Talk:Sodalitium Christianae Vitae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Hi, I believe that the article is to be impartial and not constantly modified to suit one side. I've been reading the diffs in the history, and i believe, that, indeed there was some modifications that were simply insulting but i also think is annoying that every time i make a modification, including criticism, that i've read in the press, about the organization (and read it, i'm not taking a side, i'm just putting the information in its place) someone change it. For the hundred time, this religious organization, not only has a record of being against abortion, but also against all sexual planification methods (not taking side, the Roman Church more than once has said this, i'm just stating the facts), and the pursue by the liberal agenda of a legalization of abortion (although it can be argued that the mere concept of opposition to abortion and same sex marriage defines all, but i am filling the black spaces). About the "Teología de la Liberación", anyone in latinamerica knows that, even if it was disvouched by Vatican, it was a popular tendency, specially with the poorest and the marginal groups in the latinamerican society. (AGAIN, not taking side!) When i changed the homosexual marriage reference, it was because the use of homosexual has been historically linked with a negative meaning, so to be more modern in the use of language, used the new term "same sex marriage" (see this for a terminological debate, Same-Sex Marriage). Please, help me construct a good article about this subject, and do not delete information, because the article seems more and more to one-side story that an encyclopedic one... --Mariocossio 08:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you want to change articles in the encyclopedia, be polite, and use a wikipedia account, put a name behind the modifications. its also part of a true information policy.. --Mariocossio 08:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just quoting one of the Wikipedia Pillars (Neutral Point of View):
we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
- I removed the bold text from the article (section: The Sodalit spiritual family):
"his particular Church reality is comprised of several branches which have come into being as a consequence of its development under the impulse of the Holy Spirit"
Because it affirms a religious aspect as a universal reality. Its problematic and breaks the neutral point of view. It could be fixed like this: "as a consequence of it development under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, as they state". I'll wait until someone talks about it.--Mariocossio 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The page was deemed vandalized recently from the last round of changes that were made. I think this page would benefit from more citations to original sources. Indeed, I often feel that much of the write-up has been taken from Sodalit websites and it would be appropriate to acknowledge where this information comes from. Wikipedia is neutral territory and thus introduced information should be properly referenced from its original source and not 'assumed' to be correct. --J M
