Talk:Focolare Movement

}}

Rewrite

Not only are there several biased aspects of this article (both for and against, neither neutral), but swathes of it are in very bad English. I'm trying to rewrite it but don't know enough to do anything but assume the factual accuracy of what's already there and reword it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.4 (talk • contribs)

Criticism Section

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)

I am not Gordon Urquhart but I am a former Focolare member and I absolutely agree on the things said in his book and on the focolare.net web site. I witnessed:

• the personal cult of the leader (when you let the "old you" prevail, you are making Chiara suffer!"??
• a hidden rigid hierarchy (Youth for a united world did not know that everything is planned in GEN circles behind the curtains, even who will befriend with each of them
• an efficient internal communication system (they had daily communication downloads and uploads, years before the internet, speaking about colors...)
• secret knowledge, revealed to the followers in steps of initiation (Youth for united world did not have the same meetings as
• member indoctrination (I lost all my friends, they made me to have friends in the Movement!)¨¨¨¨

I wish if I had someone to tell me I should keep my eyes open when I was entering the movement. If these accusations are not true, people would quickly see they are lies. If they are true why are you afraid of the truth? (Previous comment by 218.227.160.50)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you want to keep a criticism section please add more reliable sources. Also see about wikipedia being about verifiability not (perceived) truth. Also Please do not revert my change without discussing.

I'm going to keep the mention of Gordon Urquhart for a short, if no one can link me to a reliable source on why his claims are notable then I'll remove them. Also the the reference given in previous revisions was not a reliable source for what was claimed in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why have the references to criticism been removed? I realise I am biased towards a negative view of the Focolare, due to personal experience with them and having several family members in the organisation, but purely from an encyclopaedic point of view - surely the fact that criticisms exist, whether or not the accusations are true, is relevant. --Shoemoney2night (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have just added two references. One blog and one BOOK. Who is actually judging that one book is adequate source of information and the other is not?! When you are pleading for unbiased view, please be consistent. For example, how come that you do not question economy of communion which is a pure hoax. Please check http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/f/fo/focolare_movement.htm as the real non biased standpoint! 88.207.42.129 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

I am an ex focolare member. Can you confirm that you are NOT a focolare member? 88.207.42.129 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Please remove all the links to the web pages of the Focolare movement. Why their links can be on the page, while the link to the site of ex focolare members can not?!88.207.42.129 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

I am another ex focolare member, of whom there are many. Whilst I would not like to criticise the many good people who are in the focolare movement, after six years in the movement I would definitely call it a CULT. The interior workings of the movement are quite sinister. There is a total lack of transparency at all levels and if one were to ask any devout member of the focolare what they knew about the inner workings of the movement, it would be very little. There is a fundamental problem to having a rational debate about organisations like the focolare, those who are in the focolare are motivated by faith and not by rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.228.7.14 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works from reliable sources. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this. I found an article on the cult aspects of the Focolare movement here: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-166X2006000400003. The editor cuold add this as a reference to a criticism page. anacreon 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by user (talk • contribs) This comment was a previous account with my real-life name I would like to delete any references that identifies me.

The demands for sources in the criticism section is strange and I would say biased. Be it as it is, some claims of criticism really needs to be put into the article. Szederjei (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this book came out two years ago, La setta divina, written by journalist Ferruccio Pinotti, and apparently contains interviews with theologians and ex members. Mariomassone (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

directing wikipedia to find the page on which an external link is located

(RFC rfesolved per discussion) Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

When I type "Liturgical Press" into the Wikipedia search box, I am redirected to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Press which is clearly not an article about the press but about its sponsoring organization -- and there's an external link to Liturgical Press at the bottom. Because I work for New City Press, I don't want to create an article about it, BUT, it would be good if someone looking for it could be sent here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focolare_Movement since this is the sponsoring organization, and New City Press is listed as an external link. (So, I'm just using the Liturgical Press/ Saint John's Abbey example as an analogy.) At the moment, if I search for New City Press, I just get the option to create a new article for New City Press, which I don't want to do. New City Press (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks good, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• RfC is resolved - I believe this RfC is resolved and can be closed by the originator. --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)