Talk:Mothers and Fathers Matter

Edits, April 2015

Ruy costa, Please do not revert multiple article changes with a single edit summary addressing only one of the changes. My most recent edits involved:

• Placing references after punctuation, not before.
• Removing a blog source per WP:RS.
• Using the common name for the referendum.
• Removed statements about opposition to a non-existent Bill (the Bill ceased to exist when it became an Act).
• Removed advert for a future event per WP:CRYSTAL.
• Copyedit and addition of references.

Your changes, at this point, are breaching multiple policies and you are in danger of breaching the three-revert rule. Please engage here rather than simply reverting again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bastun Could you please NOT remove references to the campaign against the Children and Family relationships bill. Also regarding the referendum which the Independent Referendum Commission title a neutral Marriage Referendum and not the partisan naming the Yes side and government use. Ruy costa (talk) Ruy costa

Bastun Could you please put back in the content regarding a group set up in 2014 to campaign against the Children and Family Relationships bill which you have consistently removed from this page, this is bordering on vandalism of a page.

First, thanks for engaging - much appreciated :-) M&FM can't campaign against the Bill, because it no longer exists - it's passed, was signed into law, and is now an Act. The rest of the sentences referring to the Bill, to be perfectly honest, were ungrammatical and didn't really make sense. They also requires sourcing and neutral wording, and the source can't be a blog, per policy. Regarding the Marriage Equality Referendum, the Bill is the "Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015" - how about as a compromise, we use that full title in the lead sentence and thereafter call it the 'Marriage Referendum'? Note also that Facebook pages can't be used as sources. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As regards blogs, surely WP:SELFPUB applies? "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field..." Otherwise the article seems on the face of it (I haven't checked closely) to be fairly well sourced: Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, etc. It also looks fairly NPOV to me as of now. If this is the result of collaborative editing, then congratulations to you both, and keep it up. I do agree that future events should not be included, per WP:CRYSTAL. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB doesn't seem to apply - the reference in question is from this blog entry, which although titled "European Life Network", appears to be the personal blog of someone called Pat Buckly (not the bishop), who doesn't appear to be a member of M&FM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. Yes, I missed that. Scolaire (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of posters section

Most of this is unsourced. YouTube - not sure if this is a reliable source in this case, but in any case, vandalism of posters takes place in every election/referendum. Feel free to include if sourced, when you also include the condemnation of the removal of the posters, and you include the vandalism/removal of Yes posters and murals. NPoV and balance, Ruy. (Also, could you stop randomly capitalising words, please?) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ruy costa, are you actually going to engage here, or just continue to add unsourced/biased "information". Are you a member of Mothers and Fathers Matter? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bastun No I am not a member. Are you?... I defend the right of freedom of speech and i condemn demonising of anyone for their political view.

April 27th edits

Ruy costa, your edits articles such as Mothers and Fathers Matter are seriously problematic. You do not use edit summaries, making it harder for other editors to see what changes you're introducing. Your spelling and grammar is questionable, at best. You include material with no sources (e.g., a minor example, that Bruce Arnold was a speaker at a conference still remains unsourced despite this being pointed out to you on several occasions), you make multiple changes/additions/removals with the one edit, making it much harder for other editors to revert, your edits seem to be blatantly point-of-view, and you are refusing to engage on the Talk page. Please review your behaviour. I would ask again - are you a member of M&FM? And are you also editing from 95.44.247.151? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bastun I think your edits and removal of content about this grouping, seem to be one-sided. i.e. publishing opponents viewpoints of a group, and giving opponents views of the group more precedence over information about the group. Information about the removal of the groups posters, and vandalism of them, were edited and diminished in relevance, and almost justified it. Also you mention what opponents of the group say about their posters without putting up what the grouping articulate about these comments.

Bastun If you think some content on the page needs a citation then put Cite beside it rather than remove it please.

Please sign your posts by using four tildes ("~"). I would recommend you read some of the main WP policies, such as those on verifiability and neutrality. It is perfectly possible - and indeed is a requirement - to include multiple views on an organisation, viewpoint, statement, etc., where there is controversy. I will include both "pro" and "anti" points, and have been doing so where this is necessary - e.g., replacing the sentence on the hotel offering a 50% discount for No posters (a despicable publicity stunt!). It is also a requirement to include sources for your statements - you can't just include that so-and-so spoke at a conference without a citation (and I'd question the value of just including a name, in any case). It is quite possible to write neutrally - e.g., "the group invited Enda Kenny to a debate" (with a citation!), without the implied negativity of "but he has failed to respond" - as if the Taoiseach needs to respond positively and publicly to every single invitation he receives. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bastun Again you have now removed the paragraph about the Vandalism and Removal of posters, and put in content from the Yes campaign, this is a page about a group who are against changing the definition of marriage, you seem to be directly trying to post biased information about it. Why quote an opponent of the group while not quoting what the group says itself. If you want to have a paragraph about the controversy about the content of poster have one but don't delete the paragraph about Vandalism and Removal of posters by Yes supporters Ruy costa (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again - include sources for your insertions. You can't just say "This happened" with nothing to back it up. WP:V is policy, not a guideline. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Ruy - I am not sure that self-loaded YouTube videos can be used as a WP:RS, hence my removal of the Conor Pope video before the weekend. You reverted, I reverted, you reverted, I left it in since. You also published a statement with no sources saying that posters had been vandalised in various places. No source => the material can and will be removed. (Yes posters have been removed and vandalised too, btw. This sort of thing happens in every single election, and I'd question the validity of its inclusion at all!) I inserted the statement condemning the removal of posters - NPOV. You inserted the part about the hotel - I removed it as part of a revert because it had been included with lots of other unsourced statements; I then reinserted it with correct capitalisation and grammar (and other relevant material about the Ryanair-like nature of the hotel!) - NPOV. It is possible to cover controversial subjects in a neutral manner. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mothers and Fathers Matter. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150822105258/http://thecorknews.ie/articles/poster-campaign-controversy-18570 to http://thecorknews.ie/articles/poster-campaign-controversy-18570

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)