Talk:Focolare Movement

message: The Criticism section appears to be one persons specific views. Is this really notable to be included? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned before, there is no mention why Gordon Urquhart is notable for his opinion on this group from reliable sources. Wikipedia is for verifiability not truth IRWolfie- (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a criticism section has resurfaced. While it's fine to present due weight to negative viewpoints, it's also required to have reliable sources for this, and I would dispute the reliability of the sources provided - focolare.net is an independent website with an agenda, and blogfocolare.blogspot.com is... a blog. News sources and reputable published books are reliable sources; these are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: A book by this same person criticizing the group does not constitute a reliable source or show that his criticisms are anything other than a fringe view. The blog appears to be anonymous also (or at least not provide full names). If you want to have a criticism section you must show that the claims are not just a fringe theory by the use of reliable sources. (Also notetworthy is that the few reviews for the book mentioned are also very negative about the quality of the book!), Also Relevant: Fringe Theories.   IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Since you assert being an ex-Focolare member, then you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be making these types of edits in the first place. (Focolare members also have a conflict of interest with this article.) Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Because they are primary sources! Elizium23 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Also they are relevant in the article, if you can show that what you are attempting to push has reliable sources that also show it is not a fringe theory then it can be included. As an ex-member you can still contribute unless you are not pushing aims that conflict the interests of wikipedia: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works from reliable sources. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: (RFC rfesolved per discussion) Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a redirect so that New City Press is now a valid WP search term ... it will take readers to Focolare Movement.  It may take several days for it to appear in the WP index, though. --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Question, did you mean to create an RFC for this question? It is easily handled by those who watch this talk page - RFCs are usually for dispute resolution or at least to cast a wider net for people to weigh in on a controversial topic. Anyway, due to WP:ASTONISH we don't really want people following that redirect when there is no content about the subject itself here at the article. It would really be best to write something about New City Press in a section, and redirect there. Has this company been covered in any third-party news sources, or should we just write a stub based on the organization's own web page? Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizium:  Are you addressing your questions to me? (Note that the originator of the RfC used the User name "New City Press", which appears in red text above).   I did not create the RfC ... I noticed in the RfC page and came here to offer an opinion.  It looks like New City Press is a minor publishing house, and I see no problem with a redirect to its owner Focolare Movement, but if you think the New City Press is too insignificant even for a redirect, feel free to nominate it for speedy deletion: I would not object. --Noleander (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was addressing the OP regarding the RFC. Anyway, I've written a section about NCP and updated the redirect. I think that should be plenty for now. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  directing wikipedia to find the page on which an external link is located