Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Charismatic Renewal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Relations to Other Charismatic Movements" section

[edit]

This section definitely needs to be expanded.

Charismatic Catholics and Vatican II

[edit]

I've heard that many Charismatic Catholics are critical of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the use of the vernacular. Is this true, and if it is, can anyone provide a reference? --Saforrest 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the exact opposite is true. The reforms of the Second Vatican Council have allowed the Catholic Charismatic population to grow. To my knowledge and experience (with there being quite a few charismatic churches/priests/bishops in the Archdiocese of Miami) this statement is false. Aafm 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EWTN reference biased?

[edit]

I'd have to say the Colin Donovan reference about Paul VI is biased. He may have warned, but there are many stories of Paul VI's great support and his comments that I have heard were greatly in favor of the renewal. This lack of mention makes it seem that Paul VI was allowing it, but was only worried about. The reference to Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict the XVI was about a famous interview with him, where the questions he was asked all dealt with the problems of the renewal. He finally added in on his own accord his belief in the goodness of the movement, which seemed to be a result of the questions asking about only negative characteristics of individuals within the renewal itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.135.226 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this, there are many claims by those within the movement that there is hierarchical support, and I've found a level of selectivity when finding quotes from the Popes on the topic.
I'll add a label for questioning the neutrality of the article. - Unsigned, 2/1/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.207.128 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edited that paragraph using more scholarly sources (replacing the Donovan source) and removed the flag. Feel free to let me know if you think it still needs improvement. –Seflores (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to have more references from secondary scholarly literature (e.g., anthropology, religious studies). The references seem to be either web-centric or institutionally sponsored. It may also be helpful to have a better sense of how big this movement is within Catholicism. Akibah (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is biased in the EWTN article? When 208.251.135.226 commented in 2008, the EWTN sourced content was (this version):

Three popes have acknowledged the movement: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul stated that the movement was integral to the renewal of the entire Catholic Church. Both Popes Paul and Benedict, while acknowledging the good aspects of the movement, at the same time urge caution to its members to maintain their link to the Catholic Church.

How is this bias? Only the reference to EWTN was removed in 2015. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic Renewal changed my life

[edit]

Just want to add a comment that being baptized in the Holy Spirit was a catalyst in my life. All who are baptized have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, but what this prayer asks is that God stir that gift into flame. And He does not dissappoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.62.52 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Charismatic Renewal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catholic Charismatic Renewal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for making the lead NPOV-compliant

[edit]

I propose the following changes in the lead:

  • The word gift in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs if used at all should be in quotes and not in wikivoice.
  • The word charismatic in the 1st, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs should not be capitalized (and neither should renewal in the 5th paragraph).
  • In the first paragraph personal relationship with Jesus and gifts of the Holy Spirit should be in quotes and not in wikivoice.
  • Remove the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph, since such a statement needs to be attributed and cannot be made in wikivoice. The sentence is also repetitive, since Fr. Cantalamessa is quoted as saying essentially the same thing.
  • Change As Fr Raniero Cantalamessa says to According to Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, per WP:SAY.
  • Remove the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, because it states in wikivoice that the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be interpreted as favoring the charismatic renewal approach (rather than the traditional approach that some other Catholics prefer). This violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. (Then move the quotation by Fr. Cantalamessa to the 2nd paragraph.)
  • In the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph change and feature such gifts as to that feature.
  • Remove the last sentence of the 4th paragraph, which is repetitive and gives WP:UNDUE attention to a not very good source.
  • In the 5th paragraph change the word testify to say, per WP:SAY.

Please let me know if you object to any of these proposed edits. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs independent sources, compliant with WP:PROMO

[edit]

I removed material that lacked independent sources (that is, sources other than those from the charismatic movement and official Church statements). Other parts of the article also need better sourcing.

According to WP:PROMO, Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. Earlier I made some edits to the lead (listed above in this talk-page) in order to make the tone more encyclopedic. But this topic is far from my own areas of knowledge, so other editors would be better able to improve the neutrality and the sourcing in the main body. Whenever possible, statements should be verifiable through independent, third-party sources. I'd have no objection to putting the material I removed back in the article if care is taken to give better sourcing and not to express religious opinions in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: You put back the material without adequate sourcing and with religious opinions still being expressed in wikivoice. All of your new section on "Ecumenical implications" is based on just one source, and it is not an independent third-party source. The authors are part of the movement they're writing about. The Amazon "About the authors" information says the following: "Peter Hocken, Ph.D was an accomplished ecumenist, scholar of pentecostalism, and longtime participant in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. His books included Azusa, Rome, and Zion and Pentecost and Parousia. Christopher A. Stephenson, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Lee University and author of Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit (OUP, 2013), as well as articles in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, International Review of Mission, Ecumenical Trends, and Istina. Tony L. Richie, D. Min, Ph. D. is Lecturer in Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary, Lead Pastor at New Harvest Church of God, and author of Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue." Please do not put back the material again until you've found independent, third-party sources and removed wording that implies Wikipedia endorsement of religious opinions. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts by User:NightHeron

[edit]

Hello User:NightHeron, you removed a very large quantity of information from this article (twice). Note that the information you removed is sourced to academic publishers. Your most recent edit replaced the lede sentence of the article, which was previously well buttressed with two citations that meet WP:RS, with an unsourced version. The first source is published by an academic press Ashgate Publishing and authored by Todd M. Johnson, PhD, a professor of Global Christianity and Mission at Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary. The second source is authored by Peter Hocken, PhD, who received his PhD for his research on the history of charismatic renewal from the University of Birmingham, England. Both of these individuals are very well qualified to write on this movement. You will need to explain why you removed that since the lede sentence you instated violates the policy of WP:V as it is completely uncited. Additionally, you removed an entire section on Ecumenical implications from this article, even though it is authored to Peter Hocken, PhD, who is clearly notable and even has his own article on Wikipedia, as well as Tony Richie, PhD, an Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology and Systematic Theology, and Christopher A. Stephenson, PhD, an assistant professor of systematic theology at Lee University, Cleveland; moreover, the text was published by an academic publisher, Brill Academic Publishers. These certainly and undoubtedly meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Asserting that these individuals are not reliable in an article about Christian theology because they are Christian theologians themselves is as bizarre as saying that a biologist is disqualified as a source for an article pertaining to Staphylococcus aureus. Please note that if you revert again, you will have reached WP:3RR and that with another revert, you will have crossed that and will be taken to WP:AN3. I am going to ask that you respectfully discuss your edits rather than reverting since your reverts are unjustified. If you continue to revert, I will undo your edit again. Please sit back and allow others to join the discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:NightHeron, in your edit to the article, you added a statement from Roman Catholic Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa to the lede, sourced to a website from Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service, yet you removed peer-reviewed books published by academic presses. Please kindly explain yourself and provide your understanding of WP:RS here. Thank you, AnupamTalk 14:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anupam, I don't see what "peer-reviewed books published by academic presses" you're referring to. Could you please specify which references I removed? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:NightHeron, thank you for your reply. I appreciate that you did not revert again. The books published by academic presses were removed in this edit you made. In your edit to the article, you added a statement from Roman Catholic Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa to the lede, which is sourced to a website from the Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service, but then you added the following template: {{third-party}}. Although I won't remove what you added, the information you added is actually sourced to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service website itself (a primary source), whereas the books I added are authored by theologians and published by academic presses (meeting the standard set forth at WP:RS). Anyways, I hope my explanation helps and trust that this issue is resolved, without the need to escalate this further. Enjoy your Saturday! With regards, AnupamTalk 18:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anupam: You have some misunderstandings about this. First of all, according to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, if you add new material that is reverted by another editor (who explains the reason on the talk-page), then the edit needs to be discussed and a consensus has to be reached before the edit or a modified version of it is put back. Putting the added material back without resolving the issue on the talk-page is considered edit-warring, see WP:EW.
Second, when Wikipedia speaks of "independent, third-party" sourcing (as in the third-party template that I put at the top of the article), it does not mean something written by a notable person who has his own Wikipedia page. It means someone who is not closely connected to the subject of the article. Your sources generally fail this test. Sources written by people who are part of the movement or representatives of the Catholic Church are certainly appropriate sources for citing the opinions of the authors or the views of someone who's quoted in the source (as I did in the case of Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa), but the different sections of the article cannot rely exclusively or almost exclusively on such sources.
As I said before, I am not knowledgeable about this subject. But I would think that the evangelical and charismatic movements in Christianity are a sufficiently important topic that there must be some people who are not part of those movements who've written about them in reliable sources.
You also seem to miss the point about wikivoice. Take, for example, your paragraph on ecumenical implications. Using the editorial voice of Wikipedia you state as a fact that the movement has "had positive implications" and later you again state as a fact what covenant communities emphasize. Such statements are opinions (perhaps correct ones, but that's not for Wikipedia editors to judge), and so they have to be attributed, for example, the way the lead attributes a statement to Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa.
Please self-revert and work some more on what you want to add. An efficient procedure would be to propose your additions one at a time (not too much at once) on this talk-page. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:NightHeron, you are wrong; personally being involved in the charismatic movement does not preclude one from writing on a subject academically. Similarly, being a microbiologist does not preclude an individual from writing about necrotizing fasciitis. The books that were used to buttress the information are published by academic presses that have a peer-review process (quite unlike the website you added to the article). The individual writing the text has his academic hat on, which is evident as his work is published by an academic publisher. "Positive implications" with respect to ecumenism simply means "advancing ecumenism". In the spirit of WP:COMPROMISE, I can edit that sentence to change the wording if you think the latter is an amelioration. I will not be self-reverting as I have explained why the sources meet WP:RS; I will try to find more sources for the Ecumenical implications to add to this article, however. Note that reverting several helpul edits en masse is not helpful so kindly refrain from doing that again, especially since you will be crossing WP:3RR if you do. Since you self-admittently state that you are "not knowledgeable about this subject", you should allow individuals who have a good understanding of Christian theology to expand this article with reliable sources. If you edit war here, I will not hesitate to revert you again and escalate this. However, if you see any issues with the information in relation to WP:V, I will be happy to discuss them with you here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished adding more references to the article, as well as rewording the sentence you took issue with; I also attributed the second claim, per your request, though this wasn't really necessary as the information is not controversial at all. Two new references, which both meet WP:RS, characterise the charismatic movement; the first is authored by theologian and scholar Wolfgang Vondey and published by Wipf and Stock Publishers, an academic press. It states: "The charismatic renewal is the most broadly-based ecumenical phenomenon in present-day Christianity that engages Christians of all traditions." The second source characterizes the ecumenical membership of People of Praise—information that is provided at that article too. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked at your user talk-page, thinking that you might be a new user, and was astounded to see that you've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years.
You misrepresent what I'm saying and fail to understand my point. I am not saying that you can't use those sources. I'm saying that you can't "excessively" rely on sources that are closely related to the topic of the article. That's what the template says.
Your point about biology is irrelevant. A scientist writing about science is not the same as an advocate for a particular religious or political tendency writing about that tendency.
Your entire paragraph on "ecumenical implications" is promotional. It presents opinions as facts in wikivoice. The paragraph that you added to the lead (the 4th paragraph) does the same. That is unacceptable.
You are wrong to insist on putting the material back without addressing these concerns. If you want to ask for a "third opinion" (see WP:3O), that's fine with me. But in the meantime you should self-revert, in compliance with WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, and WP:EW. NightHeron (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my last comment or did you ignore it completely? Per your request, I just added more sources to the article that meet WP:RS. As you have admitted yourself, you know nothing about this topic and at this point, are simply being disruptive to the project. I have tried to work with you and have shown this by adding more sources to the article, rewording the sentence to which you took issue with, and also attributing a non-controversial claim. Instead of being grateful, you continue to complain. Note that what you added to the article (a primary source) is what actually is problematic. I think we're done here but you if continue to edit war, I will be reverting you and taking you to WP:AN3. You are not offering suggestions on how to rewrite anything, nor are you bothering to do any research yourself; you are simply barking orders to an editor with over 20,000 times as many edits than you in the spirit of WP:OWN, insisting on removing information from this article en masse. That's not going to fly here. Either propose ways to actually improve the current wording or WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. I have already told you to wait until others comment here to get more input, so if you still object to the edits (which in my opinion is bizarre), then you should wait. Thanks for your understanding, AnupamTalk 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. And please stop threatening me. My lack of knowledge of the topic has nothing to do with the matter. I'm trying to explain to you why your use of wikivoice for religious claims violates a core Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV. Since you boast of tremendous experience editing, I'm amazed that you find this so hard to understand. Let me try once more. Saying that a claim should be "attributed" does not just mean "sourced". It means you have to say something like "According to..." or "So-and-so said" or something similar. You have to be careful not to use certain words that suggest that Wikipedia agrees (or disagrees) with the statement, see WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SAID. Wikipedia has to be neutral, especially about things like politics and religion.

I already made several edits to the lead (see above), which I first proposed on the talk page to see if anyone objects. It's not my duty to edit the entire article, and specifically it's not my duty to edit what you want to add. You added some material that violates core Wikipedia policies, and I reverted it, explaining why. Then you kept putting it back, falsely claiming to have met my objections. That's not collaborative editing, which is what we're supposed to be doing here. NightHeron (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that I'm being unreasonable. Please reread the 4th paragraph in the lead. At my insistence you attribute the last part, but you don't attribute the earlier claim. You state as a fact in wikivoice that the Catholic charismatic movement is "intrinsically ecumenical in nature". That is an opinion, and in fact a controversial one. Don't you see what's wrong there?

As I said, if you agree, we could ask for a third opinion (WP:3O). NightHeron (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you made your most recent comment, I also attributed the statement in the lede (you can see that I am trying to cooperate with your suggestions for improvement). The sentence that the charismatic movement is intrinsically ecumenical is noncontroversal, especially since we have multiple sources that corroborate it, from academics, such as Peter Hocken, to Roman Catholic Cardinals, such as Leo Joseph Suenens. Entire books, such as Grassroots Unity in the Charismatic Renewal, published in 2011 by Wipf and Stock Publishers, an academic press, are written about this subject. Furthermore, any reader can simply access the footnotes, most of which have the original quotations present, to see that. I think that should resolve any issues that you have with the text. If not, let's wait for others to chime in. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calming down and dropping the hostility.
The reason why the "intrinsically ecumenical" opinion is controversial is that it depends on how someone interprets the word "ecumenical". The article Ecumenism defines the word broadly in terms of "promoting Christian unity". Apparently people involved in evangelical and charismatic churches interpret the word to mean promoting unity among those churches. That's fine, but that's only an opinion. Do people who adhere to liberal, non-evangelical Protestant churches agree? They might define ecumenism differently and be less inclined to see the charismatic churches as being "intrinsically ecumenical", particularly if those churches show little interest in unity with the churches that are outside their movement.
The 4th paragraph of the lead needs editing for clarity and for NPOV-compliance. I'll do it if you want me to.
The first sentence of the section "Ecumenical implications" is unclear. Since the article is about the Catholic charismatic renewal, the reader can reasonably assume that the claim is being made about that. However, the second reference is to a statement by a Pentacostal theologian, who is likely not referring primarily to Catholic charismatic renewal. NightHeron (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The charismatic movement refers to the movement of "pentecostal" experiences within the historic Christian Churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc.): what you refer to as liberal, non-evangelical churches; it does not refer to separate Pentecostal Churches. The sources used all are in reference to historic churches, especially the Catholic Church, with respect to the charismatic movement. That is a basic point to note and you should understand the difference between the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism (please note the correct spelling of this word). Yes, the first sentence of the "Ecumenical implications" section is referring to the charismatic movement within historic denominations; this is why the source says "engages Christians of all traditions". The second reference used to buttress that statement refers specifically to the Catholic Church. You are welcome to check out the book from your local library and read it if you have any doubt about my work here. Anyways, you offered to edit the fourth paragraph of the lede. Would you mind adding your proposed revision here before you add it to the article? Since I have access to the sources, I can make sure that your revision is true to them that way. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly confusing to readers like me who are not part of the movement. The article Pentecostalism defines it as a "Protestant Christian movement", which would seem to exclude Catholic charismatic renewal. So it wasn't obvious to me that Wolfgang Vondey, whose Wikipedia page describes him as a "Pentecostal theologian", was thinking of the Catholic charismatic renewal. My point is still valid: not all Christians are favorably disposed toward the charismatic movement, and not all Christians would agree that the movement promotes "Christian unity" (which is what Ecumenism says the word means) in a broad sense (i.e., of all Christians). In any case, I removed the Vondey reference when I edited the paragraph so that the entire statement is attributed to the authors of reference [8]. I assume the quoted words were from [8] and not from [9], so [9] doesn't belong.
I'll make a deal with you. I'll agree not to misspell pentecostal if you correct your misspelling of my username in the section heading above. I chose a name based on herons, not heroes. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...the academic references seem relevant for the article and in their context they dictate the interpretation of "ecumenical". Not sure what the debate is about but certainly if the sources speak of the charismatic movement being a part of or spreading into the Catholic church, then they certainly would not be unwelcome here. Attribution should resolve any disputes if there are controversial claims coming from the sources, but it looks like the adds are just about the background and history than anything else.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments User:Ramos1990. I also never expected the edits to result into a dispute. It looks like User:NightHeron has already reworded and attributed the sentence that he took issue with so I think this issue is resolved. If he is not satisfied, your continued input would be appreciated. User:NightHeron, both the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism teach a Baptism in the Holy Spirit; many people who had such an experience (which originated in Pentecostalism) became members of Pentecostal Churches--these people are known as Pentecostals. On the other hand, members of the charismatic movement who had the experience stayed within their historical Christian Churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, etc.) and heralded the belief in Baptism in the Holy Spirit (usually accompanied by glossolalia) within their denominations. Once again, we need to distinguish between one's personal religious beliefs and their academic discipline; Wolfgang Vondey studied systematic theology and directs the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies. Both Pentecostals and members of the charismatic movement uphold a belief in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit; it's for this reason that the conferences of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal have invited speakers from other denominations, including Pentecostals, to teach, as the book published by Brill Academic Publishers notes. Anyways, I hope everything is hunky dory now. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 03:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I agree that the lead is now NPOV-compliant. The NPOV issues I've raised are indeed simple to address, as Ramos1990 points out. In the material you've added, except for the lead (which I've edited before), I'd rather not be the one to fix the problem, especially since, as I've said, it's not an area where I know the background.
Concerning the section you added on "Ecumenical implications", about half (the third and the last sentences) are attributed -- thanks for doing that -- but the others are not. Let me explain again why claims about the ecumenical nature of the charismatic movement cannot be made in wikivoice. The claims are controversial. Would members of Christian churches who are outside the charismatic movement and disagree with it accept those claims? Wouldn't many of them say that true ecumenism is much more inclusive and would not only welcome one particular tendency within the various churches? I assume you would strongly disagree with those opinions. But Wikipedia does not have a stand on that issue. It's neutral. That's why the claims about ecumenism must be attributed.
I agree that the expertise of the authors of your sources is not diminished because they are representatives of the belief systems they study. By analogy, suppose that a prominent spokesperson for the Labor Party in the UK writes a book about the Labor Party. That might be a useful source for an article about the Labor Party. But it should not be the only source or the main source if the article is supposed to be encyclopedic. The issue is that articles on political or religious groups must have independent, third-party sources and must not read like a website for the group, per WP:PROMO.
All I'm asking you to do right now (so that I don't have to revert again) is to attribute the claims in the added material that are not already attributed. If you don't want to look for independent, third-party sources, that's fine. The template about this will remain until one or more editors add such sources.
Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That section looks good to me already with whatever has already been attributed. I do not think that much in the section is controversial and I do not see anyone really disagreeing with the claims from the sources that the charismatic movement has expanded to the catholic church. On top of that, it is not really up to one editor to appease another editor by finding a source that will please another editor. Editor A merely adds his/her sources and if you think it needs balancing then you have to put in the effort to find one because you feel it needs another source. For instance, if Editor A finds a source on atheism that is for atheism and the another editor (Editor B) thinks that the point has been challenged in the literature then if falls on Editor B (who feels an need for another source) to find a source that challenges that point and add that in. No editor is obligated to find comprehensive sources for and against something. Rarely have I ever seen an add that has pros and cons on wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BRD: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. From WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Do you really think that the words opening the added section -- "Given that the charismatic movement transcended Christian denominations,..." -- are uncontroversial? The word choice is clearly promotional, and the sentence is in wikivoice, unattributed. If the editor who wanted to add this material refuses to make simple changes to bring it into line with core Wikipedia policies, then the proper response is to delete it. Of course, I won't revert the parts of the added material that are attributed or are truly uncontroversial, and I won't revert the added paragraph to the lead, which I fixed so that opinions are attributed rather than stated in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is about reasonable compromising between editors, not pleasing every single thing that another editor asks - that would make compromising impossible. And It looks like there has already been lots of compromising already. And I do not find that statement you quoted controversial since the other sources already buffer that same statement. It is sourced. Do you have any source that indicates that the charismatic movement has not transcended to other Christian denominations? I did a google search and found many hits. I easily found this article too [1]. Even the wikiarticle charismatic movement shows so many denominations impacted for it. What is it that you find controversial? Seems well documented. And if you find a source indicating what you are saying, then you are free discuss it here to add and make the article better.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being quite reasonable. I asked you about the following words that begin the added section in wikivoice: "Given that the charismatic movement transcended Christian denominations,..." According to dictionary.com, the word "transcend" as a verb used with an object means either
to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed:
to outdo or exceed in excellence, elevation, extent, degree, etc.; surpass; excel.
[or in theology] (of the Deity) to be above and independent of (the universe, time, etc.).
Which of these three meanings do you think would make the claim uncontroversial? NightHeron (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically none of them make it controversial. Perhaps unclear, but definitely not controversial. It certainly does not state that the charismatic movement has gone towards other religions beyond Christianity. Also this sentence has 2 sources for it so we can just follow those. It looks pretty simple - if you don't like that word then use another one or simple rephrasing like "has spread across numerous Christian denominations". That makes more sense and is what the sources state. Problem solved. I will make that minor edit. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal&oldid=1223231533"