Talk:Brownsville Revival

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Added tag for needing sources/citations/references

I have nothing against the article, other than it is not verifiable by outside sources. If this event occurred, then it follows that many citations from newspapers, magazines, posted video interviews, etc. would be available for references. See other articles in Wikipedia to learn how every assertion in text should be referenced to a verifiable source. If an assertion is not referenced, then your assertion can be considered 'original research' or 'opinion', and further changed at will by other authors. For example: "Hitler was a madman" is an assertion that can be changed by any other author. But, with a reference to a verifiable source, you may find the assertion written as "Hitler was deemed a 'madman' by English newspapers as early as 1939 [1]." This latter example, even if few or many disagree, is encyclopedic in style and verifiable from its sources. The latter example should stay within a Wikepedia article. Caryn LeMur (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of article

There are no references, many generalisations and assumptions. Amrix 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the only issue was the lack of a reference for the video--what other issues are there? Blueboy96 06:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The article seems biased, with only external links to visit and no actual references for specific quotes made except possible one website which itself doesn't source any of its references and is 1-sided critical. 3 of the 4 external links are critical web links to articles, they themselves seem to be POV articles. Amrix 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article seemed quite neutral and factual to me (and I am one that visited the revival). No one likes to admit that their church or movement has been criticized, but the fact that criticisms have been made are a pertinent fact regarding any person, church, or movement. Can someone specify what is disputed here?--Loudguy 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of dispute is the sourcing of quotes and information. Whether the article is critical or not, is irrelevant, what is needed is an unbiased article to represent the facts (in my opinion). Amrix 22:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You do have a point. I added a couple of "citation needed" notations. I also deleted the initial comparison between Brownsville and Toronto. I have studied both of these revivals and there are significant differences between the two. There was no manifestation of animal noises, for example, at Brownsville. Laughing was present but not prominent at Brownsville and no exhortations were given there to "soak." The comparisons between Brownsville and Toronto are, it seems to me, attempts to make Brownsville guilty by association. As I looked at the article again, I realized you made some valid observations, Amrix. At the same, time I find that the article is in some ways kind to Brownsville, Kilpatrick, Hill, and Brown by not mentioning other controversies that could have been discussed.Loudguy 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the neutrality--and believability--of the article is threatened more by its unqualified spiritual assertions ("while Hill was ministering, the Holy Spirit began to manifest His power and that hundreds of people came to faith in Christ.") than by any inclusion of critical viewpoints. This quote is not a provable assertion: it is a debatable conclusion drawn from the evidence by the revival's supporters, and most of the world's population (including myself) feel that alternative explanations are far more tenable. If this statement is to remain in the article, it must be as a single hypothesis amongst alternatives (sociological explanations, etc), and clearly stated as such. One can describe the experiences that made attendees arrive at this hypothesis, but in order to be neutral the article should then also include the experiences of attendees who reached other conclusions. In short, the sentence I quoted is not describing events, but a belief about those events. One could argue that statements of belief should be excised entirely from this encyclopedia, but I feel that in an article about belief it is entirely appropriate--as long as it is clearly identified as such and balanced with other viewpoints.Yowzaboodle 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please specify date

"...began within the Pentecostal movement in 1995. The revival began unexpectedly at Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida on Father's Day..."

As Father's day is not the same world-round, could the dates please be made more specific. --Belfry 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest series of edits (December 3-6 2007)

The latest series of edits, far from improving the article, removed any mention of dissenting commentators and adopted the rather silly, breathless, outrageous tone of evangelical promotion that I would expect from, perhaps, Charisma Magazine, not a Wikipedia article. I have restored the one paragraph that suggests that dissenting viewpoints might exist and appropriately tagged the article to forewarn readers that what follows is not encyclopedic and to encourage constructive editing. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion?

This in no way resembles an encyclopedia entry. It reads as an insult to what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I say we deleated the whole thing and if some one wants to make an actual article then go for it. I live in Pensacola so I can say first hand that this event does deserve an entry but this one was laboring and painful to read. 198.179.142.6 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving some thought to a radical stubbing of this article back to how it appeared in September 2004 if no other editors are willing or able to make needed changes. You are correct that the current version is very hard on the eyes and most other parts of the anatomy. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this article needs to be deleted. The article was fairly well-written prior to December. I've reverted it back to the last good copy. This revival did indeed touch millions of lives. I was living in Pensacola at the time, and can personally say that during a six-month trip I took through Europe I was on numerous occasions asked about the Brownsville Revival when people found out I was from that area. This said, the revival was also wrought with controversy and allegations of fraud. It would be a perfect candidate for an article that lists both the viewpoints of supporters and critics of the revival. Hebron (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Violation: Viewpoint Bias Should be Corrected

I don't know anything about the revival at Brownsville but the following sentences from the introductory paragraphs read like religious testimony, not like a neutral encyclopedia article.

"Pastor John Kilpatrick had invited evangelist Steve Hill to be the guest speaker for the day, and while Hill was ministering, the Holy Spirit began to manifest His power and that hundreds of people came to faith in Christ. Characteristics of the movement included repentance, a call to holiness and manifestations of the Holy Spirit."

Some of the attendees of the event may believe that "the Holy Spirit began to manifest his power" but it's not just a biased statement, it can be a needlessly offensive one to some people, depending on their religious orientation.

A previous editor has already noted the POV vio. Can someone who actually knows what is alleged to have occurred please edit this section so it is NPOV?

Thanks (anonymous coward using a friend's computer!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.229.144 (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)