I removed lines lacking citation from the Intro which sayed that centering prayer is contrary to the teaching of the saints and lines from the Practice section which sayed that RC's and anyone who wants to grow closer to God should avoid practicing centering prayer. I did so mostly because it seemed to me that they would be more appropriate in a "Reactions to" section and I don't really know how to create such a section.
The edit I'm explaining was the second edit done on April 7, 2008. Punkmorten 11:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Interfacing with other pages, and conveying scope of interest
I recently added some material about how Centering Prayer is 1) described by a book that sold huge numbers of copies, and is 2) the basis of an organization for its dissemination. Both of these are indicators that help to convey to the reader the level of interest and awareness that exists about Centering Prayer. I would maintain that the article is incomplete, and remains less informative, if it does not convey this information. JonHarder reverted those additions, saying in the change log that the added material "basically introduces another article and a book [and] can be done more concisely by using standard 'See also' and 'Further reading' entries". However, JonHarder's changes also make the article less informative by removing sourced information that conveyed those two aspects of the scope of interest/awareness of CP. A bit of overlap between different WP articles is common and often needed for good exposition. Therefore, on this basis, I am restoring the material. JonHoarder, if you disagree with this reasoning, perhaps you could explain here on this talk page? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. As there is currently no separate page for the book, there seems no less reason for citing the translations here (topic page) as at Basil Pennington (author page). Health Researcher (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was hasty in removing the section. The section has some problems. The only independent, third-party references come at the end; I can't access either one of the links, but I assume they establish the number of book copies sold and do not in a general sense support the rest of the paragraph. What I see is a section about dissemination highlighting a group and a book that offers no source of independent information that this is the most prominent or influential group or that these are the most prominent or influential book on the topic and then establishing that this is the primary means of dissemination. With only inferred evidence the section seems like slightly enhanced "See also" and "Further reading" items.
- What does it matter if this is the most prominent group or this is the most prominent book? I suspect that may indeed be the case, though I don't know if it's documented. But... so what? That is, the page does not claim that they are the most prominent. Nor is the page jammed with excessive material about organizations and books about centering prayer, so that material needs to be prioritized. FYI, I don't have anything akin to a COI for either the book or the organization. But I do think that they should be mentioned on the page, as a way of conveying the scope of interest in CP. (yes, the Publishers Weekly article, as well as the Shear book, mention the sales of the Pennington book) Health Researcher (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Briefly, as the article progresses, I envision a "Dissemination" section becoming one that covers the topic broadly and is well-referenced with third-party sources. Too many less well maintained articles let such a section become a laundry list of random facts and books minor to the topic. By sticking to third party sources that list the primary influences, the "book of the month" is held at bay. (I was not seeing any COI with our edits.) ✤ JonHarder talk 12:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- A style issue that I don't understand is the intent of the "(see article)" link. If it is meant as a parenthetical reference, it should be removed because Wikipedia does not self-reference. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "see article" was not meant as a substantive supporting reference. It was just intended as a way to alert the reader to the existence of the WP article more clearly than simply a link, but less prominently than the sort of thing that one often sees at the beginning of a section saying things like "(see main article on XXXX)". That is, it was meant as an in-line analogue of the "(see main article on XXXX)" which seems clearly allowable by WP style, since it is used so often. Does putting it inline depart from WP style? For all I know it might -- but if so, I would be interested in a link to the page where that is documented, so that I can learn. Thanks Health Researcher (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- There probably is no guideline that speaks directly to this issue. Primarily it goes against my sense of avoiding redundancy and assuming that the reader knows to follow the first link if more information is needed. The closest guideline speaks of reducing identical links, particularly in the same paragraph. In addition, I would say that using the world article in this way is an unwanted self reference to Wikipedia; others would say it is an acceptable neutral self-references. My preference is to remove that phrase. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)