Talk:The Economy of God

[Untitled]
This is an article on the Economy of God, a book on major teaching of W Lee. I am asked by an another wiki editor (Brian0324) to explain why I have added the tone tag when I myself have created/started this article.

The justifications are: 1. The first tone tag was added by RussBot (an application wiki software) on 1 April. (See history) So later I edited this article further and removed the tone tag when I felt that the article sounds like wiki now. 2. Although I contribute heavily on wiki but still I am comparatively a new editor here so I am learning a lot about writing on wikipedia. (for example: on the wiki page we have on watchman nee -- I recently saw major edits/changes by an another editor Brian0324) I studies his edits and learned a lot of things about the POV. So, to make this page on Economy of God a perfect wiki article I decide to just restore the "tone tag", which I myself removed few days back. As the tag is present on this page -- it might attract the interest of other editors and thus our article will get better. 3. I am learning quite fast about the usages of "red-flags word" on the wiki articles .. for eg, words like much, beloved, best, never, always, self-less, renound, .. etc are quickly deleted/changed. These words come under the overtly POV thing, no matter whether that is true or not, or factual or not. So I want this article to be reviewed by other editors on wiki community to make it appropriate for all the readers of wikipedia. 4. Finally, I would say, lets make this article better for everyone. HopeChrist (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just restored the tone tag and have also changed the tone of this article significantly ... if anyone of you feel that the tone is ok or fine for wiki (which I think it is with few minor edits), then feel free to remove the tone tag. I don't want to remove it myself (this time) unless no one takes the interest. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the title should be modified to clarify that it is indeed name of a book as that book's content is biased toward to the view point of the Local Church people. 11:52, 24 March 2009 (GMT+12) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.226.152 (talk)

Not the place for a book report
Please check the other Christian book studies on Wikipedia for examples of what they are looking for: short summary, impact and reaction to the book, etc. It is not the place for book reports. Localchurch (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs)

This article is being recommended for speedy deletion for the following reasons: • Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement--the article does not satisfy notariety and is just an advertisement for Witness Lee books. • No original research-- there have been no independent sources reviewing this book and therefore the only comments made or to be made fall under original research by reading the book. • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--this and other articles like it by the writer are being proposed because he (HopeChrist) likes them and wants to summarize the material, which may also violate the copyright of LSM. Localchurch (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally notable Work to be on the Wikipedia
There has been discussions and concerns regarding the book issues on Wiki in the past. This is very notable and valid work. What this articles need is more expansion rather than a "deletion suggestion" from a user whose sole work on the Wikipedia is to insert POVs into the articles related to Nee, Lee and local churches. Thanks wiki community. HopeChrist (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not on Wiki in the past, but I am now. According to my review of Wiki speedy deletion, this article certainly qualifies. The fact that you pleaded for exception to the rules indicates that you knew having such an article violated the policy of Wike. Please do not characterize me as POV. Let's stick with policy rather than who got here first. Please address the issues raised with no agenda. Appropo (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

POV edits
Is this not a POV edit or advertisement: - ==Foreword== -   - The foreword is written by the author himself. The first and the last paragraph of the foreword goes like this: -   - "'The following chapters are the messages given in the Summer Conference of 1964 at Los Angeles. The spoken form has been retained. The author would urge all the readers to give their attention to the spiritual reality conveyed in these messages rather than to the language itself.'" -   - "'For a proper application and better result, all the messages in this book need to be read with a praying spirit. It will be more profitable to pray-read all the quotations of the Scriptures in every chapter and always accompany the reading with prayer. May the Lord's presence with His sweet anointing within be realized by all the readers in their reading of these messages in the spirit.'"  Appropo (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Book
Wiki states:

This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1.	The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. o	The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] 2.	The book has won a major literary award. 3.	The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4.	The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5] 5.	The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.[

Please verify through reliable sources which of the above criteria this book qualifies as generally notable and state why. Appropo (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Other issues
The whole 'Meaning of Economy' section seems to be an example of the etymological fallacy. It may be that this section accurately summarises the logic of the argument in the book (not having read it, I can't say either way), but the way this is written suggests this is not the case as it references other works. It looks like the page creator gave their own interpretation of what 'economy' means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:548C:7201:8083:68CF:AAAE:A04B (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your bringing up this issue. Having studied Greek, the Bible verse that is part of the basis of the book and this section, and having had to study this book as part of a theological curriculum, I can say that this section does not make a claim about the present meaning of the word "economy" based exclusively on its etymology, thus not meeting the definition of etymological fallacy. The meaning of the word "economy" as described in this section and this book is revealed through the context of the verse itself as well as a look into the Greek from which the verse is translated and is also supported by other scholars of the Bible, which, as you pointed out, are the works referenced on this page. Thus I also don't believe that the page's creator presented their own personal belief of the word "economy" given what is presented. &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  03:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)