Talk:Charismatic Christianity/Archive 2
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Anthony Appleyard in topic Merge proposal
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Charismatic Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Archive of merger discussions for 2008 and 2009. Note: discusssions may be refactored.
Unmerging
Merging charismatic and Charismatic Movement has been a disaster for clear comprehension: the former is a theological position and the latter is a historical movement. This page needs to be resurrected! Hyper3 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that Charismatic (Christians) be merged into this article, Charismatic Christianity. My reason is that the name is better: "charismatic" alone is ambiguous, as "charismatic (Christians)" might seem to refer to the charismatic movement. If the move goes ahead, the edit history from the much more extensive article Charismatic (Christians) should be preserved in the merged article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be merged, but called "charismatic" again - there is little competition on wikipedia for this title besides a horse, and together with "having charisma" (which has no page) could be dealt with using a hatnote. It is important to preserve the distinction between charismatic and the Charismatic Movement as Colin has proposed. Hyper3 (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually "having charisma" does have an article - see "charisma". I've redirected charismatic to charisma - there is no question that the latter is the most frequent usage of the former. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant that the meaning of charismatic that is "having charisma" has no page because it comes under, as you say, "charisma," rather than "charismatic." Even if the most frequent usage of the word "charismatic" is pertaining to character, rather than Christian spiritual gifts, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily the best way to organise an encyclopedia... "charismatic" can have one page and "charisma" another, and hatnotes can be used to distinguish them... I don't think you need a disambiguation page for three items, as there is very little amibiguity, therefore... if you don't agree, then at least redirect "charismatic" to the disambiguation page. Hyper3 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- The primary meaning of "charismatic" means "having charisma", not charismatic Christianity. Incidentally there's more than 3 articles pertaining to "charismatic" – see the "charismatic..." entries on Charisma (disambiguation). For the umbrella term relating to Pentecostals, the charismatic movement and neocharismatics, we need to use what the sources use. I have seen "Renewalism" used frequently, and also "Charismatic Christianity". I recommend the latter, as it seems clearer. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Colin - on re-reading our conversation I think your position has more integrity; I'm just trying to get scholarly material about my area up, and you are considering the nature of the encyclopedia. I still have a problem with "Charismatic Christianity" as it might refer to the cultural aspects of charismatic religion rather than the theological position which is the primary meaning. How about "Charismatic (Christian theology)? Should we merge the two disambiguation pages? Hyper3 (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas! (um, if that's your POV...) I'm no expert but a couple of reliable sources I've consulted use the term "renewalist" primarily – The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements ed. Stanley M. Burgess; and "Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals" by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2006. Another recent book used the term "Pentecostal" in this same generic meaning, hence the distinguisher "classic" Pentecostal is sometimes used. Of course "charismatic" has also been used as an umbrella term. However from my brief survey the preferred term in the reliable sources is "Renewalism". I suggest we use it. The question would then be, could this article take that title, or would it have to be disambiguated further? (I've invited WikiProject Charismatic Christianity to comment). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas to you too - definitely my POV!!! The problem with "renewalist" is that it presumes that something needs renewing, and "charismatic" as a theological position could be applied all the way back to Jesus... it implies modernity in an unhelpful way. I've amended the "charismatic" page to be more forthright on this. I think we should still use "charismatic" in the title, as this is the most well recognised term. I would go with charismatic (theology), charismatic (Christianity) or charismatic (gifts). Hyper3 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas! (um, if that's your POV...) I'm no expert but a couple of reliable sources I've consulted use the term "renewalist" primarily – The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements ed. Stanley M. Burgess; and "Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals" by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2006. Another recent book used the term "Pentecostal" in this same generic meaning, hence the distinguisher "classic" Pentecostal is sometimes used. Of course "charismatic" has also been used as an umbrella term. However from my brief survey the preferred term in the reliable sources is "Renewalism". I suggest we use it. The question would then be, could this article take that title, or would it have to be disambiguated further? (I've invited WikiProject Charismatic Christianity to comment). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Colin - on re-reading our conversation I think your position has more integrity; I'm just trying to get scholarly material about my area up, and you are considering the nature of the encyclopedia. I still have a problem with "Charismatic Christianity" as it might refer to the cultural aspects of charismatic religion rather than the theological position which is the primary meaning. How about "Charismatic (Christian theology)? Should we merge the two disambiguation pages? Hyper3 (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The primary meaning of "charismatic" means "having charisma", not charismatic Christianity. Incidentally there's more than 3 articles pertaining to "charismatic" – see the "charismatic..." entries on Charisma (disambiguation). For the umbrella term relating to Pentecostals, the charismatic movement and neocharismatics, we need to use what the sources use. I have seen "Renewalism" used frequently, and also "Charismatic Christianity". I recommend the latter, as it seems clearer. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant that the meaning of charismatic that is "having charisma" has no page because it comes under, as you say, "charisma," rather than "charismatic." Even if the most frequent usage of the word "charismatic" is pertaining to character, rather than Christian spiritual gifts, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily the best way to organise an encyclopedia... "charismatic" can have one page and "charisma" another, and hatnotes can be used to distinguish them... I don't think you need a disambiguation page for three items, as there is very little amibiguity, therefore... if you don't agree, then at least redirect "charismatic" to the disambiguation page. Hyper3 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually "having charisma" does have an article - see "charisma". I've redirected charismatic to charisma - there is no question that the latter is the most frequent usage of the former. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- The title to use is what the best sources use. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well that would be "charismatic" - I have never seen "renewalism" in all my studies in this area: see Nigel Scotland Charismatics and the New Millennium: the Impact of Charismatic Christianity from 1960 into the New Millennium 2nd Ed (London: Hodder, 2000) Hyper3 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should go ahead with the merger, and keep "Charismatic Christianity."Hyper3 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK so we're back to my original proposal. Let's go ahead with it then, but we'll need an administrator to do it, because Charismatic (Christians) has the more significant page history, which needs preserving. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, its something we can agree on, and move things along. Thanks for your patience! Hyper3 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've placed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves for administrator assistance. We should keep the page history of Charismatic (Christians), but use the title "Charismatic Christianity". Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, its something we can agree on, and move things along. Thanks for your patience! Hyper3 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK so we're back to my original proposal. Let's go ahead with it then, but we'll need an administrator to do it, because Charismatic (Christians) has the more significant page history, which needs preserving. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should go ahead with the merger, and keep "Charismatic Christianity."Hyper3 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well that would be "charismatic" - I have never seen "renewalism" in all my studies in this area: see Nigel Scotland Charismatics and the New Millennium: the Impact of Charismatic Christianity from 1960 into the New Millennium 2nd Ed (London: Hodder, 2000) Hyper3 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.