Talk:Universal Church of the Kingdom of God

Language Confusion
The language in this is likely confusing. I translated it from Portuguese, in a Portuguese Wiki article, to Babelized English. Then I tried to translate from Babelized English to standard. Some things in it may seem confusingly worded. Still this is quite possibly one of the world's largest new religions and they do have temples in the US so it seemed an appropriate topic. I just hope someone who knows about it can fix any unintended, and possibly offensive, mistranslations I made.--T. Anthony 11:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If anyone here can read Portuguese the page I based this on is Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus at Portuguese Wiki


 * I get the sense the article I copied has an NPOV dispute or the equivalent. Anyway if yo`er:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 00:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a native Portuguese speaker, and have spent a good time correcting the article in its syntax/ortographic flaws, while at the same time attempting to retain the original meaning. Hopefully things are a bit clearer now.

I have replaced all references to IURD, the Church is now called UCKG. This is an article in English, is it not? Why not use English language initials?

NOTE: I have not worked on the following sections: "Ecclesiastical Organization", "Controversies", "Tithe", "Disputes with Other Beliefs", "Evangelical Churches". I may do it at a later time though.


 * Okey dokey. I'm just glad to see improvement. It's apparently a fairly large and growing new religion so it seemed like it warranted a fairly big article. Unfortunately the one I made was a sloppy one made by translating the Portuguese article via Babel and then cleaning up as best I could.--T. Anthony 06:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the same native Portuguese speaker that posted here before. I have now edited the rest of the page. In its entirety the article is much more readable. Maybe the "clean-up" tag is not necessary anymore. Any thoughts?


 * Go with what seems right by you.--T. Anthony 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I too am a native Portuguese speaker. Where did you get all this information from? Why not stick to the original article and just translate it to English. The original wikipedia article was written in portuguese. The link is: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igreja_Universal_do_Reino_de_Deus


 * It is more complete, accurate and contains much more references. You should stick to the original article instead of creating a totally different one in. --Jayari23 (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Major updates
I made several updates to the article. For example, I included reports from the UK Charity Commission and articles on the Climbié case. --Prophet of Justice 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The restored version of the article is based on verifiable information from other websites. --Prophet of Justice 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

more controversy
There video in here http://youtube.com/watch?v=zeCG7buyn4o is a famous old video from Rede Globo showing Edir Macedo counting money, telling the other bishops how to gather money. This was an era when Globo attacked the UCKG very heavily. Should we mention it? 200.222.3.3 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The video link is broken 2600:1001:B118:5343:E8F5:80A5:6E9B:458B (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Spanish article on this is much much better. This one was clearly written or edited by members of this cult. This should be replaced with a translation of the es.wikipedia version. BTW, does anyone know why the symbols of this church appear to be a menorah and star of david, and why the videos they sell (I looked in one of their churches in Buenos Aires) are all about Old Testament figures with a Founding of Israel connection? 201.250.37.241 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Just Visiting in Buenos Aires


 * Organization has never claimed to be a cult.
 * Based on what I came across they believe in the Old and New Testament, there is recognition on what the Menorah and the star of David represent. 2600:1001:B118:5343:E8F5:80A5:6E9B:458B (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Organization has never claimed to be a cult." No organisation considered by almost everybody to be a cult has ever claimed, or admitted, to be a cult. There are criteria. Pol098 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A Brazilian judge has accepted prosecutors' claims that the founder of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God and other nine leaders took advantage of their position to commit fraud against the church and its followers. Prosecutors accuse Bishop Edir Macedo and other leaders church leaders of laundering more than $2 billion in donations from 2003 to 2008. Wildstone (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Reference: KIIITV News Aug 12, 2009

Unsigned Edit
I just made a small grammar correction in the kick of the saint controversy section but tried to enter a carriage return in the edit sumary box which had the result of making my edit without a proper summary. Just to let anyone following his article know and to save them wasting time over a minor edit. EFlower (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with the Edir Macedo entry / References
The Edir Macedo entry claims that he has a doctorate in Theology, while this entry claims that he has no formal theological training. Neither are referenced. Does anyone know which is accurate? Or does anyone have some more information on the "Faculdade de Educação Teológica do estado de São Paulo"? Jmdoran (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article
This article appears rather biased towards the church and except for the Victoria Climbié case, it does not mention the many controversies the church has been involved in, such as being banned from Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.11.117 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think someone probably related with the UCKG is erasing nearly all the controversies surronding the church. I reversed the article to an old revision, with all of the controversies written. If someone reverses it again, we have to stay alert. --201.5.41.74 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this article seems to be quite biased. I added an notice. --190.19.4.226 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted it to a version from late April that was much more balanced. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This stuff was again removed, but I've placed some of it back.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again bringing stuff back. This user seems to keep blanking stuff. Removing some controversies might be fine, but in the future I hope s/he discusses before blanking. If s/he won't do so I think semi-protection might be worth considering.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Any kind of criticism is reverted
The UCKG has been havily criticised. I think an article with neutral point of view can not ommit it. I am going to put one by one the points that User:Luizdl has arbitrarily reverted, and I want him to explain why each of them are not encyclopaedic or why should the be omitted from the article.
 * 1) The cult has been declared illegal in Belgium
 * 2) The cult owns an economic empire in Brazil
 * 3) The cult is being investigated by the argentinian justice
 * 4) Ex pastors say they have been trained to psycologically influence church attendants into giving money
 * 5) Official UCKG pastors have been recoded while buying normal oil in a supermarket, and selling it as the "Oil of Israel". This investigation caused massive rejection against the church in Argentina.
 * 6) Some critics claim it is a scet.  And I'd add the following, which I had not written:
 * 7) Brazilian justice investigated the church for a 2 billion dollar fraud.

Each of those facts is properly cited from a reliable source. Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) This information is wrong, there are 2 temples there, one in "Carnotsstrat 15 - 2060 Antwerpen Belgie" and other in "Square de l'Aviation 22 - 1070 Anderlecht", this information can be check here
 * Yes, it does.
 * Yes, it does, not only in Argentina, but in several other places, it can be input in the Wikipedia, but also informing the side of the member of this religion as it is required in Neutral_point_of_view, for it's members it is persecution because they say they aren't being stolen, they say they give their money for the maintenances of the temple as was taught in the Bible.
 * 1) If he is a former pastor, he has a good reason to be against this church.
 * 2) Two issues, first, every member from everywhere know that when is given oil, earth, water, anything else, it is mixed with that from israel with the national one, there is no how to import all that quantity of oil. Other issue is that these element is not for sale, it is given, and sometimes it is given for who make a promise of to prepare a special offering later, and the persons is never charged by any pastors for the promise it has done, for being free between the person and God.
 * 3) When you said scet did you mean sect? If yes it does not fit the definitions of sect, and you wrote the enough to prove you don't know many things about this evangelical denomination to argue it.
 * 4) Read my 3 answer again.

Please, take it ease, think what you would do if someone goes to the Catholic Church article and start to say that many priests are pedophiles, there are many facts and sources for argue that, but that surely would be taken as discrimination, think about it and about what you did.Luizdl (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was well sourced it has to stay, according to WP:CITE. In fact, there is a whole article about Criticism against the Roman Catholic Church. By the way, the situation of any other article is irrelevant. We are talking about this article. Religion and science —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentino (talk • contribs)
 * The reason I has undid was because it wasn't fitting the neutral point of view, you can add what you want with its respective sources but respecting the neutral point of view, someone had already input the predefinition for nominating this article for being checked for its neutrality, and your changes has furthered its partiality, when you said the church was selling Israel oil for example, you used sources from who are opposite to this church, and used the word "sell" for a thing was being given. You are welcome to be bold for add the criticisms you want, I just request you to be neutral from both sides. Luizdl (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course criticism is going to come from outside the church... and I thought that to give something in return for money, in english, is called "to sell". A "Neutral" article is not propaganda. It includes any important point of view. And criticism is not minor.Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For to be neutral from both sides, you may say that some criticism has been done saying it was selling a false oil of Israel (or something else), although many members know when the church gives Israel's elements that is always mixed, and they say these elements are generally given, and if not, that is given for who pick up an envelope promising to bring an offering later from free will (or something else). The Wikipedia is not a place of religious discussion neither partialities. God bless you.

Lopsided
This church apparently has tens of thousands of members who donate an enormous amount of money. The article, however, contains more criticism than information. There must be some reason why so many people belong. It would be nice if the article contained som hint of what people apparently find positive here.AMuseo (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral
Why is the article listing controversial non proved accusations, and yout do not take account of 15 000 000 of believers in Brazil, estimated 25 000 000 of believers in the world, who assist twice to four times a week to UCKG in each country? Can keep growing during 34 years, at this rate, an organization that is lying and stealing money? 4 or 5 cases can make a case in an enciclopaedia? What about millions of beneficiaries?

And, I tell you, I believed manifestating devil was staging, until I manifestate and I was liberated of an illness.

I reclame more neutrality and respect.

And living in Argentina, I can assure yout that Church has a very gook health here (estimated 600 000 believers). "Olive oil scandal" was only a manouver from a yellow-press tv show and all believers of UCKG know that oil in consagration is minimum olive oil from Israel maximum common oil, Pastor explain it all time. And the do NOT sell oil, neither roses, nothing at all. All offers are VOLUNTEER.--190.191.196.235 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if you could give a reference where the UCKG inform people that the oil is not olive oil from Israel. I have found references where the UCKG itself states that the oil is "the Oil of Promise from Israel" and "oil brought from Monte Sinai", but none clarifying that it is not. Also relevant, UCKG advertised that their oil had been given to a desperately ill child expected to die (with "16 loose arteries", whatever that is) who then recovered; the advertisement was banned. A multi-million mortgage fraud was reported in 2010; that is a fact, not an opinion. Various abuses are listed, with links, here.  "Can keep growing during 34 years, at this rate, an organization that is lying and stealing money?" Yes. E.g., Bernard Madoff and many others. Long duration does not disprove (or, of course, prove) allegations of criminality. Look at the history of indulgences sold, often with fraudulent intent and for personal gain, by members of the Catholic church for over 1,000 years.  "4 or 5 cases can make a case in an enciclopaedia?" No, an encyclopaedia does not make cases, it gives factual information. Pol098 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "I reclame more neutrality and respect." Neutrality you can and should demand; it is shown by only including material that is supported by evidence, i.e., reliable sources. Respect you cannot require; an encyclopaedia simply provides information, and should neither respect nor disrespect anyone or anything. Pol098 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was born in from South America, I speak Spanish and Portuguese, therefore I'm able to read first hand news about this issue. I'm going to talk you about the consensus at the Spanish Wikipedia edited by people like me. According to them, this church is a well known sect, charlatans that promotes the use of alleged magic objects, supposedly brought from Israel (or in reality, not brought, but bought at the corner shop), not just oil but at least 10 trinkets and knickknacks that supposedly can heal incurable diseases. Please check out the Spanish version of this article (or ask a friend to translate it for you) to find out fist hand information about these cheaters. There's a list of magic objects used on the sect TV shows (which also includes e.g. alleged exorcisms and magic cures of diseases with the magic trinkets). It is off course all referenced there. I will translate some for you: "holy water from the Jordan river", "blessed holy oil from the Getsemaní garden", "shreds of the sacred Shroud", "holy handkerchiefs from sacred land" (supposedly blessed in Israel), and the list goes on.--78.105.93.129 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanctification
"That people can be sanctified (become holy) during their lifetime."

Please note the source of the church claiming sanctification of followers;otherwise I suggest removing this bullet point --MightySaiyan (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightySaiyan (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The source for everything in the Doctrines section is at the top of the section. (It was out of date, though available on the Wayback Machine; I have updated it.) There is a long list of items in the reference; the article only lists a few not common to all pentecostal sects. Pol098 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

PROD
Universal_Church_of_the_Kingdom_of_God elected for PROD

via WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion under concern = Notability is doubtful or the without Independent sources ↔ Main Article Header: note Multiple issues ↔ Non-english-speaking/Language Confusion or {notenglish} ↔ Persistant Bias ↔ Tabloid ↔ Unverified neutrality ↔ Possible Criterias: G10, G11, A2
 * RECYCLE the issues; see Main Proposal


 * Deletion is a quite wrong suggestion. The article as it is can be criticised for plenty of reasons, but there is absolutely no question that the topic is notable. It's simply an organisation that had 2 million members in 2003 and has been growing since. The figures come from their own sources, but there's no doubt that they are big. Pol098 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE:

Victoria Climbié's death (UK)
I fail to see the point of ncluding this section. yes, the name of the church is cted a number of times, but there is very little connection. It would be like citing that the parents of the child worked at Walmart, that they used to take the child to Walmart and that a Walmart manager was the one to call the taxi that took her to hospital. So what?

It would suffice to say that the child would have gone some ritual to cast out spirits. Full stop. Not a leeeeeeenthy paragraph that makes the reader presume that there is an important point to it all coming further down, only to get to the end of it and at the end ask the question: "So"? or "So f... what?". Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Walmart is a bad example; they sell objects and do not claim to minister to people's well-being. Having said that, if a child was abused and seriously injured near a Walmart shop and taken inside, I would expect the manager to take sensible action. Remember that we are dealing with what was ultimately murder. UCKG claims to minister to people's well-being. Victoria Climbié was taken there because her guardians thought she would get effective treatment there (driving out demons, not what anyone sane would consider treatment). The minister actually suspected she was being abused, considered that she was possessed by an evil spirit, but did not inform medical authorities or police. He took no effective action (unless praying and fasting counts). He did not follow up. No action against him by UCKG is reported; he is to be considered as acting on their behalf. In the public inquiry the role of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God was investigated. And the UCKG was planning to hold a service of deliverance for her to cast out the devil. If the UCKG had not existed, Climbié would have been taken elsewhere by her worried carers, and might have survived. Pol098 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)




 * 1. Victoria was seen by dozens of social workers, nurses, doctors and police officers before she died, and by the UCKG, but all failed to spot and stop the abuse
 * 2. On 24 February 2000 Kouao took Victoria back to the UCKG, where Pastor Lima advised them to go to hospital and called a taxi

All the people whose job it is to look after the wellbeing of children did NOTHING; the church priest suggested the girl be taken to hospital and called a taxi. And yet you feel that the UCKG is responsible for the death? Weird strange logic, you display. But then, looking at what you have done on this page, I guess that impartial, unbiased and fair are not words that you live by. And by the way, I detest the UCKG - I find it a repugnant institution. But above that, I stand for telling an unbiased story, unlike you. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that this was overblown with regard to the church. I reduced the coverage on this overall and especially details related to the church, trying simply to state minimal facts. The pastor appears to have been one of numerous people who failed the girl, for his own reasons. Really don't think this should even be included in this article.Parkwells (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Replacement of sourced text by promotional article
Regarding changes to the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) article, most recently by User:Clarkxwayne: these changes typically consist of deletion of great amounts of sourced text, and replacement by text of promotional style, much of which has been copied verbatim from UCKG sites. (This (click) is one of several examples). Both deletion of sourced material and inclusion of promotional material from sources associated with the subject are entirely inappropriate and violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines; please do not do these things. To start with, it would be useful to read guidelines WP:COI and WP:NOTADVOCATE, and policies WP:NPOV and WP:EDIT. Pol098 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed the opposite in the article, at the top of page it says the article has multiple issues, and one of them is that it's "appears to be written like an advertisement", but on reading the article, it's the opposite, it's appear the article is written to blame the foundation beginning in the lead with assumptions or outdated information such as "The Church has frequently been accused of illegal activities and corruption, including money laundering...", if it was accused, and has not been proven, the lead is not the place for this kind of information. Also, there are false or outdated irformation, for example, the article says it has been banned from Madagascar for burning bibles, but not only there are many temples of UCKG in Madagascar as the UCKG has the bible as a holy book etc. So if UCKG in this article has only negative information, where is the propaganda?--Luizdl (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The Advert tag has been there for a long time, and the article has been edited and expanded with non-promotional text. I wouldn't object to the tag being removed, and I doubt anybody else will. You have a good point there.
 * 2. Many accusations of money laundering and other matters have been made, it is not an isolated case; this is discussed in many sections of the article. The introduction mentions them briefly; it summarises the content of the article, which is what the introduction is for.
 * 3. Reading the article, the Madagascar bible-burning case seemed unreferenced. But looking in edit mode I found that there was a reference for the Madagascar case, but it had been entered incorrectly and did not show in read mode; I have corrected this (added "{{") and the citation is now shown; I have also added another source.
 * These are all points of detail which can be discussed and dealt with; if you look at the article history you will see that the entire text was recently replaced by promotional material with the Advert tag removed, since reverted, which is what I was referring to when I started this section. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Clarkxwayne recently created Uckg universal church of the kingdom of god, a copy of this version. I left a note on their talk page that this is not the way to solve any issues they may have with this article. APK whisper in my ear  12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

More positive information needed
There have been comments that the article contains much criticism of the UCKG. But, while people complain about the (sourced) negative, nobody seems to be making any attempt to add actual information, from sources independent of the UCKG, on good results it has achieved. As an example of the sort of information needed, here is a quote from another article: [Inserted later] I have added a section, Activities/Humanitarian, for such information, and started it off with blood donation encouragement. Pol098 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A generally unacceptable POV revision which deleted huge swathes of text also included some material which could be appropriate, though not in its original form. This would need independent references and some quantification; for example "Food Donations" are listed on a UCKG site without detail; we'd need an independent source, value of the donations, any conditions attached (including attendance at meetings), etc.; I've been at lots of meetings where I was given a sandwich and cup of coffee. The UCKG information could be included it it's made clear where it's from (e.g. "UCKG India say on their Facebook page that they provide free haircuts to those attending their meetings", not "UCKG give free hair cut to everyone interested"). Spiritual counselling and even treatment for addiction sound as if they may not be entirely altruistic, and need opinions other than UCKG. Particularly needed are examples of unconditional strings-free humanitarianism (like the simple donation of money to help tsunami victims by another organisation, quoted above). Pol098 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Me again. I've been looking for independent favourable material on UCKG (e.g. following the "Medical Advice" entry in the text box above, I Googled "uckg medical advice -inurl:uckg", excluding sites with uckg in the URL), but not getting very far. For example the first hit for medical advice (potentially a useful contribution to the community) is an independent document that says "The UCKG are stll pushing their courses, advice sessions and helplines, claiming that whatever your problem is you can sort it out by going to them and praying." Other search results not originating from UCKG do not describe anything beneficial. Maybe we should highlight the free haircuts?

The following (from above source) maybe explains the difficulty in finding significant humanitarian achievements: "A separate examination of the finances of the British branch concluded: “The church’s reserves rose ... [by 2001 to] £6,333,000. Under charitable expenditure there is no mention of any spending on schemes for helping the homeless and drug addicts, which they claim are a major part of their work. They do make donations, but all of them, bar £33 go to ‘sister churches’ abroad. By March 1999 they were in a position to send £900,000 straight back to Brazil. Last year nearly £2.6 million was sent abroad.”" Pol098 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A recent deletion: was it justified?
Some text has recently been deleted with the edit comment ''See Godwin's law; why are we giving these people the time of day? All religions see their opponents as drastically wrong, UCKG apparently just doing it more forthrightly''

I don't think that this can be dismissed as "seeing their opponents as drastically wrong"; the source, totally respectable, speaks clearly not of rubbishing ideas, but of demoniasation, harrassment, attacks—physical aggression, not words—on other religions, accusations of "killers of Christ" (a criminal offence in many countries), "demons". “Fascism and Nazism started out this way, by demonising different groups" was said by the chairman of the CCIR. "Ialorixá Gilda died of a massive heart attack in 1999 after members of a pentecostal church swarmed into her temple and hit her over the head with a Bible" (copied from the cited source) is too forthrightly critical of religious opponents, and is notable.

In summary, I think that this material, maybe worded differently, maybe expanded, belongs in the article as it's from a source both reliable and respectable, and because it documents unacceptable aggression against other religions, not merely the usual "we are right and everybody else is wrong".

While I'm commenting, I'll repeat what I've said before: there is a strong tendency to delete material from this article; earlier edits have clearly been abusive in this respect, recent ones less so. Instead of deleting unfavourable material, it would be useful to add text that shows the UCKG in a good light. I've found and added a little, but haven't been able to source much. Pol098 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
An editor recently added an edit request to the article page, from where it was, correctly, removed. As the editor has made an effort to follow Wikipedia procedures, although not in the right place, I've added the edit request here, on unsolicited behalf of the user and not a request from me. The request was accompanied by deletion (since reinstated) of the following text from the introduction, sourced in the article body:

The edit request, comment, and signature:


 * No evidence
 * 75.127.195.154 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Theuniversalchurch (talk), had previously made the same deletion and might be associated with this request, but I have not communicated.

[This comment added by Pol098 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)]


 * I reverted the removal of the above passage yesterday--its substance is confirmed and the particulars are sourced at some length later in the article. I identified the IP as coming from the church itself, and notified the user of WP:COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, the deletion of sourced material was wrong and correctly reverted (and I have in the past reinstated the same paragraph), and the request edit belongs in Talk, not the article, again correctly deleted. But if someone is unhappy about the way this is handled, we shouldn't refuse to consider a request just because it was in the wrong place—that's bureaucratic—it needs to be considered on its merits. The editor is correctly saying that they can't edit due to a conflict of interest (see the template display), and requesting that someone else do it. If they'd known the right procedure they'd have placed the template here—so I did it for them.Pol098 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you for following up. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been resolved. I've marked the edit request as declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I would object to the terminology "implicated in the murder", as nothing seems to present the Church as having had an active role in this. Everything seems to indicate that they failed to realize the nature of the problem and/or failed to act on the child's behalf. The grammar of the sentence is also lacking, in that the clause "only prayed for rather than protected and treated" is not properly linked to the rest of the sentence.--Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking and order of links within an article
My adding of a link to prosperity theology within the "From 1989" section has now been twice deleted. In the last instance, the user who undid my edit, Pol098, claimed the deletion was due to overlinking.

"Prosperity theology" is, indeed, linked twice within the article already. However, the first instance is within an infobox and the second instance is in the "Docrtines" section. While contextually more adequate for a link, this section comes far after "From 1989" in the article's body.

Shouldn't the link, regardless of coherence with the sections within which they're contained, be provided at the first instance where the term/expression is mentioned in the article body's text? Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 09:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My "claim" that my link removal was due to overlinking (actually WP:DUPLINK, I used the wrong term) is a simple statement of fact; I often remove duplicate links from articles on all sorts of subjects. I think I added the text with the first use of "prosperity theology", which was already linked later in the article; by all means let's change the link to the first occurrence (done). Maybe this discussion, on repeating links and applicable to all articles, would be better aired in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking? It's hardly important in the context of this article. By the way I've made a small move of a phrase, as tithing isn't essential to prosperity theology. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean article talk pages should be reserved for subjects pertaining the article's themes? I'm asking 'cause am not very well versed in how talk pages work in Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for being polite and understanding about my interventions. Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "You mean article talk pages should be reserved for subjects pertaining the article's themes?" I don't mean that the Talk page is "reserved" for some topics, this is quite appropriate here. But maybe the discussion of whether duplicate linking is a good idea is of more general interest, not just to people who look at this article's Talk? And maybe there'll be more response from other people with various opinions in the "Linking" Talk page (the guideline itself says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article")? But it's totally fine to discuss it here. I don't know of any consensus on whether the first, or the most relevant use of a term should be linked; I tend to link the most relevant, but don't go out of my way to "correct" this. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks again. Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 04:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Balance in lede
The lede contains a list of negative points/ accusations and needs to be more balanced. I would have a go at it myself but this really isn't my AoE. Also I'm Catholic and may bring some of my own bias to the article.  Tigerboy1966  08:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked for more positive material for the article in general in previous Talk sections. I repeat that, to anybody and everybody: if you would like the article to show the UCKG in a more positive light, please add reliably sourced favourable information (but don't delete other reliably sourced informatio0n). Re Tigerboy1966's comment: is there any favourable information in the body of the article to add to the introduction? If so, it can be done without research or expertise, it's just summarising the existing body (adding new material to the body is more complex).Pol098 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, it goes without saying that any such changes need to be backed by reliable sources and meet the WP:NPOV criteria. JezGrove (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please post positive information
I repeat a call I made long ago: editors who support the UCKG often delete sourced criticism. Could I repeat my request instead to post positive material, particularly about charitable works and benefits, with sources? There is much comment about the money the UCKG receives, but virtually nothing about how it is spent to benefit people (rather than to cover church expenses). It is registered as a charity in the UK and, I expect, other places; please specify charitable work that is done. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)