))
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)