Talk:Universal Church of the Kingdom of God

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major updates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsigned Edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict with the Edir Macedo entry / References 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, this article seems to be quite biased. I added an  notice. --190.19.4.226 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it to a version from late April that was much more balanced. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Biased Article 

message: This article is very short on references, and many statements should be removed unless they can be supplied. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lopsided

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Not neutral 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sanctification 

message: 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 Gabriel Correia (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 
*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 Gabriel Correia (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Victoria Climbié's death (UK)  

message: 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)
thread_title:  More positive information needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A recent deletion: was it justified? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: Understood. Thank you for following up. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been resolved. I've marked the edit request as declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: I see. Thanks again. Denis Mattos (Talk) (Contributions) 04:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlinking and order of links within an article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Balance in lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please post positive information