Talk:Gospel of success

notability

Though the term "gospel of success" does not appear in the quote, "cotton candy gospel" and "prosperity gospel" in the article cited are close. A Google search is not an admissible source, except, here, it shows notability by listing large newspapers using the term, out of "About 73,300 results" on the first page. Clearly the term is here to stay. Do request help on rewrite, though. Attleboro (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have an article for prosperity theology. Right now, it seems to me that we should redirect gospel of success there. Can you suggest reasons why we shouldn't do that? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be appropriate, but as a distinct section. There's no doubt about the term's common, pejorative uses. The first three "See also"s are direct uses of the term in other WP articles. Attleboro (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how this topic is any different than prosperity theology, and the content here does not comply with Wikipedia policies about neutral point of view. Please see WP:COATRACK. I don't see anything here to warrant a separate article or section under this name. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge difference (or ought to be) between a "Christian religious doctrine" which is what prosperity theology is propounded to be and the "heresy" of the gospel of success, for that is how the term is commonly used. What that difference is needs to be clearly defined. Fraudulent purpose seems to be key. Attleboro (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If 'fraudulent purpose' is indeed the key, we'd need to be very careful regarding WP:BLP and general verifiability concerns - basically, if it is defined in sources as involving fraud, we could only cite examples where there were convictions resulting, and I very much doubt that any such convictions exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

neither of the sources support the claim in the intro defining anything as "heretical". fully support redirect to prosperity theology. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To Andy, Marcus Garvey was convicted of fraud. To Red, why doesn't the quote from a notable, mainline Christian theologian that Osteen's gospel ("interpretation of the Christian message") of success being called "heresy" "support the claim"? Support redirect only to a section mentioning fraud, heresy, and other intended pejorative implications. Attleboro (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey has nothing whatsoever to do with this. As for your suggestion that a redirect should be to a section mentioning heresy or fraud, Wikipedia is neither a theocracy nor a court of law, and we aren't going to create misleading redirects accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the link I provided, Garvey used the "'gospel of success' so popular in white America in the 1920s". The very fact that "Wikipedia is neither a theocracy nor a court of law" means it should report critiques of an idea as well as professions of it. If, in fact, the prosperity theology is a "Christian religious doctrine" no different from the gospel of success, then the many negative uses of the term "gospel of success" must be seen as a criticism of that idea. Attleboro (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

first you would have to show that it is an actual "something" that has been critiqued. then you would have to provide reliable sources that are specifically critiquing that "something" and not merely using the phrase. then you would have to show that the critiques are representative of the mainstream academic view of that "something". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided was to a Wikipedia article, which provided no source for the assertion that Garvey preached a 'gospel of success' - and we do not cite Wikipedia as a source. As for the rest, I can see that this discussion is getting nowhere, and shall shortly be proposing that the article be deleted as lacking evidence for notability as a subject independent of prosperity theology, and as the self-evident attack piece that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability? "About 73,300" Google results for the term. Again, notability? David Brooks calls "The strongest and most subversive ideology in America today." If this is a pejorative term for Prosperity theology, that article needs a general Criticism section to which this then redirects. Attleboro (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see little evidence that it is a pejorative term - rather, it appears to be a synonym. As for changes the prosperity theology, I suggest you raise the matter on the talk page after finding the necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing new. See George Cary Eggleston, Recollections of a varied life, 1910, Page 76. Also, RICHARD W. POINTER, "Philadelphia Presbyterians, Capitalism, and the Morality of Economic Success, 1825-1855", THE PENNSYLVANIA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY & BIOGRAPHY, Vol. CXII, No. 3 (July 1988) Page 370. And more, Robert N. Bellah, "Religion and Power in America Today, Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of..., 2013, Page 19. Attleboro (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Start class, and not a stub

Normally, an article with eight inline citations is considered to be a class=start article, and therefore is not a stub, and is not shown as a stub in templates at the end of the article. Another editor thinks otherwise. I invite all editors to comment here, or update the article itself. I am not going to indulge in an edit war. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)