of the rights of the LGBT persons in Romania as human rights, that is, precisely the view that a Criticism section should cover. The fact that it opposes the views held by "The Family Coalition" as an organisation doesn't automatically render the ACCEPT's views as biased and wrong nor does it imply that criticism is to be dismissed for lacking any value in terms of understanding the opposing views over the matter. To quote the Wikipedia article on the concept, "to criticize does not necessarily imply "to find fault", but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of an objection against prejudice, or a disapproval of something". That source is rightly quotable by Wikipedia's standards.

For 2) you're wrongly using WP:NEWSORG as an argument (admittedly quality of the sources is debatable) to dismiss various sources, but not all, without stating what exactly makes them unreliable. These should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, particularly because editorials, should we agree that they are indeed that, are not by default and invariably unworthy sources, just "rarely reliable for statements of fact" (which are not particularly necessary hereby since the section was criticising the organisation's actions and views and not stating facts about the organisation itself). Please discuss your decisions with the community when the case.

For 3) Ditto. The article in question needs not to be about the organisation when the subject where it's cited in is about critical views of the organisation's actions and not the organisation itself. If you don't agree that a section that criticises the organisation's actions should be allowed on the page, please express your views in this respect on this page, there's no need to delete the section.

For 4) Ditto.

For 5) You're correct.

To conclude, it seems to me that you refuse to accept critical articles as worthy sources for pertinent criticism of the organisation in question; whilst you claim that you're rejecting the @Adamyoda's contribution due to the fact that the cited sources are not trustworthy and heavily biased and, thus, safeguarding the impartiality of Wikipedia, you are yourself a self-declared Christian with strong political views who's written extensively about religious sites and worship places, sometimes without citing publicly available sources for the claims made in your otherwise well written articles. One doesn't need to make substantial efforts to believe that your views might be biased in this respect and that you're not actually safeguarding Wikipedia's impartiality despite your claims.

I believe it would be only reasonable if someone else was to check the article for consistency with Wikipedia's rules and best practices, particularly considering the very nature of the subject and the controversy at play here. I agree that some sources used by @Adamyoda don't respect the rules, but I wouldn't dismiss the critique part that easily considering the subject, instead I would advise for more/better sources. Plinuxs (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect informations removed

I have edited and removed today 2 informations regarding myself and my activity. I dont mind criticism or being exposed for what i am doing but providing incorrect or misleading informations will help noone. Should you need more details please contact me directly: [personal information removed - those who want to contact you can request and receive such information from you in private. Plinuxs (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC) ]. Thanks. BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.197.14 (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)