Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) I would downgrade the reliability of this article. I have been following this article, and the controversy surrounding the subject it discusses for some time now. The fact is, is that the denomination described by this article has been in absolute turmoil for the last 18 months or so. Mass resignations, leadership changes, theological position changes, and financial and moral scandals have become the order of the day. Many former members of the church vehemently disagree with the statements posted here as "fact", including, I might add, the individual who originally de-stubbed the article. Partisan editing (on both sides of the controversy) have been extremely common and right now, there are a few unsigned contributers who persist in removing the Neutrality Dispute in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. This is NOT a reliable article.--Martin Buber 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Interesting spin Martin. Actually, no one disagrees with what's posted, but those that have left the CEC in last year's U.S. based upheavel would like to post so-called information based on things they've heard through the rumor-mill. Some of it is true, much of it is out-of-context, and some of it is outright lies, but most importantly, NONE of it is publically available information and thus does not belong in an encyclopedi article. Just stick to the facts, which are present in the article. All of the clergy and parish departures are mentioned as well as a high-level representation of why. Getting into the specific charges, when those charges are accumulated based on an internet forum and behind the scenes phone calls isn't appropriate. If it can't stand the scrutiny of a court of law, because it can't be proven, you'd better not publish it lest you bring a lawsuit on yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

General | Convergence Movement | Origins and Vision | Government | Beliefs | Worship | Finance | Military Ministry | Growth & Current Status | References & External Links

Contents 1 Organization/Development of Article 2 Continuing Anglican Movement? 3 Subsections 4 Neutrality Dispute 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Ceclogo.png 6 Please Adhere to Wikipedia Guidelines 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Cecshield.gif

[edit] Organization/Development of Article

I've revamped and brokendown the CEC discussion page to conform to the present subsections of the article. If you have a comment or question or discussion you wish to introduce, please make it subsection-specific or, if general in nature, please post it on that talk page.

Kenneth Tanner 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, also remember to put all the subpages on your watch list so you'll know when someone's talking. Kennethmyers 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I manually check them from time to time, but if someone wants to put them on a watch list that's a better--more timely--method of monitoring. As for more references in the article, agreed. I'm not the one for that job, however, as the growth of this parish and diocese keep me occupied almost 24/7. Kenneth Tanner 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Anglican Movement?

Someone added the CEC to a list of churches that are part of the Continuing Anglican Movement and then linked to our page here removing the photo from Manilla. I restored this page and removed the link from the Continuing Anglican Movement page since we, the CEC, openly state that we are not associated with the Anglican or Episcopal Churches. I assumed it was just more vandalism, but spotted an old post from Canon Hatfield on the Continuing Anglican page and thought I'd better open this up for discussion here rather than assume it doesn't belong. So does anyone think we are involved with that movement? Please state the case. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subsections

The subsections seem to be more confusing than helpful. Should these links be deleted? --Knulclunk 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

CEC "Debate?" How about just keeping to factual/verifiable info? Dgardner710 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the point, Knulclunk, thanks. The purpose of the tag is to engage in a process to resolve the problem. Most edits that are rejected or undone here are mostly vandalism, people posting ridiculous things that are inappropriate. Until those who are placing the tag are willing to discuss what it would take, specifically, for them to agree to remove it, I'll keep removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So what parts are considered non-neutral? What would have to change to remove the tag?--Knulclunk 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the number of persons on both sides of the CEC debate who have repeatedly edited, un-edited, and re-edited the article, to suggest that the article is, in fact neutral, is itself a seriously non-neutral point of view! Regardless of where any of us stands, let's call a spade a spade!--Martin Buber 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ceclogo.png

Image:Ceclogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Added rationale and removed tag. --Knulclunk 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Adhere to Wikipedia Guidelines

Please Note the Direct Quote from the Wikipedia Guidelines about edit wars regarding Neutrality Disputes!!! Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

Factual? Who knows what is "factual" any more? As Ken Myers has pointed out (the guy who wrote the original article, remember?) what WAS a fragile, hard-won consensus, has been repeated hijacked by CEC partisans. Yes, there are strong opinions on both sides. NOT to recognize this is fundamentally dishonest. And, as this dispute is nowhere near resolved, it is against the policy of Wikipedia to remove the Neutrality Dispute.--Martin Buber 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, what parts are you concerned about? Which sections are POV? I've read the article several times... are there facts that are incorrect? Are you concerned about tone of the recent developments section? Remember, nothing about this article should be "inside" information. If it hasn't been published and sourced, it can be removed.

The NPOV tag says "take it to the talk page", but you have repeatedly failed to explain your issues with the article. Go ahead and change the most egregious section to something you would prefer, but be prepared to source it and, if need be, defend it here on the talk page. (Then you can restore the NPOV tag!)--Knulclunk 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin - Ken Myers wasn't the original author, spin back through the history and you'll see. The point is, you need to actively discussing what needs to change in order to remove the neutrality tag, that's also in the rules. Since those who want it aren't here discussing it, then they are the ones in violation and deserve to have the tage removed - period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cecshield.gif

Image:Cecshield.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)