Talk:Prosperity theology

Merge from Word of Faith

I suggest that Word of Faith is merged into this, Prosperity theology. The former literally says they are the same thing in the first eight words of the article, and i cannot see that they are not the same thing; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the lead paragraph of Word of Faith is just mistaken and needs to be corrected. It looks like Word of Faith is a particular denomination or tradition within the broader prosperity theology movement. Said tradition advocates prosperity theology and was founded by one of the leading figures of prosperity theology, but it is not synonymous with prosperity theology. Prosperity theology includes other denominations, churches, etc. which are not affiliated with "Word of Faith". Similarly, "Word of Faith" advocates more besides prosperity theology. According to Prosperity theology, "Word of Faith" was founded as "a new prosperity-oriented teaching developed in the 1970s that differed from the one taught by Pentecostal evangelists", which suggests "Word of Faith" is not synonymous with the broader prosperity theology movement. Scyrme (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've since edited the lead paragraph of Word of Faith to remove the misleading text. Scyrme (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Paid edit

The IP has to respond to my paid edit inquiry in order to edit further. Official stance makes me believe they act on behalf of the LDS Church or even that they are employed by it. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This user suddenly accused me of being a paid editor out of nowhere, and spammed my page repeatedly with this accusation. This claim is utterly baseless and untrue. I am not employed by the LDS Church, and receive no financial compensation of any form from it. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You just had to say so the first time I asked. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You spammed it multiple different times in multiple different locations while I was busy initially creating the relevant section on this talk page, and then did it again upon me finishing the creation of the relevant talk section. It honestly appeared like an attempt at harassment by you due to that. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Editorialized opinion inserted into Criticism section as a violation of multiple rules

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user GenoV84 keeps inappropriately reverting the removal of a small section of the criticism section. The part in question is directly after the relevant section outlining the actual criticism made of Prosperity Theology by LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks. GenoV84 keeps attaching a highly editorialized opinion article from Harper's Bazaar that provides no evidence for its claims, along with the violation "However, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and, unlike adherents of most mainline Protestant denominations, Mormons have very little ambivalence about the acquisition of wealth.[98] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party, asserted that LDS beliefs and practices were like the prosperity gospel and Protestant work ethic "on steroids."[98] GenoV84 is clearly attempting to prove a point here, using an editorialized opinion article that presents no evidence to attempt to convince readers that the criticism of prosperity theology given by Dallin H. Oaks isn't really what the LDS Church teaches or practices. It's also a POV violation, as it clearly takes an antagonistic POV with the claim "unlike adherents of most mainline Protestant denominations, Mormons have very little ambivalence about the acquisition of wealth." 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit without responding to my paid edit inquiry. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP has denied that they are employed by the LDS Church and that they get any form of monetary or financial compensation for their editing of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Good, now that's settled, let's discuss the actual text in question. The IP (user 2601..., it sure would be easier to know it's you and to talk with you if you made an account) has been reverted several times, twice with accusations of vandalism, which the edits weren't, and once with a question about unpaid editing, which we are assured is not the case. I have to say, i understand the editor's desire to remove the sentences in question, as they seem to me to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which we ought not do, and are referenced to a single article in Harper's Magazine, not known as a journal of theology or interpretation or religion. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, even if the anonymous IP is not paid to edit this article, he/she declared on his/her Talk page that he/she is a lay member of the LDS Church, therefore he/she clearly has a conflict of interest in removing those informations, which are quotes that I brought directly from the cited source rather than my own interpretation. The first time that I reverted his/her edits in May 2021, I warned him/her that Wikipedia is not censored, since his/her first edit appeared to me as an attempt to censor the aforementioned paragraph and entirely remove the source itself. Perhaps, I was right about that. GenoV84 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is wholly incorrect. It is not a conflict of interest for me to remove what Lindsay mentioned seems to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and are referenced to a single opinion article. My background as a lay member does not change that or create a conflict of interest in removing it. Muslim users make edits to articles on Islam-related topics all the time, it is not a conflict of interest for them to remove editorialized opinion articles presented as speaking with Wikipedia's voice on these topics. Your accusation that this was censorship is also blatantly false, as I left in where the article was referenced in a different part of the page (Comparisons with other movements), without the POV issues that it had in the usage where I removed it. So now that this is settled, please cease the false personal attacks, Geno, and address Lindsay's actual points, which concur with my rationale for the removal. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

False personal attacks... Seriously? The only person you seem to be preoccupied with on your talk page and the revision history of this article is me: "GenoV84 here", "GenoV84 there", "GenoV84 is this", "GenoV84 is that"... I never attacked you in the first place, while you seem to be quite upset and bitter towards me. For what? Because I reverted your edits while you never thought about opening a new section on this talk page and discuss about that paragraph until I suggested you to do so? GenoV84 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, those "Muslim users" that you mentioned very often disrupt or vandalize Islam-related articles on Wikipedia on purpose, usually to remove embarassing or problematic facts about their own religion in order to censor Wikipedia, instead of trying to contribute in a constructive way. I have no reason to believe that "LDS users" wouldn't do the same, since this kind of stuff related to politics and religion happens too frequently here. GenoV84 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

False yet again. You immediately made personal attacks (vandalism, disruptive editing, etc) with no evidence, and continued to make them simply because I removed things that, as Lindsay mentioned, have blatant issues. I simply correctly stated what you did each time. So my removal of that was contributing in a constructive way. There was no need to open up a talk page to make that removal, due to the blatant issues with it. The fact that I left the link to the article in higher up in the "Comparisons with other movements" section where it's usage wasn't blatantly problematic already told you from the start that this wasn't an attempt at censorship. Which exposes how egregious your habit of engaging in false personal attacks against me was, and how baseless your insistence on reverting my edits was. Now, enough with this back and forth about your behavior here. Lindsay presented good reasons for why the removal is necessary, do you have any rebuttal to those or explanation of why the section in question should in fact remain in the article. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You definitely take things too seriously with your claims about personal attacks, you even accused Tgeorgescu that he was harassing you while he clearly wasn't, he was trying to make sure that you weren't editing behind payment because you didn't answer to him, despite the fact that he asked you multiple times. Anyway, I think that we should keep the editorial from Harper's Magazine because it's still a valuable source of informations related to the topic of this article, which is prosperity gospel, and it would be nonsensical to remove it because it belongs to the Criticism section. LindsayH is right when she says that Harper's Magazine is not a journal about religion or theology, but that's not a good reason to remove it. According to this reasoning, we should remove every author, activist, politician, journalist or public personality that criticizes a particular religion (for example, Christianity) because he/she may not be an academic or a scholar of Christian theology or history of Christianity, but that's not a good reason to exclude his/her opinions from Wikipedia. GenoV84 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

He asked me multiple times while I was in the process of creating this section on the talk page in the first place, so I didn't see any of them until after I had finished, and he immediately created more upon me finishing. Hence why I said it sure seemed like harassment. This editorial from Harper's Magazine is already included further up in the article, in the "Comparison with other movements" section of the article. There, its usage isn't problematic and doesn't have a warped POV. So there appears to be no reason to keep the usage you want in the criticism section, unless you are in fact specifically trying to warp the POV. In which case that's not allowed anyways. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources can be cited in multiple sections of the same article, and quoting directly from the cited sources to illustrate an author's point of view or opinion is allowed on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what I did. GenoV84 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

And, frankly, stating that a social group scores high on entrepreneurship and has a good Protestant work ethic is not even remotely libelous. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So that's a "no" then, you don't have any rebuttal to the pointing out of the blatant issues with its usage in the criticism section or valid reason why it should stay there. The usage of the article in the "Comparisons with other movements" section is both adequate and appropriate, and nothing rule-abiding is gained by keeping its current usage in the criticism section. Also, saying that a group that scored high on entrepeneurship and has a good Protestant work ethic automatically equals all the baggage and issues of Prosperity Theology is incredibly libelous, especially when that assertion is used specifically as an attempt to rebut that group's official condemnation of Prosperity Theology. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have already explained above why I don't consider it necessary to remove the paragraph, since quotes can be be borrowed directly from the cited sources on Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia is not censored, criticism of political parties, associations, religious groups, organizations, etc. is also allowed on Wikipedia. However, I agree with you on the fact that Dallin H. Oaks has nothing to do with the paragraph and it would be more appropriate to separate them into two distinct paragraphs. I propose to do so. GenoV84 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you have not. You did not address the clear issues with POV that were pointed out. Removing that section from the criticism section is not in any way whatsoever censorship. The criticism section is specifically about criticism of Prosperity Theology. Opinionated assertions that the LDS Church is actually prosperity theology on steroids do not fall under that purview, as it's not criticizing prosperity theology, it's making a different assertion. What that assertion is is covered by the usage of the article in the "Comparisons with other movements" section. The only purpose of including its current usage in the criticism section, where it doesn't even fit, is to attempt to convince readers that Dallin H. Oaks' condemnation of Prosperity Theology was insincere and meant as a coverup. That breaks quite a few different rules. So, there is no reason to keep it in the criticism section, and I move that its usage in that section be removed entirely, with its usage in the "Comparisons with other movements" section kept as is. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Moreover, I have no problem with moving the paragraph to the "Comparisons with other movements" section, if other editors agree that it would be a more appropriate place for it, but removing the entire paragraph, which as I explained above is formed by quotes borrowed directly from the cited source, because you disagree with it and/or consider it an attack towards the LDS Church's official stance on prosperity theology... well, that's just an excuse to censorship and POV. As if that were not enough, another editor has already explained to you why the quotes borrowed from the cited source aren't even remotely qualifiable as libelous, so why are you so obsessed with removing it altogether? GenoV84 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not move that paragraph, remove it entirely. The section of the article previously used in the "Comparisons with other movements" section is more than adequate to explain the viewpoint without including some of the rule-breaking aspects found in that paragraph. Lindsay already explained how that section as quoted and used breaks the site's rules, and neither you nor tgeorgescu has adequately rebutted that or provided evidence for why it belongs other than you intentionally want readers to take away a specific conclusion, which is not permitted. You appear to be obsessed with including it for reasons that break Wiki rules, so unless you quickly come up with actual valid reasons that abide by the rules for keeping it, it will be permanently removed, as it does not qualify for inclusion under the site's criteria and you have been unable to provide proof that it does. It is not in any way censorship or POV to remover it, as the article is still linked and available to readers through the article. Removing it is no different than including parts of an opinion article directly in a Wiki page that mentions opinions, while omitting parts that try to present that opinion as fact and in a manner that breaks Wiki's Pov and making a point rules. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here follows your orders, buddy. If you want to collaborate with WP editors in order to engage in dispute resolution about a topic and reach shared consensus, you can't simply demand that someone removes something from an article that you may find offensive just because you feel triggered by it. That would be a POV violation, wouldn't it? I explained my opinion on this matter and proposed solutions through a process of compromise, but you keep refusing to listen and avoid to reach any agreement. The paragraph doesn't represent Wikipedia's opinion but the author's opinion, just as many other articles on this encyclopedia that quote opinions of authors, journalists, scholars, politicians, etc. The source is a reliable reference and there's no valid reason to remove it. Contrary to your claims, the paragraph is not presented as a fact but as the author's opinion; there are quotation marks for this reason. Plain and simple. GenoV84 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, criticism of a specific church isn't the same as libel. Wikipedia would be out of business if criticism of religion would be equated to libel. There is no rule against rendering the opinions of WP:RS, when taking WP:DUE into account. Wikipedia isn't a PR outlet, see WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, both of you are objectively, factually wrong according to Wiki's own rules. The section of the article currently under "Comparisons to other movements" breaks no rules as it clearly delineates what is opinion from what has evidence. The section that VGeno84 wants included does not do that, and is worded in a way that directly quoting it makes it appear as if Wiki is presenting that as its position. Both are criticism of a specific church, but the latter is libelous because of its misleading POV. The quotes are in fact presented as fact. Let's read them specifically. "However, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and, unlike adherents of most mainline Protestant denominations, Mormons have very little ambivalence about the acquisition of wealth." That's presented as established fact, not as an assertion or opinion. Additionally, the use of the word "report" in the sentence "A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party, asserted that LDS beliefs and practices were like the prosperity gospel and Protestant work ethic "on steroids." inherently gives the connotation that this is an evidence based report, not an editorialized opinion article. As such, including them in the manner you want to is objectively in violation of multiple Wiki rules. So if you would like to attempt to get those included in that manner, the onus is on you to go through conflict resolution on Wiki. Otherwise, by Wiki's own rules, those sentences must be absent from the article. That's what's plain and simple here. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. If you seek to solve this issue, I suggest filling a report to WP:RSN (if Harper's is not reliable for the claim made) or WP:NPOVN (if citing Harper's is a violation of WP:DUE), or even try WP:DRN. Anyway, before you begin, please read WP:NOBIGOTS: the Wikipedia Community is rather harsh upon those who try to whitewash their own religion, and the Streisand effect may be involved. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you actually just debunked yourself. Genov84 has no consensus for his edits. In addition, the quotes have already been shown to violate DUE by attempting to present opinion as fact and evidence-based, which inherently changes the amount of weight a quote carries. You and Genov84 are both in violation of the No Bigots rule, as you both keep attempting to insert a section that violates other Wiki rules such as Due weight in order to give a specific unsupported impression of a church you dislike. If either of you would like to rewrite the paragraph in question to eliminate those rule violations, then you would be making an actual valid case for why it should be left in. As currently written and used in the article though, it indisputably violates multiple Wiki rules, and cannot be included as such, regardless of what your personal opinions or views are. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If you WP:CRYLIBEL we don't automatically believe you. If you cry that we are violating WP:RULES we do not automatically believe you. You stated your case, WP:PRESERVE is of application, so the burden for removing the information is upon you. You should follow the suggested dispute resolution paths, just repeating yourself won't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cry anything. I objectively and indisputably proved that it does violate multiple rules. I proved that one quote does in fact attempt to pass off an opinion as fact, and another violates due weight by attempting to pass off an editorialized opinion as evidence-based. Lindsay also showed how the wording of those sentences makes it appear as if Wiki is endorsing that opinion. Altogether, that far surpasses the burden of proof necessary for those sentences to be removed. As such, if you would like to attempt to get them included, it us up to you to start the conflict resolution progress. The onus is on you to take that path, not me, and in the meantime, those sentences must be absent from the article. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't believe you that you have objectively and indisputably proved anything. We're not fools. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you believe, I did in fact objectively prove it. It's no different than stating that 2+2=4 is objective fact. It is, and it's not disputable. The quotes in qestion did in fact misrepresnt opinion as fact and being evidence-based when it is actually editorialized opinion. So you are fools, and also outright liars, if you attempt to dispute that. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

A church you dislike... That sounds like a bad assumption about me and Tgeorgescu, and all the rest that you wrote sounds like outright trolling by repeating what we said to you like a parrot, it's the same song over and over. I have edited many articles about Mormonism and the LDS Church in the past, and I never meant to disrupt them nor to misrepresent Mormon doctrines. However, I'm fine with rewording the paragraph and adding more quotation marks to it, as long as it reflects what the article actually says. Otherwise, we probably will never reach a resolution. GenoV84 (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, insulting WP editors as you did qualifies as a violation of the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks, did you know that? GenoV84 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You insulted others first, so you are the first one who is in violation of the wikipedia policies. But you already did know that. Also, the non-problematic portion of the article already accurately presents the article, why do you insist on this further portion that currently warps POV? The only possible reason is personal dislike of the church and desire to paint it a specific way. Otherwise, you wouldn't insist on it 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have escalated it to WP:NPOVN. From WP:GOODBIAS: Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• First: where did I insult you? Because warning templates are not insults.
• Second: do you agree with my proposal to reword the paragraph and add more quotation marks?
• Third: nobody here dislikes the LDS Church and nobody is trying to smear it, so stop assuming other people's thoughts and attitudes.
• Fourth: I insisted on the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and the cited source is reliable, hence there's no valid reason to remove the paragraph. GenoV84 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the guy who stated Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a cheerfully libertarian professor of economics and a faithful Mormon. So, IP's ire is towards one of their own. It seems like in-group fighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Holy cow! I'm going to have to learn to go without sleep if i want to keep up! May i make a couple of observations?

2601..., in fairness, you may have slightly clouded vision about this; it is extremely difficult to be fully aware of one's own heartfelt leanings and points of view and keep them out of one's writing (or speech).

In mine opinion, both GenoV84 and tgeorgescu were a bit harsh in assumptions at the beginning; indeed, i can easily understand why the IP feels attacked ~ the edits were certainly not vandalism, and to be told twice that they were was a poor welcome, and the UPE queries through a series of very serious sounding templates looks very daunting and, again, not welcoming. I think both could have handled the beginning of this better.

That being said, 2601..., it seems that both editors are now trying to discuss with you, and you are allowing your emotions to gain the better of you, which is a very poor habit when editing. May i suggest, take a break (a day, not a forever break), and come back to this with a clear head, make your arguments simply and obviously, and see if you are able to change the consensus here. Because the discussion as is, isn't going to help anyone ~ either "side". Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@LindsayH: Let me translate from English to English: the whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that "Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids". The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.

Their argument is that by juxtaposing the public declarations of two notable, faithful members of the LDS Church we are smearing the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

From my reading of this thread, that is a very accurate summary. IP should move on from this dispute. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 16:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That reading is incorrect, as tgeorgescu was told to stop by admins on the admin noticeboard and also had at least part of their assertions rebuffed by another user on the NPOV noticeboard. The admins also warned GenoV84, and told me that my reaction here was understandable given their behavior, but not the best way to react. I had been waiting for that stuff to be resolved before continuing here. Now that it has been mostly settled, we can continue here.

Here's the input from the only editor on the NPOV noticeboard that wasn't tgeorgescu, GenoV84, or me: "I'm not sure about either editor's position here. The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" I'm not including any of the specific lines from the admin noticeboard yet, because I don't know yet whether that's allowed by anyone other than an admin. One admin already did remove the Skousen quote themselves from the article.

So here's the portion that's still in the criticism section: "in comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth.[98] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.[98]" For comparison, here's what's currently in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article: "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology,[78] such as a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God.[79]" The Harper's magazine article is already linked in that section. That section certainly appears to me to meet what 力 said on the NPOV board, that "discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article." There has been widespread support for removing the disputed section from the "Criticism" section of the article so far, the main question is whether to move it to the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article or leave it out altogether. I personally still see no reason to add it to the portion already in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, as the first line still has POV issues and the second line merely rehashes what is already in the "Comparisons with other movements" section. If a majority of other editors do insist on some or all of that disputed section being included up in the "comparisons with other movements section, those issues would need to be addressed.2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I have retracted the word smear about you because it can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT. That's all. It does not mean that it would be WP:Verifiable anything you have claimed about Mark Skousen, excepting libertarian economist.

I should have used words that do not have legal connotations. I still did not grant you're right about anything else than libertarian economist about Mark Skousen. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification 2601. User:力 did give a good summary. I'm going to ping LDS WikiProject member Jgstokes as they may produce a better versed opinion for this dispute than I could. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with sentences appended onto criticism section

There are currently a couple sentences tacked on to the "criticism" section of the article that have issues. They are included directly after a quote from LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks condemning prosperity theology. These sentences are "in comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth.[98] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.[98]" There are multiple issues with these sentences as currently used in the article:

1. They don't belong in the "criticism" section of the article. They are not criticism of prosperity theology, they are allegations asserting a connection between LDS beliefs and prosperity theology.

2. The first sentence there has POV issues. It presents a claim from the article as fact, and warps the manner in which the POV is presented on the prosperity theology article.

3. The second sentence is in many ways a rehashing of existing content found higher up on the prosperity theology page in the "Comparisons with other movements" and would be repetitive if included alongside those existing sentences. The relevant content in that section currently reads "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology,[78] such as a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God.[79] This is the same article referenced in the disputed section.

4. The existing sentences in the "Comparisons with other movements" section better convey NPOV than the disputed sentences currently in the "Criticism" section. The latter attempt to give a more decisive impression of a tie between LDS beliefs and prosperity theology, which is especially problematic given that the same article used to pull those statements from also states "None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon." The statements currently in the "comparisons with other movements" section do not have those issues.

5. The disputed section does not add useful information that isn't already present in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, and the article the disputed section is taken from is even already included in the :Comparisons with other movements" section.

As such, I propose that the sentences "in comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth.[98] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.[98]" be removed both from the "Criticism" section of the page, and from the page altogether. MojaveSummit (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.

If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, MojaveSummit, name another editor who agrees that my edit is POV. This time you're expected to provide evidence (diffs) for your claim.

If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.

I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.

My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.

Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.

Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

new section

I reply here because I was asked by Valereee.

Sorry to have discussed your misreadings, but the gist is this: Schazjmd has provided evidence [1] that you have misread the WP:RS. I'm not Schazjmd so don't blame me for the demonstration that it is a misreading. Of course, I will no longer suggest anything about clinical issues.

So, yes, you could possibly be right about removing the content from the article, but:

You have till now the WP:CONSENSUS of one editor (namely you). Me, GenoV84 and Valereee do not seem to side with your removal. Nobody else posited that the content should be removed from the article.

What Mark Skousen believes about the White Horse Prophecy doesn't matter, since that is not an issue of public record. Him being affiliated with fringe groups is not an issue of public record.

And sorry that I was so passionate, there are certain things I cannot stand, like making unsubstantiated claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, you were asked by me to do what? Because I'm not clear on that. I would have advised you to not pursue interaction with this editor, if you'd asked me. There are over 200 watchers on this page, 25 of whom have visited recent edits. Someone else can deal with it. valereee (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: You wrote in the edit summary Both of you, take it to talk. I interpreted that as asking me to reply here.

It seems I do too much as I am told, and people do not appreciate that either. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were referring to the edit summary. valereee (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I had been waiting to get clarification on something else from Valeree, but it's been a few days, so I'll just go ahead and respond here. I felt quite strongly that it was tgeorgescu who had been edit warring against consensus here, and I definitely did take exception to what was written in both his edit summaries and on the talk page, as there were misrepresentations and personal attacks. So I apologize if my wording in my corresponding edit summaries was too strong. When it comes to consensus, there definitely was one that there were issues with those two sentences. Lindsay outright said they had POV issues, Power said they clearly didn't belong in that section, and FormalDude agreed with him. Neither Power nor FormalDude said that those sentences needed to be included in a different section, they just said that something addressing any similarities between LDS Beliefs and aspects of prosperity theology should be included in a different section of the article. As there already was something in the "Comparisons with other Movements" section of the article, that portion of their input was already fulfilled. Thus, these all provided more support for removing the two sentences in question than they did for having them remain in the article.

After the first ANI case was concluded, I took the input from these outside editors and crafted five points supporting the removal of the two sentences in question, and posted them on the talk section. Neither tgeorgescu nor any other editor posted there to dispute them. So, after a month of no dispute, I made the edit in question (which, remember, had more support from outside editors than keeping the sentences did). The only proponents from the start for keeping the two sentences in were tgeorgescu and Genov84, neither of whom commented on the new talk section after input from outside editors had been included in the case for removing the two sentences. Genov84 let my edits after this stand, even while he made edits elsewhere in the article after this. Valeree never took a position on the two sentences in question, her edits since then on the article have all been regarding what she saw as inappropriate behavior. So, there was no support for tgeorgescu to reverse the edits and reinstate those two sentences in their section. That he made personal accusations towards me and misrepresented the support for each of our cases from other editors while making those edits did greatly bother me, so I apologize for reacting so strongly to that. This is also why I refused to comply with any of tgeorgescu's demands, as I considered them all to be in clear bad faith as a result of the context surrounding them. I wasn't making unsubstantiated claims, I was simply refusing to comply with what I saw as clear bad-faith demands from an editor who had already been warned for the way they interacted with me.

Anyways, we've both now been warned for our conduct in this case, it does neither of us any good to comment on anything but the content and the outside input that has been given on it, from this point on. It is clear that those sentences do need to be removed from where they are currently, there is nothing even close to a consensus to support them remaining there at this point, and much stronger support for removing them from their current section. The question then becomes whether any part of those two sentences should be included elsewhere in the article. As there is already a portion of the "Comparisons with other movements" section that covers some possible connections between LDS beliefs and prosperity theology (and that existing portion has not been disputed or had any issues with it claimed by any participant or observer in this case), it is my view that the two sentences in question should simply be removed altogether and not included elsewhere. That would satisfy both Power and FormalDude's input on the matter. Keeping the sentences as-is and simply moving them in their current form to another section of the article does not have consensus, and would not satisfy the issues with it that both Lindsay and I have previously pointed out. So, it is my stance that there already is a consensus for edits removing the sentences in question from the article. If tgeorgescu (or someone else) would like to reinclude some portion of those two sentences elsewhere in the article, discussion about what form they would need to take in order to fix the previous issues with them raised by multiple editors could then take place here, but only after the sentences were first removed, as there is currently a strong consensus against them being included where they are, and no consensus for them being moved to a different section in their current form. MojaveSummit (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, @MojaveSummit, did I miss a ping or something? valereee (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, on my talk page, in response to your comment there a couple days ago. The initial ping was made a couple days ago, and then I modified it yesterday and re-signed it, because I thought that you either hadn't seen it or that I had left out something important. I've posted here now anyways, so I guess those previous pings are now obsolete. MojaveSummit (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@MojaveSummit, ah. This doesn't work. You have to make the ping and sign the post in the same edit. Otherwise the ping does not work. You cannot go back and fix it. valereee (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for letting me know. That makes more sense now. MojaveSummit (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A bit of unsolicited advice from a random editor: This comment is WP:VERBOSE. Brevity might make your arguments more clear and persuasive in the future. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I realize this was on the longer side, but after rereading the post multiple times, I could find no more concise or clearer way to express each of the relevant things that needed to be addressed here while keeping an appropriate tone. Is it just preferable to split it up into three different consecutive posts at that point? MojaveSummit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@MojaveSummit, the point is that no one is going to read it, and no one is expected to. Boil it down to a few sentences. I know that can be a difficult skill to master, and it takes longer to write short, but it literally is the only way you're ever going to get anywhere here. Learn to write short. If you don't, you might as well not bother. No one will read it. valereee (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I had to address points and claims made over a series of multiple different posts in multiple different sections by tgeorgescu, so there was no way to address that amount of info in just a couple sentences. I also took great pains to make sure that the conduct and tone complied with the warnings given, which I saw no way to do while addressing the relevant points if I wrote only a couple sentences here. I am working on trying to make things shorter, but I legitimately didn't see a way to effectively do so on this specific post. So would it have been preferable to split it up into multiple consecutive posts? MojaveSummit (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example of eliminating unnecessary words:

Valeree never took a position on the two sentences in question, her edits since then on the article have all been regarding what she saw as inappropriate behavior. So, there was no support for tgeorgescu to reverse the edits and reinstate those two sentences in their section.

could instead be:

Valeree never took a position on the sentences. Her edits since then have all been regarding "inappropriate behavior". So, there was no support for tgeorgescu to reinstate them. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful example. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a fun little exercise for removing unnecessary words. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved spectator (although I do know tgeorgescu quite well from other articles), I suggest that the interests of both editors would be best served by abstaining from this article for the foreseeable future. Tgeorge, you have a good reputation in the tiny wiki-world we both inhabit (reloigious articles), and this squabble isn't to your credit. MojaveSummit, your most recent edit summary reads:Undoing this as this user has received a temporary block for their conduct regarding this matter. If anyone would like these two sentences restored in part or whole in a different section of the article, we can discuss that civilly in the talk section, where there is already a thread about them. I know you mean well, but to me it looks like taking advantage of your opponent's ban to impose your own version on the article. Better (more dignified) would have been to have come on the talk page and say that you wouldn't do this yourself but ask for someone else to do so if they feel that the merits deserve it. And always remember: Wikipedia is not the world. Achar Sva (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I do understand now that my wording on the edit was inappropriate, and it was made in part because of my frustration at continuing personal attacks being made towards me by an editor in both the edit history and talk sections of the article who had already been warned to stop doing so. I will work on distancing my emotional reaction to those types of things from my edits in the future. MojaveSummit (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my past behavior. My understanding was that unsourced claims about living persons are not done. I assumed this is a broadly shared norm or feeling. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. We do not include unsourced claims, ideally at all, but especially not about living persons. valereee (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, because this content dispute doesn't actually involve that. It was always simply about something in the article with multiple issues that there was a consensus didn't belong there. It's still there, so someone not involved in the original dispute needs to remove it, because it's against consensus for it to remain there. MojaveSummit (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Harper's Passage

@MojaveSummit, the passage you seem to be objecting to is

In comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth. A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.

What exactly, in 100 words or fewer, are you objecting to? On a quick reading of the source, it doesn't appear to be inaccurately reported by this passage. valereee (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

References

These sentences don't belong in the "criticism" section. They're not a criticism of prosperity theology. The Harper's article is already referenced adequately in the "comparisons with other movements" section of the page, where there are no issues with its current usage. The majority of other editors who have chimed in agreed that these two sentences don't belong where they currently are, and that any attempts to give the impression of a decisive link between LDS beliefs and prosperity theology based on that article would be inappropriate, since it also explicitly states "None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon." MojaveSummit (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being very brief and to the point. (For now I'm not going to go back through the wall of text here and try to figure out whether "The majority of other editors who have chimed in agreed that these two sentences don't belong where they currently are" is a correct interpretation.)

@Tgeorgescu, do you have any objection to moving these two sentences from the section on criticisms of prosperity theology and merging them into the section on comparisons with other movements? If you do have objections, please state them very briefly and concisely. (And if you object both to this move and to the interpretation I've referenced above, simply say 'I object to that interpretation', we can deal with that in a separate section. In this section I just want to deal with any objections to the move of content from one section to the other.) valereee (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No objection. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@valereee Those two sentences would need some rewriting if they were to be merged with what is currently in the "comparisons with other movements" section of the article. One of the sentences treads much of the same ground that is already covered there, and the other is presented with a more decisive, authoritative tone than those existing sentences. MojaveSummit (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've made those changes. I think the new paragraph works. I'm willing to continue to moderate here if the two of you have further concerns you can't resolve, but honestly I think both of you should go find somewhere else to work for a while and circle back in a week or so. valereee (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  This new paragraph has some rather significant problems that don't address issues already pointed out with these two sentences. I can wait a week or so to address them here if you want, or I can do so now if you prefer. MojaveSummit (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free. valereee (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Alright. The line "A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel" covers most of the same ground already covered by the existing line "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology." Even the link attached to each is the same. Only one of those sentences should be in the article.

Additionally, starting off with "In comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth" skews the POV. That line comes directly from the previously-mentioned Harper's article that is already linked in the article, so presenting it on its own as a definitive, authoritative statement doesn't work here. If it were to be included at all, it should be after the Harper's article has already been introduced, and noted as being a claim from the article. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is to open a new section and rewrite the entire passage the way you think it should be written, then ask for other editors to comment. valereee (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

My stance has always been that if tgeorgescu wants to insist on those lines being there in some form, he can propose rewrites for them that fix their issues. Otherwise, they should just be removed altogether. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)