Talk:Cursillo

Misconception

There is a common misconception that Cursillo is a "renewal" program. It is not. While a personal renewal may be an outcome of the weekend, it is not the intent. Cursillo is a "Short Course" in Christian leadership and living piety, study and action in the 4th day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdlldl (talk • contribs)

Anglican Cursillo

Since Cursillo also operates within the Anglican church under license, should the not be a mention of such in the main article? Geoff Riley 06:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Didnt cursillo start in the Canberra Goulburn diocese by Donald Shergold of other fame?

Is it a Cult. It seems to be very cult like and is hunting longtime anglicans away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.109 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic cursillo movement started in Spain. I don't know where any of the various Protestant versions that were modeled after it started.

Is it a cult? That depends on your definition of 'cult', but I think the answer is 'no'. It may share some similarities with cult-like movements, but has one key difference that I believe disqualifies it, which is that cults operate with a mindset of 'leave your old life behind, come make this your life', whereas in cursillo, the message is 'when the weekend ends, take what you've learned and apply it in other areas of your life'.

But enough about that, since Wikipedia is not a forum. There are better places than here to debate the merits of cursillo. --mwalimu59 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 75.19.179.55

Speaking in support of the edits made by 75.19.179.55 (talk · contribs), who has identified his/herself as being from the National Cursillo Centre in Dallas, Cursillo is a Catholic movement, and as I said above it operates within the Anglican church under license.

It did not just spread to other Christian denominations, but rather the ideas behind Cursillo were taken and used by other denominations; there were initially a number of other organisations attempting to use the name 'Cursillo', but these were stopped by the fact that it is a registered trademark and, as far as I am aware, the only license has been issued to the Anglican church where the use is closely monitored to ensure that it is not misused or misrepresented. In the UK, where I am from, the British Anglish Cursillo Council oversees the administration of the license within the British diocese — and as diocesan roles change it is very important that no-one is allowed to 'have a good idea' that would interfer with the fundamentals of that license.

It would be useful if the NCC were to have a named account rather than an IP account, but as they have identified themselves, and the edits are in line with what I would expect of them I do not feel that there should be any dispute made of them. —Geoff Riley (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your evidence regarding licensing, etc. Moreover, if the NCC is attempting to edit this page, that is an evident conflict of interest. Allens (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There have been several previous attempts by unregistered IP users to edit the article to remove content addressing non-Catholic versions of Cursillo. Most of the IP addresses can be traced to Indiana. NCC is located in Dallas and offhand I could not find anything to suggest that they have offices in Indiana. While I can't rule out NCC involvement, this looks more like the work of an individual acting on their own. mwalimu59 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cursillo-like retreat

This information was deleted that was germane to Cursillo and erased. As far as I know this is the only Cursillo-like retreat that there is. It was footnoted.

"A derivative retreat for Catholics is called "Christ Renews His Parish". It is a two-day retreat, normally Saturday and Sunday, and therefore does not qualify for the term "cursillo" meant to apply to a three-day retreat.[1]"

Evidently the editor mistook it for a listing of "just another retreat" or something. It isn't. It is unique and should gather no companions. Nor has it for the months that it has been here. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of material

Referenced material may be challenged on the basis of being accurate or inaccurate. But Cursillo does not own this page. It is about whatever information arises about Cursillo. As a result Cursillo-like retreats may be discussed or at least named.

Material is not WP:CENSORed in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see an argument for moving information about other three day movements that are not specifically called "Cursillo" to the three day movement article. Allens (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there is an identical retreat where attendants arrive Saturday morning, stay one night, leave Sunday afternoon, a "two-day" retreat. Time span is the only difference. I agree that it cannot (and does not) call itself "Cursillo," but to move all similar, but not exactly identical, retreats to a separate article seems a bit much somehow. It did inspire all these others. Student7 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Image protection

Apparently someone from Cursillo is on this page trying to prevent the dissemination of cited and factual information. This is a violation of WIKI's TOS. cited information will be allowed to remain on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genoasalami (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, I am not "from" nor do I represent the Cursillo movement. As for the added material, I checked the sources and they do not appear to be unbiased sources but rather represent the opinions of their respective authors. The information added should if anything should be in its own section headed "Controversy" or "Criticism" or something similar rather than being incorporated into the article text as if it were unbiased fact, but in the absence of less biased, more reputable sources, I question whether including it at all is appropriate. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

On closer review of the two sources, neither qualifies as a reliable source. The first is essentially the experiences of two people talking about what happened at their local protestant versions of a Cursillo weekend (). The second is a lengthy article with only a single paragraph mentioning Cursillo and related movements; this and other pages on the website beliefs that not all Christian faiths subscribe to. The first (which the edits in question seem to draw from the most) I would dismiss out of hand as not qualifying as a reliable source; the second is questionable and if used should be represented as the opinions or beliefs of its authors rather than as unbiased fact. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that they are not academically appropriate sources. My attempts at marking them as Neutrality Disputed were removed by another editor... it seems that someone it trying to use this wikipedia page as their personal attack vehicle against this movement. 67.20.10.29 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

that's interesting since the entire point of Cursillo is that participants are told not to talk about, not to Google it, and previous participants hide in groups to observe first-timers. The first-person accounts of actual participants are legitimate primary sources as any historian will tell you. The fact that you may disagree doesn't invalidate their observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genoasalami (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. A sufficiently large number of first-person accounts representing a sufficiently broad cross-section of experiences could be reliable, but a small number of accounts where the identity of the source cannot be independently verified, and where there is a strong possibility of selection bias in which accounts are presented, is not a reliable source. Also, it is highly inaccurate and disingenuous to take one or two people's accounts from one or two local church's movements and present them as if they were typical of Cursillo as a whole. mwalimu59 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's really what you think, then you need to trash the whole article and start over because Wikipedia is not an advertising tool for your pet project. Prior to my edits there was literally no information on this page about what Cursillo actually entails. Guess why? Because they tell you not to talk about it. Just like scientology and every other fringe movement. so if you want to scrap the article and start from scratch lets see what peer reviewed sources we can find detailing what goes on. Otherwise, I think you should let this go. Genoasalami (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

First, what makes you say that this article is "my pet project" or that I'm trying to advertise anything? I edit a lot of articles on Wikipedia on a variety of subjects. Second, are you assuming that I am intentionally withholding or misrepresenting information about the subject? If so, how did you come to that conclusion? One of the most important tenets of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and so far I'm not getting any sense that you're doing so on my part. All I'm getting from you is that you know "the truth" and because I don't concur with it and doubt the reliability of your sources I must therefore be "biased" or "withholding information" or defending a pet project. mwalimu59 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I assumed good faith until (a) you repeatedly undid my edits without discussing first on the talk page, and (b) i looked at your user page and saw Roman Catholic. I added 2+2 and I suspected that you are a roman catholic who has been on a Cursillo retreat and who has a vested interest in the content of this page. If I'm wrong, let me know!Genoasalami (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I engaged here in discussion within the first two times I reverted the edits, which is within reasonable guidelines for discussing disputed edits. I've been on Wikipedia long enough and have been through enough content disputes to be aware that you can't just groom an article and push a desired point of view but have to allow articles to reflect a multiplicity of viewpoints, even those you don't agree with. I still object to your edits as they appear to represent a few people's bad experiences as if they were an accurate representation of the movement as a whole. As two other editors have said, the sources you're trying to cite are not reliable under established Wikipedia guidelines; please feel free to review those guidelines and explain why your sources are reliable under those guidelines. You cannot just ignore them and make up your own rules about what you think should be a reliable source. mwalimu59 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Arguments / Edit Wars

My edits have all been under my account and signed ... but I do think that this page is way too pro-Cursillo. It also at least until recently didn't actually contain any information about what the program is. At least one of those references are primary sources, which is a completely legitimate source. Genoasalami (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources for "Cultism" section are not reliable

It seems clear that the sources for the "Cultism and Psychological Reprogramming/Brainwashing" section do not meet Wikipedia Verifiability Reliable Source guidelines which say, in short:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The referenced sources are neither reliable nor published, nor do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Frankly, they seem to be self-published blogs, which are not acceptable under Wikipedia Self-Published source guidelines, which state, in brief:

For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

Since the source is unreliable, I suggest that the section be removed. Full disclosure: I am a Roman Catholic, but have never attended a Cursillo retreat or any other function. I have not, to my knowledge, even spoken with someone who has been on a Cursillo retreat, much less any of their officials. Nor have I ever seen anything by nor communicated with "mwalimu59" until seeing this page. Kardinal (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping someone else would take notice. Since you mentioned my name you evidently already know my position.

I'm not disputing that Cursillo was a less-than-positive experience for some, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are some local movements that go over the line as far as using psychological tactics (especially among variants that don't have to be accountable to the National Cursillo Center) but it's inaccurate to state that all Cursillos are like this or that everyone's experience is bad. A good analogy would be if a few of McDonalds restaurants were found to have poor food safety practices or treated their employees badly (both of which have likely occurred), and those instances were used as the basis for edits claiming this was true of the entire restaurant chain, even if the vast majority of McDonalds don't have these problems. mwalimu59 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cursillo. 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/20120210132842/http://tresdias.org/hp.htm to http://tresdias.org/hp.htm

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) 16:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cursillo. 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/20010303223825/http://www.upperroom.org/emmaus/whatis/history.asp to http://www.upperroom.org/emmaus/whatis/history.asp

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) 22:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Emmaus reunion groups

The Walk to Emmaus does indeed have a formal method of '4th day' continuity such as the Cursillo 'friendship groups' and 'service sheets' to keep members accountable in their practice of the method. This is in the form of reunion groups. Membership of one is even a prerequisite for being on team for a retreat. Andrewa (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Does not say what Cursillo teaches

The article says hardly anthing about what Cursillo teaches. It just says it is a 3 day retreat. Then there is a long history section. This is a major problem. It's hardly worth having on Wikipedia in its current form. Ttulinsky (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)