Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive of discussions for 2008. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Comments re Kalnins

Wikipedia has taken the strange postion that Ed Kalnins is not allowed to be referenced from the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page, and the reference to Wasilla Assembly of God is linked to Assembly of God, not to Wasilla Assembly of God.

An editor suggested that the information contained on this page is an attack, since it does not have any nice quotes from Sarah Palin's former pastor, only the ones suggesting that Jesus had warlike thoughts, half of America will not go to heaven for voting for Kerry, and most Americans will go to hell for criticising Bush on his Katrina handling.

The quotes are sourced by actual videotapes of Kalnins. If I have taken any quotes out of context, or there is a reaon to balance these with others, please indicate, but please do not just delete information.EricDiesel (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

Mark Silva, White House correspondent for The Chicago Tribune, reports that “Kalnins has preached that critics of Bush will be banished to Hell, questioned if people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to Heaven, charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were part of a war ‘contending for your faith’; and that Jesus ‘operated from that position of war mode’.” This language is almost identical to the portions deleted from the article, only without the direct quotes supporting the summary. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html EricDiesel (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kalnins

See discussion of Wasilla Assembly of God pastor Ed Kalnins on the attempt to delete his page.EricDiesel (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I have declined speedy deletion of this article, as it's possible that the church is notable enough for its own article. However, the content was largely related to the church's pastor and not the church itself; as a result, I removed it. I note that Ed Kalnins has an article, though it is currently a nominee at AfD. We will need news articles to show that the assembly is notable in itself; if it's notable just for Governor Palin's attendance, or because of the pastor, then this should probably redirect somewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Referenced in Wikipedia article on Palins

WAG is referenced on Palin's Wikipedia page, with no link allowed, and no mention of Kalins, even though Palin's speeches have explicitly used his theological assumptions and style of reasoning to argue for policy in speeches provided in the reference links. The Ed Kalnins Wikipedia page also had all of his controversial quotes deleted. Major news media are reporting that the remarks are controversial. Wikipedia should provide informaation information about WAG and Kalnins. The argument that Wikipedia must be balanced is as bad as Palin's and Kalnins' public statements that intelligent design should get equal time (or time at all) with evolutions (or Hundu creation myths, for that matter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Over eager deletion of Palin-related pages

I am working on the improvement of these pages. Within the last hour, ABC News is reporting that the church had removed Kalin's sermons from its web site. This is notable. Note also that the article on Palin's other pastor, Larry Kroon was deleted in a Speefdy Delete despite a hangon This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3Elan26 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26 See:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3Elan26 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

RE: non-notable church with no significant coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verfiability

The article now references the church being discussed in the Chicago Tribune http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html#more, the New Jersey Times of Trenton http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1220414733189230.xml&coll=5, and ABC News.

It was also expressly mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin.

If you read the discussions about the Sarah Palin WIkipedia article, both in Wikipedia and all over the web, placing information about the kind of things Palin listened to every Sunday would be best posted under articles about the Church and its Pastor.

Links from the Sarah Palin page to Wasilla Assembly of God and Ed Kalnins have now been repaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be same topic

Don't appear that Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church are the same church. Thus an AfD for one should not affect the existence, or notability, of the other. --Farix (Talk) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

History section

I'm troubled by the history section. It is more about Palin, who was simply a member of the church, and not about the church itself. The Palin content should be removed or abbreviated to remove the WP:WEIGHT issues. --Farix (Talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it should but, that would leave it empty again. Surely a church that is "notable" for things besides this issue must have history write-ups from other places that we can use. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bits about the church's pastors and the renaming the street the church is in honor of the founding pastor is relevant, so I've left those in. The rest of the stuff, however, has nothing to do with the church so it's been removed. --Farix (Talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Official Website"

While we are at it can someone help me figure out whether the .org or .net site is the actual "official" site. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

.org is correct... the .net just redirects to the .org... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The .org address appear to be the true address of the church's website. The .net address is probably a redirect that was turned into a landing page do to attention by liberal blogs. I've corrected the links. --Farix (Talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Church to Hold Conference to Pray for God to Convert Gays to Straights

The sentence “In 2008, the church promoted a conference to pray to convert gays into heterosexuals”, was deleted. Associated Press was the source. In an article on a church that received international press coverage for its controversial positions, the user of the encyclopedia would expect to find information on the what the positions generating the news stories were. The reason for deletion was coatrack. This has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, and no reader of the article would think it did. Exactly quoting the WP:Coat definition of coatrack, “The nominal subject (the church)… does not end up being mostly obscured by the ‘coats’ (the information about the controversial position)”. Just the opposite happens. The information makes the churches positions more ‘’’clear’’’, not more ‘’’obscure’’’. EricDiesel (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Original news source clarified that "former church" should have been "current church", so this does not belong here at all. EricDiesel (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that if you remove the Palin connection, this is one of thousands of non-notable congregations across America who hold such beliefs, and one of scores, perhaps hundreds, of such congregations who hold such meetings every year. It's nothing special, and once WP:NOT#NEWS is applied, the congregation vanishes into obscurity again. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For this particular point, I'd start with that I can't find where such material was ever in this article, and thus can't find what sourcing might have been used when/if it was. Can someone provide a diff?

Jclemens is however right - that factoid is neither particularly significant nor surprising. It is certainly far less significant than whether or not the church is theologically conservative. The church appears to be so from all I've seen, but I don't recollect, and the article currently doesn't have, a good source to justify inclusion. This is part of what makes it pretty obvious that the sources are not really about the church; they just happen to cover some aspects of the church while being about something else. GRBerry 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: Given that you exhibit all the characteristics of a single purpose account, EricDiesel, your assertion that this has nothing to do with Palin rings hollow. Your account had but a single edit until September 2nd, and then has been nonstop ever since on Palin-related articles and presumably associated talk pages. For you to assert that this is unrelated to Palin strains WP:AGF. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed as no-consensus

I went ahead and closed the AfD. I didn't think we needed to keep the debate open to garner consensus, when it appears clear that it will be closed as either keep or no-consensus in a few days. Personally, I think the article should be deleted as the church doesn't hold any inherent notability and that any attempt to create a Obama-Wright controversy will prove fruitless. Palin left the church in 2002 and never endorsed the controversial Minister. I would encourage people who care to revisit this after the election (regardless of who wins) and that a close eye be paid to this article to ensure that it doesn't become a wp:coatrack.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Palin left in 2002 is an argument to have a section on the controversial statements in sermons, conventions, and elsewhere. The subjects of the controversial statement indicate they were ALL made AFTER 2002, so Palin did not sit there for them, and go back for more, like Obama did. They have no relation to Palin, so do not belong in a Palin article. If there is no article with the statements, there is no way to know when they were made. A current events scholar or researcher wanting to check a neutral encyclopedia article about the stories should have an article to check in. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. EricDiesel (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ministries and Service Section

Personally, the ministries and service sections should be deleted. None of those activities are notable in and of themselves. The ONLY claims to fame of the church are: 1) The new minister who has garnered some controversy in his positions and 2) The affiliation to Palin---and then only insofar as people are attempting to create an issue regarding Palin. Referencing items (ministries and service section) that are not notable (such as giving 39 baskets) is just a joke. Those two sections should be deleted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Without them, the article is nothing but pure coatrack about Palin. They are reliably sourced and they are, believe it or not, news coverage actually about the purported subject of the article, the Wasilla Assembly of God rather than a notable former congregant. I think it more encyclopedic to remove anything from this article sourced to anything mentioning Palin's name published since her nomination, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia should have no dog in any political fight, and show the church for what it really is--an unremarkable small-town Pentacostal Christian church. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly a good argument. It is IMHO a non-notable church that is only in the news, despite it's pastors position, because of Palin. There are scores of other churches in EVERY reasonably sized city that are just as controversial as Wasilla.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ministries and services bit is the only thing that has any coverage in reliable media outside of the Sarah Palin connection. I don't believe the coverage really is significant about the church itself (which is the way I understand the policy) but, if we are going to keep the article from being a coatrack we have to include this stuff. At least until the church somehow gains notability in a proper sense or editors to the wiki actually decide to set politics aside and write a decent encyclopedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had an epiphany in the shower (my usual location for such insights) this morning: The reason we're having such a hard time writing an article without WP:COATRACKs is that the media (all WP:RS, per our reckoning) is coatracking it themselves! That's why we have zero recent Kalnins or WAoG articles that fail to mention Palin--the only reason that anyone cares is the coatrack. We have a school of editors who say "Hey, if the mainstream media cover it, it's fair game"--they're not seeking to create coatracks themselves, they're just trying to accurately reflect the coatracks in Wikipedia that the media provides wholesale. I still happen to disagree with that position, mine being that WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:COATRACK compel us to act different (dare I say, better?) than the mainstream media--after all, we're not selling papers here. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep all info, including Ministries and Services. There are many current events scholars, and scholars interested in the roots of Sarah Palin's thinking, who would like an encyclopedia article on almost anything in Wasilla, pro and con. There are even high school classes where students want to write essays on Sarha Palin, and going to an encyclopedia (Likely to cut and paste) is what they do. The reason I created this page was an incidental curiosity about news reports regarding sermons repoorted about "Sarah Palin's church". I went to Wikipedia, where I expected the info. This information does NOT belong on the Palin article. An encyclopedia interested in the church would want to know everything they can, and an encyclopedia saves every person from repeatedly reading the same net stuff. EricDiesel (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasynnash2 wrote, "Unfortunately, the ministries and services bit is the only thing that has any coverage in reliable media outside of the Sarah Palin connection." That is not true. The information I put in was all from major media sources, was all related to unusuakl church positions, was all from after Palin left the church, and sourced by reliable media. It was all deleted because the news stories had "Sarah Palin" in the title and in the article. EricDiesel (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jasy, the media is using the Church as a coatrack, which is why I have bullet point 2. If the Church has any REAL notability, it is in how people are attempting to tie the Church's position to Palin. as for the "unusual church positions." Those aren't unusual, they might not be mainstream, but they aren't unusual. I suspect that there are scores of churches who adhere to the same or similar positions as Wasila. (Look up Lovingway Pentacostal Church in Denver Colorado.) Those churches are not notable and neither is Wasilla. Ultimately, the ONLY thing that separates Wasilla from the hundreds of other similarly positioned churches is that there is an attempt to tie Palin's beliefs to the Church's current pastor.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's a WP:COATRACK and what isn't?

We've got an article, we've got sources. Let's identify which part of COATRACK each sentence fits (i.e. "All About George", "A Journalist Mentioned It In Passing", etc.) and fix it. This article seems to be a hot topic, so what exactly are the sentences, the sources, and the COATRACK each violate? - 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo would improve article

Anyone from Wasilla here?--Appraiser (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. May be at least something on Google Earth. Anyone know about the ability to use those photos? EricDiesel (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can use google earth. If NASA has a photo, you can use their stuff though. The best place is Flickr's creative commons images, but they don't have one of the church itself.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you think in such a thriving metropolis someone would both be reading this and own a digital camera?--Appraiser (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You might ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I would like someone to nominate this article for deletion. Other than being the Church which Governor Palin attended in the past, there is really nothing significant about this Church. If you look at the history, this article was created just last week, and the author used the Huffington Post as his or her main source. Any reasonable person would know that the Huffington Post is not a reliable website, and it is very clear that the person creating this page did so with intentions to smear Governor Palin. Although it has been significantly improved, it still lacks significance, especially since Governor Palin no longer attends this Church. Therefore, I do not think this article belongs on Wikipedia. 192.77.143.150 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the info at the top of the page. This article was nominated for deletion on September 4 and the result was "no consensus" for deletion. The Huffington Post is not the only source for the article. How does accurate and referenced information about the church Palin attended from her early years up until 6 years ago "smear" her? Edison (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the church isn't really notable outside of Palin, it is in the news right now. And while WP isn't suppose to be the news, the church's being in the news does give it an artificial sense of notability. Right now, as was happening in the AfD, any movement to delete this article would fail. In a few months, after the hype has settled and people approach the subject more objectively, I think it would be a prime candidate for deletion. Until then, work with what we've got.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation to 192.77.143.150 is, rather than arguing the point here, simply go to the Wiki-Cabal (Which does not Exist), who will either delete the article or not, but whose decision will, in the long term, be final. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as final in a consensus-ology...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. For about one nanosecond. :-) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's only on the fifth thursday of the month, and only if the month is February.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, you will find that once the Cabal have reached their consensus, their interpretation is the only one which remains on Wiki; all others will be ruthlessly edited out, and the necessary sanctions applied in extremis.

Who goes to hell?

From the CNN article:

Pastor Ed Kalnin, the senior pastor of Palin's former Pentecostal church, has also come under fire for his comments. In 2004, he told church members if they voted for John Kerry for president, they wouldn't get into heaven. He told them, "I question your salvation." The Assembly of God issued a statement online in response, which said Kalnin was "joking" when he suggested "Kerry supporters would go to hell." The statement went on to say: "We do acknowledge in hindsight that it was careless, and we do apologize for that. This statement is not written as a defense, but as a clarification."

I don't think "Kerry supporters would go to hell" is part of his original quote--or anyone's but CNN's, for that matter. The church's statement backs that up:

statement Read through it, and you'll see the only part of that statement that CNN can possibly be quoting (and badly, at that) is this sentence: "We have been accused of stating that anyone who voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004 would go to hell."

Neither in the original sermon, nor in the clarification, (as presented on the WAoG website, of course) does Kalnins ever say that people who vote for Kerry will go to hell, nor that he said that he said they would. I reiterate my objection to that quote, especially since the word "supporters" never appears in the statement. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I was looking for that. I'll put it in with the original language and the source.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kalnins said in sermons, not as a joke, that Kerry voters would not get into heaven, and more strongly that critics of Bush Katrina policy would go to hell. He also said that God favored the Iraq war, a statement widely covered in Pakistan and Iran as it seemed to be consistent with a crusader perspective. The fourth most wisely covered sermon asserted that at least some of the thoughts of Jesus were not pacifistic, but warlike. EricDiesel (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for this assertion? The Huffington Post article? If it's citable, let's use it. If not, then it's original research. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, see my new section below on Iraq. EricDiesel (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed "espoused core beliefs" phrase because...

I have removed the statement from the lead paragraph that quotes The Wall Street Journal as saying, The Assemblies of God "espouse core beliefs not widely ascribed to by major Christian factions." These beliefs include speaking in tongues and that "humanity is in its 'end times.'" [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048406528596987.html?mod=googlenews_wsj] I removed this for two reasons: 1) The statement is highly debatable, even if it was a quote from the WSJ, as there are millions upon millions of people throughout Christianity that practice Pentecostalism; and 2) I believe that this statement is out of place in an article specifically about a local congregation, and would be better used in the article about the Assemblies of God itself. I have my own bias as a member of an Assembly of God congregation, I'll admit, but I'm not sure that the WSJ is exactly a top authority when it comes to matters of religion. Finance? Yes. Religion? No. Moreover, I believe this sentence has been used in this article in a POV manner meant to disparage both the church and Sarah Palin. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree (although as a non-AG member) with your point #2, that the Wasilla church is not particularly notable nor distinct from any other AoG church that I'm aware of. On point #1, I think the WSJ assertion could be labeled as such, but they're stating something as fact that is pretty wishy-washy. Major Christian factions? The pope and his cardinals may not speak in tongues, but there are Pentecostal Roman Catholics. In my experience, "end times" is a very common Christian belief, although the interpretation and fervency of that belief differs from denomination to denomination. Tongues may be a bit less mainstream, but I agree that it's really not the WSJ's place to pronounce it such, nor is the WSJ inherently a reliable source when it comes to religious matters. Overall, I agree that characterizing an AG church in such a way is something best done in the Assemblies of God main article. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I think the information should be included, I do not think it is necessary to call attention to the fact that these are minority beliefs of the Christian community. That appears to me to be POV. I still think that the fact that people in the congregation speak in tongues and believe the world is in its "end times" is significant and should be included.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? We already wikilink from the article to Assemblies of God--really, if the congregation doesn't differ from others in its denomination, why should the information be repeated in this article? Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's descriptive. If you want to say, like other Assembly of God churches, people speak in tongues and believe we're living in the end times, that would be fine. Plus, I thought that there was some talk by Rev. Kalnins about Alaska being the refuge of Christians during the rapture. That seems to distinguish it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But why put this item on this particular article when we don't have it on other articles about A/G churches? And do we do similar comments on articles for individual churches in other denominations, such as Southern Baptist or United Methodist? No, we don't and we shouldn't. The main articles for each denomination should spell out the beliefs, period. And the Assemblies of God is not exactly a fringe group — it's a long-established fellowship (coming up on its centennial pretty soon) that has a large number of churches in every state in the union, and even more in other countries (especially South America). I can only see putting comments about doctrines on articles for individual churches when those churches are independent and not affiliated with a denomination or some such; then it would be appropriate. But this isn't. I think this particular comment was used in this article primarily to cast Sarah Palin in a negative light. It's POV, and has no place here. (I would revert this again, but I would run afoul of WP:3RR for the moment.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the sentence in question to the end of the lead of the Assemblies of God article, reference and all. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Iraq, Pakistan, Iran

The Huffington Post only served as a fuse for the many news stories, which cite WAoG sermon quotes. In Iran and parts of Pakistan, politicians are mouthpieces for religious figures; for example, in Iran, their concept of “president” is nothing like in the US. When a religious leader there says something, it is given much more weight than in western democracies. When Obama first announced Pakistan was not off limits for US reaction to terrorism, this caused huge effect in Pakistan and Iran. Having a religious figure, Like at WAoG, give a theological justification for what Obama was saying, is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a basis for a new coming crusader invasion, and causes much more media coverage than would be expected in a western democracy. It is not clear that some Pakistani and Iranian press are able to parse differences between US pastors and which politicians they may influence any better than the US press does for Iran and Pakistan. That is why in a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it is important to have neutral information, and not speculate as to how it is being used, like by calling it a coatrack and excluding it. The information might be used in a manner entirely different in different cultures. Here is the earliest media quote from Pakistan that I could find regarding Iraq and the WAoG sermons. Many more have come since then. From the 9-4-08 Pakistan “Daily Times”, “Kalnins has preached that the… invasion of Iraq [is] part of a ‘world war’ over the Christian faith”. I do not think my analysis here belongs in the article, but the Pakistan Daily Times quote might. EricDiesel (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that provides this analysis, then that would be the first step towards including it. The absence of coatracks, on the other hand, is as much a part of neutrality as including images--even ones of Mohammed, even ones of genitalia. This article is about the Wasilla Assembly of God--if you want to make a separate article entitled Islamic Reaction to U.S. Political Statements or something like that, that would be a more proper place for such analysis--again, assuming that reliable sources can be found. While Wikipedia is not paper, that not only means that there's no restriction on article length, there also are no restrictions on article numbers. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you; that's why I put my comments here on the talk page. The Pakistan "Daily Times" is as reliable a source as a western news source. What I found interesting is the perspective, being so different. The religious figure is viewed as more important than politicians in terms of the relationship to middle eastern foreign policy. I cited the quote, “Kalnins has preached that the… invasion of Iraq [is] part of a ‘world war’ over the Christian faith”, as one of the more western points of view, altough a western reader who sees only this news article might not have understood it as such. EricDiesel (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from RS's aren't necessarily NPOV. That's why including another source with a different perspective can add value by bringing balance. Each step we go away from the article reduces the value of the information and likelihood that someone looking for it would find it. WAoG->Kalnins->Kalnins' sermons->Pakistani reaction is an improbably long chain to follow, and that's what calling something out as a "coatrack" is intended to avoid. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Building consensus....

I concede that there appear to be a number of editors who want to include what I consider non-encyclopedic content in this article, specifically Kalnins' alleged statements and beliefs. My objection in a nutshell to their inclusion is that all the media attention focused on them has been solely "digging" by the media in an attempt to provide news (as in, WP:NOT#NEWS) regarding the U.S. Presidential race, and absent that, the congregation is simply non notable. If we are to include materials about Kalnins at all, it must be with an eye towards not repeating partisan accusations. Wikipedia should never become an adjunct to or an enabler of anyone's political agenda. To some of you Palin-haters out there, that probably look like a partisan statement; it's not. It's a statement that Wikipedia should be above such politics.

So what should be in the article?

• Palin went to the church up until 2002.
• Kalnins said some controversial things. As near as I can see, most/all of the controversial things he's said have been after 2002, when she ceased being a member of that church.
• I like EricDiesel's suggestion that we use quotes rather than reports from media sources. Take a look here for one possible source for direct quotes. Frankly, Kalnins doesn't look particularly articulate in that transcript.
• I further like the addition of the church's own website, where readers can go and download the originals and make up their own minds.

What else should be included? Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Palin supporter, but I agree with the thrust of what Jclemens says here. Palin foes have to tread especially carefully in editing this article, as any addition that can be seen as making an indirect comment about Palin is in danger of being a coatrack. The extreme difference in notability between Palin and Kalnins magnifies this problem, so anything controversial about him should be considered very carefully before putting it in. -Exucmember (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should report notable, verifiable facts. If those facts are taken to support someone's point of view I see no problem doing in us including them, even if it "enables" someone's political agenda. That's why we have the freedom to debate the issues in this country (the USA), so the people with the soundest arguments end up making the agenda. Kalnin's statements are both notable (in part due to Sarah Palin's membership in the church) and verified (I also think we should have direct quotes). Since this article has been found to be notable enough to be kept, Jclemen's gutting the article of all relevant facts now (his repeated deletion of Kalnin's controversial statements that are now being covered extensively in the news) with various charges of violations of WP:COAT, WP:NOT#NEWS, and now, WP:NOTABILITY, none of which should prevent the inclusion of this information, creates the appearance of impropriety.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't bothered looking at my recent edits to the article, have you? This gets a ton simpler once you WP:AGF effectively, honest. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to say that I haven't once assumed good faith. I'm starting to take your comments personally Jclemens.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Feel free to comment on the article, then. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to step in here... Cdog, good faith edits are not vandalism... content disputes yes, but vandalism no. The only time that you MIGHT be able to call good faith edits vandalism, is AFTER a degree of consensus has been reached. But both of you, please step back and try to find common ground. We need 1) accurately describe the Church and 2) IMHO we need to include the allegations posited by the Huffington post.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I hate to quote policy to an administrator but it clearly says at WP:VANDAL that "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages" is considered sneaky vandalism. It has been proved conclusively that the inclusion of this sourced, notable, and relevant material is legitimate. Let me just give a rundown of all of Jclemens removal of legitimate information from this page: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], . I agree that good faith edits are not vandalism, but I'm afraid I have been assuming good faith long enough.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdogs, considering that this page has only been around for a few weeks and has only garnered any attention due to a highly charged event, it isn't surprising that there is intense debate over what is and isn't acceptable. At this point, I would agree that we are reaching a consensus that SOMETHING needs to be in the article, but how that is presented and what is said is still debated... some of the edits you are calling "vandalism" are legitimate content disputes. With something this highly charged, extra care needs to be taken to go above and beyond in AGF. You an Jclemens have very different perspectives on what should and shouldn't be included in this article. COATRACK is a legit concern. How these comments is presented is every important and this article will be discussed for weeks to come.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we use the Huffington Post article, as well as a conservative viewpoint explicitly critical of its motivations, should we remove the USA Today cite as redundant? Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I would say no. In this case, the Huffington Post is part of the story. Citing USA Today would be a source indicating that the HP is part of the story. HP is accredited in a number of places as being part of the story.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post is not WP:RS

As per WP:RS, only sources with rigorous editorial policies can be considered reliable. Since HuffPo is essentially a collection of self-publishing bloggers, it cannot be used as a citation. None of the various exceptions seem to apply in this case. Any content sourced to HuffPo stays out. Ronnotel (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In this article, the section on "Controversy" was edited out, and the multiple major sources were chenged to Huffington Post, then this was removed. The original reliable sources should be restored. EricDiesel (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God is not a source for an article about Wasilla Assembly of God

Wasilla Assembly of God had a sermon that critics of George Bush or pastors would go to hell, and voters for Kerry would not go to heaven (without stating they actually would go to hell, like Bush and pastor critics were said to go to). The content of the former sermon was removed, and replaced with a single out of context quote omitting the sermon regarding going to hell. Mainstream reliable media sources were replaced by a link to a confused polemic written by the church itself. A church webpage is not a source to replace the multiple mainstream media sources. EricDiesel (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to read and understand WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. The church website is not an authority for how other people reacted to the statements, but they are an authority for what was actually said at the church. There's no question that the Huffington Post was using the comments in the most negative possible light. My question in response is this: What other source claims to produce quotes from the sermons contradictory to the material the church provides? If none do, then the quotes themselves (not their interpretation) are without contest and suitable for inclusion without commentary or rebuttal. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Content removal re Controversy

The section on "Controversy" and most of its content was removed. Muliple international mainstream media sources were replaced by a link to a web page created by the church. The four most covered sermons, removed from the article, asserted that 1. critics of a church pastor would go to hell, 2. critics of president Bush would go to Hell, 3. Having warlike thoughts was not inconsistent with thinking like Jesus, and 4. The Iraq War was part of an international war about Christianity. EricDiesel (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop it with the coatracks, would you? The Iraq War has NOTHING to do with this article.

The existence of a "Controversy" section is not within keeping with Wikipedia style. See WP:CRITICISM#Evaluations_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section and {{Criticism-section}}. What content is preserved should be placed back into a Pastor's section or something like that. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History section, take 2

"Kalnin's controversial views attracted international attention in 2008 due to Governor Palin's selection as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Kalnins has come under media scrutiny for preaching that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioning whether people who voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted into heaven; and preaching that the September 11 attacks and the war in Iraq were part of a world war over Christianity.^[4][5]"

Shouldn't this paragraph also spell out that Palin had left this church when Kalnins made these remarks? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, I removed it again. If consensus has cheanged, let's hash it out here rather than in the article, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Item: Can this be sourced ? If not, then it presumptively does not belong here; if (and only if) it can, then:

Item: Have these "controversial views" ever been disavowed by the Assembly ? If so, then again, they ought not to be here, but possibly in an article re Kalnin; if not, then I suggest that it is for deletionists to provide a reason why a part of a church's doctrine is immune from mention. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The church has "clarified" some of Kalnin's statements saying they were a joke. Kalnin article redirects here and I believe was deleted before that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your logical approach, I believe your second question is worded backwards--have the "controversial views" ever been endorsed by the congregation? If not, then inclusionists should provide grounds for sticking these views here, rather than in Kalnin's article. The sourcing isn't really in question. It's pretty clear that 1) Kalnins said them, 2) After Palin left his church, and 3) they've only come into the media spotlight based on her nomination. Oh, and 4) Kalnins said that at the WAoG... Points 1, 2, and 3 belong to other articles, rather than one about the specific church. 4 is a tenuous connection at best, and prompts my comment that it's a net coatrack to this article. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, again, your problem is with the notability of this article in general, which, it has been decided should be kept (for now). The COATRACK argument is speculation (you say the only reason we're editing here is because of Sarah Palin) and violates the principle that we assume good faith. (In case anyone doesn't know yet WP:COATRACK is an essay, not an official wikipedia policy). Plus, that's not the argument you made above. You said above "The addition is about Kalnins, not the Wasilla Assembly of God. Thus, it fails WP:COATRACK despite being WP:RS'ed." Perhaps you should have thought about that before you voted to erase the Ed Kalnins article here. Your failure to properly count these votes is the final straw. To me, it seems quite obvious you are trying to game the system and that your sole purpose in editing these pages is to remove factual content from public view. I don't know your politics (I can guess do to your constant protective edits at James Dobson) but I advise you to stop disruptive editing immediately. You have been warned about vandalism once already.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed this until now. Nice, ad hominem attack, per "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Not to mention baseless, as I've done more to integrate and source criticism of Dobson than anyone else in recent memory. If you think reverting vandalism tips my hand as a political partisan, then I must really like Charles Gibson, Mike Tyson, and Johnny Depp too. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think mentioning the fact that he has controversial views that have been brought up recently due to the nomination is fine. We don't need to go into detail (I think this is what makes the article wither COATRACK or SOAPBOX). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

May I (politely) point out, in re sourcing, the article I have just seen on the London Times web-site, discussing the Kalnins doctrines. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anent Jclemens' point, I would argue that if a leader makes a statement, it is assumed, until proved otherwise, that the organisation he leads supports it, unless and until they dissent. -- Simon Cursitor (talk)

that doesn't mean that the statement iteself belongs in an encylopedic article about the organisation though. Not to mention that WP:SYNTH and probably a couple others forbid contributors here from "assuming things" and adding them to articles.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Assemblies of God is a congregationalist heirachy. In other words, the minister's are on a call system wherein the minister serves at the whims of the congregation. They don't have to do a formal "endorsement" by keeping him, they give implicit endorsement.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Count

As of now, I count the following participants who've expressed an opinion, through edits or comments, on the inclusion of the subject statement re: Kalnins:

• (3) In favor of the complete, cited statement: EricDiesel, Peregrine Fisher, Cdogsimmons
• (3) In favor of the more limited statement: Jasynash2, Regents Park, Balloonman
• (2) In favor of no statement at all: Jclemens, JimBoomJohn
• (2) Expressing concerns but no opinion: A. B., Simon Cursitor.

Based on this count, the consensus seems to be for the middle statement. I will be restoring it, as my best interpretation of consensus. If I have made an error or another editor would like to be counted as taking a particular position, please update this section accordingly, along with whatever edits future consensus will support. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think A.B. should be counted as including the complete, cited statement since he brought it up in the first place. Nor does Simon Curtisor appear to be in favor of a limited addition since he advocated giving Kalnin his own section. I believe that's (5), (3), (1), (1). It's a moot now since context has been provided to conform with Regent Park's original suggestion above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that A. B. thinks that way, but I disagree that the edits made unequivocally answer Regents Park's concerns within his 3O opinion. I think hearing from A. B., Simon Cursitor, and Regents Park on the matter should provide an even clearer picture of consensus. Note that the version I've reverted to is my interpretation of consensus rather than the version I prefer--which would be no mention at all. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Then perhaps we should include User:Peregrine Fisher in the majority as well who you reverted with this edit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's in there already. Duh. My bad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, I must be tired. That's actually (5), (3), (2).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't look like Balloonman took a stance. At least I don't see it. So it actually looks like (5), (2), (1), (1).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that User:JimBoomJohn would support your view. He didn't comment here, only made one edit to this page here and the majority of the rest of his edits (all 8 of them) were vandalism (some particularly nasty aimed at liberals or sanitizing the pages of conservatives). I guess that's (5), (2), (1). I miscounted before (again). I really must be tired.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JimBoomJohn took out the middle of the road version in favor of no version--I'm calling that as actions speaking louder than words. I agree he's less engaged than others here, and I can't say that I endorse his other edits, but he made a specific edit, in line with the discussion here, in this article. I don't propose we write him off.

The reason he gave was: "Deleted uncited POV nonsense." Although I think he'd probably agree with you that he wouldn't want there to be any reference whatsoever, that's pure speculation. The best reason he gave for removing the info was that there wasn't a citation. Since we have a citation, it was just removed, I don't think his "vote" should be counted here. Still (5), (2), (1).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman originated the middle of the road version, hence me counting him as supporting that version.

As I firmly do not believe that this church has inherent notability on its own, the only legitimate claim to notability is because the media has made the church notable by trying to tie some choice sound bytes by it's current pastor to Palin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on those clarifications, I'm not seeing the numbers change absent JimBoomJohn getting banned (a distinct possibility), or other editors clarifying their own positions. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion? It is appropriate to discuss ministers of a church on the Churches page---especially when those ministers aren't notable enough for their own page. That being said, I would be very cautious about drawing any conclusions about the beliefs of the ministers based upon a few highlighted sound bytes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Balloonman is right. It is best to quote the sermon remarks, and not interpret them, expecially if the source is a news article and not a piece of scholarly research. And better still, if available, to check the context of the sermon quotes (sound bites), or whether or not the church or pastor has clarified the sermon or made other statements that are inconsistent with these remarks. After all, everyone says a few isolated things that are not really what they think. Does anyone have info on context statements in the subject sermons, whether these are isolated remarks inconsistent with other sermons, or if these reamarks were clarified or corrected? EricDiesel (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Jclemens is not authorised by me to interpret my opinions, use my name in support of his arguments, or in other ways bespeak me. Simply because I am not "on" Wiki 24/7, does not mean that I can be used as someone's sockpuppet/meatpuppet -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- Outdent. You'll note, if you read carefully, that I did no such thing. I noted you as an editor who had expressed concern, but no clearly articulable opinion. Looking at the following paragraph, I still don't have clarity regarding your position on the sentence in question, and invite you to clarify it. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My view, as at this moment, and having read the above commentary, is that the Assembly is notable because it is the focal juncture between the Governor and the minister; and that the minister ought to be notability-assessed on his own merits, but that the Assembly ought to be presumed (legal presumption of continuity) to accept his words as theirs until they disavow him -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If Kalnins says or does someting notable as pastor or church spokesperson, it belongs here. If he says or does something that has a direct significant effect on the church, whether or not he did it as pastor, it belongs here. If he says or does something on his own time, and it does not have a known significant effect on the church, it does not belong here. EricDiesel (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another controversial church position put forth in a sermon, that Jesus sometimes had warlike thoughts, and was not always pacifistic in thought. EricDiesel (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation Templates, please

Will all editors adding cites please use WP:CITET, specifically {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}? It should really be the responsibility of each editor to include their cites in a properly formatted manner, yet I've done several before, and the article now contains some pretty crude citations. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I just did some. Last I saw of the ref section, it looks OK now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the article, even though I don't see that you were a contributor to the problem. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan Daily News

I incldued the Pakistan Daily News as a source (there are many others with the same content) because they are as respected as it comes, and do not have an iron in America's election fire. The Pakistan Daily Times is run by the journalist’s journalist, Najam Sethi, winner of a 1999 Press Freedom Award.” Foreign Policy (see Wikipedia article, etc.) magazine describes Najam Sethi, the editor of Pakistan's Daily Times, as “ one of the country’s most respected political analysts”. If anyone in the world should be respected for honest journalism, it is Sethi and his papers. I checked and the two Wikipedia article on Sethi and on his papers need some work. EricDiesel (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Definately gives some credence to the source ;-) I still think a better source should be found. Let me use this as a quick illustration, what would the average reader think if they saw the source was "The Pakistan Daily News"? It would immediately raise a number of questions in a lot of people's minds---How reliable is a Pakistani paper? How objective is it? Why are we citing some obscure paper as compared to a recognized source? This is especially true, if one looks up it's Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article is probably not unbiased in and of itself. But if it is accurate, it declares that the Times is "recognized as a newspaper that advocates liberal and secular ideas" and "notoriety due to some of its highly controversial editorials". This, in and of itself, raises questions as to the objectivity of the source. Furthermore, the citations are very vague---especially for how long the quotes are. A good source, should include a means to fact check the quotes. The Pakistan Daily Times doesn't state, "In an October 13, 2008 sermon, Kalnin's said, XXX" it simply makes a claim that the minister said XXX. With a subject as heated as this one, where false statements of Palin's have been cited as truth, we really need more. Also, because of the nature of the controversy and attempts to tie Kalnin's beliefs to Palin, a proper time line needs to established.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the Wiki article on Pakistan Daily News. I just found it. It is completely unsourced and looks to be oriented to Middle Eastern readers, not Americans, where "liberal and secular ideas" mean "like the American style of press and not censored by religeous leaders", as in "liberal democracy". In America the words have completely different meanings, where "liberal press" refers to bias, not to a compliment on being neutral and free. I also agree that dates of the sermon quotes would be nice, especially as they would show that Palin was not even in the church at the time of the sermons, since she left in 2002 and the content of the sermons being about the Iraq War, Kerry voters, and hurricane Katrina, the sermons must have been after she left in 2002. An encyclopedia user could infer this, but it takes too much thinking, and should be spelled out. I was trying not to mention Palin so as to avoid creating a coatrack that has to be constantly monitored from filling up with unrelated coats about Palin. EricDiesel (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a slightly different take. I think we HAVE to mention Palin. The only reason why these issues are news is because it is Palin's former church. There are literally hundreds of churches that have said the same or similar things, the ONLY reason Wasilla is notable is because of Palin. I think the article needs to cover this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I gave up. See also the revert on my first contrib of the "Earmark" section in Wasilla, where I argued that Palin, as mayor, got earmarks for Wasilla, using the chief of staff for Alaskan Senator Stephens as her lobbyist to get them, because he was an expert at obtaining exhorbitant earmarks. Also that as governor, did NOT cancel the second "bridge to nowhere" which serviced Wasilla (it is still being planned, and is up to $1 billion in cost). I just gave up mentioning this information into the section, which bears directly on the Wasilla earmarks, since it appears meantion of Palin is taboo for some. See my "invisible coats" section in WP:Coatrack Deletions, currently on debate for Deletion itself at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. Weigh in there if you think WP:Coat needs some sanity and control in its irrational-application. EricDiesel (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies" Section

Well, I've started what I hope will be the model for the controversy section to be. The church wouldn't be facing the scrutiny if it wasn't for Palin, and that has to be mentioned or we are not doing the article justice. That in and of itself is the news. Now that, the fact is framed, it opens the door for discussion the other issues/allegations. Such as are the sermons cited properly? Do they really mean what they are being interpretted to mean? Are they outside of the norm? How about for pentacostals? Now we can discuss them. Personally, I think we will find that this church, while possibly a fringe group of the AoG (Army of Joel references?) is not notably outside of the norm of other churches of it's genre. The only reason why people care that it might be "army of joel" is because it was Sarah Palin's former church. I also don't think the article needs to discuss Sarah much more than it currently does.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There should not be a controversy section. Everything controversial should be integrated into an appropriate section of the article, since controversy and criticism sections are deprecated. So tagging the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at WP: Criticism or Controversy section(s) regards a different use of “controversy”, that being what is or is not a “true” fact about the topic. In this case, “controversies” does not refer to “truth” of details, but to the church itself taking controversial actions or making controversial statements. From WP: Criticism or Controversy section(s), “ Separating all of the controversial aspects of a topic… the details in the main passage are ‘true’ and ‘undisputed’, whereas the rest are ‘controversial’ and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.” Thus for example, a controversy as to whether or not the church did or said something would be covered by WP: Criticism or Controversy section(s), but the undisputed true facts about what the church did or failed to do, or what the church said, which are themselves controversial, are not the subject of WP: Criticism or Controversy section(s). In this case, there is no controversy as to what is a fact. EricDiesel (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" section construction is deprecated. It is current accepted practice to include controversies where they otherwise would appear in the narrative. In this case, the preaching controversy belongs with the pastor, and the funding pseudo-controversy belongs with the Masters Commission program. That is just the way it is. Don't confuse me helping to reorganize the article to be a better Wikipedia article with endorsing the content as it stand, which I generally do not, nor with deleting information, which I did not. Please stop opposing moves that are not in opposition to the content you favor, but are simply trying to organize disputed content in an encyclopedic manner--it's disruptive, and pointlessly so. If you don't want to wait for another editor to weigh in on this, feel free to start a third opinion case on "how should the controversies be organized: one controversy section, or integrated into the appropriate other sections?" Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing controversies about content of an article, disputing what is a fact, with the church itself being involved in controversies, and are thus misinterpreting WP:Criticism or Controversy section. WP:Criticism or Controversy section applies to "disputed" "truth" regarding facts put in an article, not to the subject of an article having controversial statements or practices. Please undo your multiple reverts of User:Ballonman's extensive edit. EricDiesel (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Controversy" isn't about a controversy in belief or event, but rather that the claim to fame of the Church is the controversy stemming from Palin's nomination.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ballonman, your edits are a vast improvement on my original version. There is no information deleted, and the context is completely neutral as to any external political issues. EricDiesel (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you... I tried to find a way that would make both sides happy (and unhappy) while framing up the context.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a turn at fixing the formatting and reorganizing; no content changed other than some cite templates used. My two further suggestions are 1) it needs some copyediting--some of the prose is written poorly, in the typical disjointed way that results from a polarizing article receiving high attention; 2) rename the section to "Governor Palin fallout" or something similar--there is considerably more here than just controversies, regardless that such a section itself is discouraged. However, I am probably running out of karma on this topic, so will (for now...) leave it to others, as desired. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the current organizations better, but this is a collaboration... so I'll leave it. My way isn't demonstratively better.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jclemens, please stop deleting information from controversy section. User:Balloonman has provided excellent neutral source information providing an excellent context for the controversies, as well as the perspective of both sides, the side that controversies are manufactured, and the side that the controversies are illuminative. Removing the controversies makes the Balloonman section meaningless. Please stop all the reverts. EricDiesel (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric, I am flattered that you are referring to me as an authority, but in reality the collaborative effort of the article is to build consensus and find the best way to present things. My way is in no means a final or authoritative version---I'm just an editor.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: The so-called Controversies section is misnamed. At present it is all about the fact of, the reactions to and the explanations for Media scrutiny. Had it not been for the media scrutiny, this article had not likely been written. So call the section that. --Hordaland (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can accept Media Scrutiny.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack re: Travel Expenses for graduation speaking

Removed from the article as a coatrack:

A reporter for the Anchorage Daily News reported that the church failed to pay travel expenses for Palin when she was the commencement speaker for its 2008 Masters Commission class; the travel expenses were instead paid for by Alaskan taxpayers.

The cited article says nothing about the church being ever asked to pay for the trip. It only questions whether it was proper for the state to pay for Palin's travel. It does not establish that or whether the church paid travel experiences for a commencement speaker before or since. I'm sorry, EricDiesel, but mischaracterizing a source and putting "words into its mouth" does not make something not a coatrack. No one who reads the ADN article will come away with the impression that the church is the target of any allegations of impropriety. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement does not question anything. It asserts the fact that the church did not pay travel expenses for its commencement speaker, taxpayers did. Commencement speaker travel expenses and fees for any private institution are the burden of that institution, not of taxpayers. This is especially the case when the private institution is a church. I have undone your second (third?) revert of the content of Balloonma's extensive contribution. Ballonman already asked you not to revert this content again. Please stop. EricDiesel (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It asserts the fact that the church did not pay travel expenses for its commencement speaker, taxpayers did. It does no such thing. It asserts that taxpayers paid for Palin's travel, and makes no mention or suggestion that the church did or should have. The statement, as worded before, was an outright fabrication and unsupported by the article. Does the article say that "speaker travel expenses and fees for any private institution are the burden of that institution, not of taxpayers"? I certainly didn't see it. I will never stop removing content that violates Wikipedia's core guidelines--WP:V, that a citation actually say what Wikipedia says it says--and one editor who's acting directly as mandated by Wikipedia core policies outweighs any number of editors who don't feel the need to uphold those policies. Balloonman's criticism, which was already answered on my talk page, is completely separate--I'd recommend against you putting words into his mouth. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think jclemens has a point. The statement is more about Palin and the state of Alaska than about Palin and the Church. It is properly Palin's responsibility that she does not misuse state funds, not that of the church. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a case where I STRONGLY agree with Jclemens. I have zero doubt that she (and other politicians) had used city/state/federal funds when speaking at religious organizations. To me this is a non-issue. I left it in the article because I wasn't going to delete anything without discussion and wanted to try to write a concept to discuss the issue in a non-partisan way.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Prerogative Question

QUOTING THE ARTICLE: "As Governor, Sarah Palin, a former member (having left the church in 2002), renamed the street on which the church is located Riley Avenue in honor of Riley."

Is it normal in Alaska for the naming of municipal streets to be done by the Governor of Alaska? With rapid growth, that could keep them quite busy.

Supplementary question - Is it normal in other states of the USA for the naming of municipal streets to be done by the Governor? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is probably worth exploring closer. As Governor, she would not have the authority to change a city street. She could campaign for it or ask for it... but my guess is that there was a local movement to change the name and she was the one who performed the ceremony that changed the name. she might have even arranged for it as mayor of the city...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani Press

If we're going to quote that the majority of the assertions of exactly what Kalnins said come from the Pakistani Daily Times, we ought to do one of two things:

• Switch to a U.S. source for the assertions, and simply note that allegations were picked up by international press, citing PDT secondarily.
• Explicitly call out that these allegations come from the press in Pakistan.

I'm good with whichever, but the extensive citation of a non-Western paper begs an explanation. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See my latest comment here. The Pakistan Press, it doing nothing more than plagerizing the Huffington Post. Which leads me to one of the biggest problems that I have with these sermon soundbytes. Most of them can be traced back to the Huffington Post. None cite more than you see there, so nobody can fact check them (EDIT: because Huffington doesn't cite where the quotes come from), but they have achieved critical mass. So many sources are now citing the same sections of the sermons that the Huffington Post cited that they have achieve "fact-hood."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating find, by the way--excellent work. If the original allegations have no RS at their genesis, what compels us to use derivatives of a non-RS? No cite that I've seen yet, with the exception of the WAoG rebuttal statement, provides any context where an independent reviewer can examine the allegations of what was said, and come to his own conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Warlike instinct and thoughts was thinking the way Jesus thought

OMG, I don't even know how to address this issue that has found its way into the Huffington Post and the Pakistan Daily News. Looking into the actual sermon, Kalnin's is refering to a war with the Devil... "that’s called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy." The quote then goes on to say, "We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith." The original quote was grossly out of context, and whoever wrote the above edit bastardized the original so much that it isn't even funny! It is a basic concept of Christian theology that Christians are involved in a spiritual war and should be willing to lay down their lives for something they believe in. This is BASIC theology (EDIT:Even non-pentacostals are familiar with Spiritual Warfare, some just conceptualize it more materially.) How do you address the allegation/issue that people are trying to make when the allegation is so frivilous?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it. Frankly, it's a topic that is easy to misconstrue when taken out of context. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of me wants to remove it because it is so baseless, but another part of me says that this is one of the allegations that has garnered a lot of attention. If we remove it, then the article is incomplete. The Kerry quote, Bush quote, and this are IMO the three biggest accusations against Kalnin. I just can't believe how warped this sound byte has become! The problem with leaving it in, is that it now reads very one-sided... I just don't know how to write it any other way.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My position is, and continues to be, that the insertion of this whole section is a large coatrack which should be in the Sarah Palin article and the rest of the article deleted as NN. If the Huffington Post is not RS, and the Pakistani Daily Times plagiarized it, then the obvious solution is to either remove the specific allegations as failing WP:V, or find a RS replacement citation. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I don't think you're going in the right direction here. You're adding more and more commentary, such that the controversy eclipses the church. If you're proposing to change the title to something else and delete the church content, it might be appropriate, but this is very much almost but not quite entirely not about the Wasilla Assembly of God anymore, and moving further in that direction. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the article needs to be renamed. While I supported deleting the article originally, I think it has achieved critical mass in the Media that it has to be covered on Wikipedia. I just don't think "Wasilla Assembly of God" is the correct title. "Wasilla Assembly of God" is completely non-notable. I think it should be moved to something like "Wasilla Assembly of God Controversies" similar to the article "Jeremiah Wright Controversies." WAoG is NN, it is only in the news because of Palin and efforts to tie Palin with the views of Kalnin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it. Sarah Palin is the vice-presidential candidate for the 'greatest country in the history of the world' (tongue firmly tucked inside my cheek as I say that!). Anything connected with her is notable for the time being. Arguments that focus on the transient nature of her notability don't stand up because, in a sense, all notability is transient. Will wikipedia users read or hear a reference to Wasilla Assembly of God and come to wikipedia looking for information about it? You bet they will. Will they be satisfied with a paltry description of the church with no mention of how it relates to Sarah Palin. Of course not! Controversies involving Sarah Palin are what define the church and that's what the article should focus on. The rest is quite useless. I vote we go with Balloonman's article move proposal. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the coatracks

I think an external news about a WAoG sermon would be great. Problem is, none of the references in the section I removed are about that. They're all about Sarah Palin, and drawing inferences about her beliefs and policies from things that have been said elsewhere.

If they're relevant to Sarah Palin, they should be in her article. If they're not, then they certainly don't belong here--this is an article about a particular church, not a place to backdoor political comments about Palin which can't find purchase in her own article. Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did you look at the content of the references, or just the titles? All of the references were carfully picked because they were about the content of sermons or speeches given at the church. Most of the sermons reported in the articles were about quotes given AFTER Palin left the church. Palin also used the church to make a speech with controversial religous justifications that paralleled a sermon of the pastor. Please read the articles, not just their titles. They have content on sermons and speeches of the church.
• In fairness to Palin, I keep trying to include that Palin left the church in 2002, and the controversial content reported in the references is about events that occured AFTER 2002, so she was not even there when the controversial sermons occured. I think the fact that she was not there should also be included in the section, but others keep telling me to remove mention of her to avoid coatracking allegations, even though the sentence I had only makes it clear the section can not involve Palin.
• Just because the articles have Palin in the title does not mean that they do not also have content abuot the church seromons given after she left, so check inside the articles, not just the title.
• I created this article and the one on the one pastor as my first Wikipedia article, so I apologize if my questions are stupid, but I rewrote the section based on numerous comments by lots of others, to satisfy all their comments. So more helpful suggestoins would be appreciated. EricDiesel (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I believe this fundamentally falls under There is no right way to do a wrong thing.

That is, coverage of the WAoG sermons may be news, but Wikipedia is not news. I apply the following test to the content of the article: If Sarah Palin had not recently been nominated as the Republican US Vice Presidential candidate, how many of these newspapers would have taken an interest in the past sermons of a place she used to attend? Every single source you cite is fruit of the poisonous tree. Every bit of it is investigative journalism designed to dig deep into the past of this particular candidate. As such, it properly belongs in the Sarah Palin article or nowhere, per WP:ONEEVENT. If it's inserted here, it just becomes a WP:COATRACK--tha article title is Wasilla Assembly of God--not "Sarah Palin's past religious associations" or "questionable things said over a period of years since one vice presidential canidate left the church in which they were later spoken."

Again, sorry for the accidentally truncated edit summary. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The fruit of the poisonous tree argument does not apply, since just because the church is unfairly zeroed in on, if they were to discover something notable about the church, and would not have otherwise, the church is stuck with the notability. That is why Palin's pastor Larry Kroon is notable, while her pastor Paul Riley is not. The information dug up on the church (which I think is blown up in the press and irrelevant to the nation) is about sermons given AFTER Palin left, so does not belong on her page. Can you check the content of the references, and not just the titles, and decide if you want to unDELETE the section. I also think there shuold be a sentence in the article that Palin left the church before the controversial sermons were given. EricDiesel (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So how does anything that you've said in any way address the arguments from What Wikipedia is not? Just because something is notable, doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia"--In this case, I wouldn't even expect to find this church in an Encyclopedia, but assuming that it was, I wouldn't expect to see a detailed critique of the sermons given in a particular time period, regardless of the investigative journalists. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – “what a reader would expect to find under the same heading” is the criteria. Citatoins are provided for notablility. In an encyclopedia, user of an encyclopedia would expect to find any neutral editors making the same DELETES for articles and information for Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins and Wasilla Bible Study Church, Larry Kroon, as for Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright. A user of an encyclopedia would also expect to find the same sections and level of information. There is even an entire article for “Reverend Wright Controversy]] on Wikipedia, as well as large sections titled “Political Controversy]] and “Controversy’. In those sections are the actual quotes of Wright causing the controversy. Why are the same Deletions not being made and argued for Trinity and Wright? EricDiesel (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a categorically uncompelling argument. If you don't like the way those articles are, be WP:BOLD and fix it. On the other hand, you've provided here is also uncompelling--I'm not saying that you have poor citations; they're perfectly fine for how new you are to Wikipedia. Nor am I saying you're going about this wrong. What I AM saying is "(insert name of paper) found a link between (insert name of politician) and (obscure potentially damaging theological tenet) by virtue of sermons preached by (insert name of otherwise non-notable clergy) at (insert name of otherwise non-notable church)" doesn't belong in encyclopedia articles, paper or Wikipedia, about the church or the clergy. Nothing you've said has addressed that issue substantively, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Why are you not spending time making equivalent deletions the Trinity article if you have NPOV?

2. I expect an article on anything or anyone that is in international news stories ABOUT the CONTENT of their speeches or sermons to have information on those sermons and speeches. In fact, I expected to go to Wikipedia to check what the sermons actually said and was surprised to find there was no article, so I wrote this, my first Wikipedia article. This directly addresses your question, and I, myself, am empirical evidence of the test of the criterion you cite. (incidentally, I was at Stanford eleven years in mathematics and philosophy and am familiar with standards for writing encyclopedia articles. EricDiesel (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Equal Standards for Deletions, Coatrack and Notablity REQUIRED for United Trinity Church of Christ and Wasilla Assembly of God

Standards should be uniform. Editors are making deletions and arguments here that they are not making for United Trinity Church of Christ and Jeremiah Wright. Coatrack and NPOV standards should be the same. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – “what a reader would expect to find under the same heading” is the criteria. In an encyclopedia, user of an encyclopedia would expect to find any neutral editors making the same DELETES for articles and information for Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins as for Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright. A user of an encyclopedia would also expect to find the same sections and level of information. There is even an entire article for “Reverend Wright Controversy]] on Wikipedia, as well as large sections titled “Political Controversy]] and “Controversy’. In those sections are the actual quotes of Wright causing the controversy. Why are the same Deletions not being made and argued for Trinity and Wright as for Wasilla Assembly of God and Larry Kalnins? EricDiesel (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up here? Go fix it at that other article. Redundant list of citations, which appear elsewhere on this talk page, removed. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of information regarding Kalnins sermons

Jclemens has erased the following sourced sentence twice claiming it is a violation of WP:COATRACK: "Kalnins has come under media scrutiny for preaching that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioning whether people who voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted into heaven; and preaching that the September 11 attacks and the war in Iraq were part of a world war over Christianity."[13] First of all, I consider the information to be central to the article, because it concerns controversial but informative statements made by the senior Pastor. Second, WP:COATRACK is not an official Wikipedia policy (yet I've noticed it has been repetedly quoted as such on this page for some reason). I consider this edit to be completely valid and its repeated removal to be vandalism. Why don't we sort this out here on the discussion board rather than edit war.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself above: What I AM saying is "(insert name of paper) found a link between (insert name of politician) and (obscure potentially damaging theological tenet) by virtue of sermons preached by (insert name of otherwise non-notable clergy) at (insert name of otherwise non-notable church)" doesn't belong in encyclopedia articles, paper or Wikipedia, about the church or the clergy. I'm failing to see how anything you've added differs from anything I disputed with EricDiesel about above. Absent any Palin connection, would any of the criticism exist? Of course not--such sermons are preached by a variety of obscure preachers throughout the world on a weekly basis. As such, this is WP:NOT#NEWS and a WP:COATRACK. It's clear to me that it's properly sourced--that's never been the issue, nor a source of my objection. What is also clear to me, and which I get that you disagree with me over, is that it does not belong in Wikipedia, despite its sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is potential damaging does not make it untrue.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's true doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. I don't recall saying that it should be removed because it was damaging (to whom, anyways? Palin? It's all over the news! Kalnins? He's probably got tons of job offers from well-funded AG churches) but rather because it's news, and WP:NOT#NEWS and it's not even about the church that is nominally the subject of the article. That is the essence of WP:COATRACK. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your argument? That the Senior pastor of the church's inflamatory sermons at the church don't concern the church? It's validly sourced information and again WP:COATRACK is NOT wikipedia policy. It's an essay somebody wrote. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears you just don't like the existence of this page I suggest you take it up at the ongoing discussion regarding the page's deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've said my peace there. Absent the politically-driven controversies, which we've established I don't think merit inclusion, this is an unremarkable small town church. Why would I not vote delete? Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, so why don't you let me develop the article with well sourced information instead of circumventing it with Sneaky Vandalism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Please WP:AGF. 2) per above, sourcing isn't the issue, relevance to this article is. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is that the Senior Pastor of the Wasilla Assembly of God's sermons made in the Wasilla Asssembly of God, to the Wasilla Assembly of God are not relevant to the Wasilla Assembly of God. I must say, that is a pretty extraordinary argument and you are completely wrong. I'll see what other people have to say.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you acnowledge the removal of factual, sourced, information, I don't know why we're still talking.

Because you Didn't hear what I said. Jclemens (talk)

• Penis Instertion and Vandalism at Wasilla Assembly of God

I have reverted your vandalism for the third time, and will not do so again.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not WP:VANDALism. Vandals insert "penis" in random places, they don't argue with you that your contribution is well-formatted but misses the point. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I just see a penis inserted (in the above line)? Or is it a meta-penis, in scare quotes, in which case this sentence contains a meta-meta-penis inserted, with double "scare quotes". Calm, down, lighten up, and step back, editors. After all, this is just an article, and even less, a talk page on an article. EricDiesel (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, "… 'man, this joke writes itself!' --User:Stephen Gilbert" from Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN - EricDiesel (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens' Position Summary for 3O repsonder:

The addition is about Kalnins, not the Wasilla Assembly of God. Thus, it fails WP:COATRACK despite being WP:RS'ed. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons' Position Summary for 3O responder:

The addition, sourced to USA Today, concerns the senior pastor of the Wasilla Assembly of God's controversial sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God to the congregation of the Wasilla Assembly of God. The information is therefore relevant to the article Wasilla Assembly of God, was notable enough to make the news, and should be included in the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If Kalnins speaks for the church, such as a pastor, the information belongs here. If Kalnins speaks for himself, in a forum unrelated to the church, the information does not belong here, unless the church is affected by the speach. EricDiesel (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

WP:RS is not an issue here since the sources seem reliable. I don't think it is entirely (perhaps a bit) a WP:COATRACK issue either because there is no mention of Sarah Palin in that section and because a case could be made that the statements of the senior pastor are representative of the views of the church. However, a much more important issue is whether the quotations are provided to support material in the text, whether they are in context, and whether they could mislead the reader (see WP:QUOTE. Regretfully, it is my opinion that the quotations, while they may (or may not) accurately reflect the views of the senior pastor, may mislead the reader about the views of the church. Including the quotations would make sense if the article stated that the the church believes that "critics of President Bush will be banished to hell, etc. etc., or even if the article could point to other independent WP:RS that associated the church with an explicit and extreme Republican platform or bias. Based on the information contained in the article, the quotations are out-of -context. Even without the bit of WP:COATRACK (Sarah Palin is prominently the only prominent member), it is my opinion that the quotations should not be included in the article. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrased (adding "allegedly") and added some follow-up, an official statement by the church to clarify his statements. Jclemons also provided context by changing the section heading and adding a sentence.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Scrutiny to Kalnins

Personally, I don't think there is ANYTHING notable about this church EXCEPT the controversy that has recently arisen due to media scrutiny. As far as I am concerned, if it wasn't for the Media Scrutiny surrounding Palin, this article would have never been written. Kalnin's theology is not notable. His sermons are not notable. Everything he has said can be heard from hundreds of churches around the country.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You've pretty much addressed your own concerns. That fact that there is media scrutiny (resulting in multiple media/secondary sources) - makes both the church and the pastor (and his comments) notable. Most of us would never have heard of Rev. Wright had it not been for Obama. That made Rev. Wright notable. Wikipedia requires secondary sources and notablility - is anything missing? 72.92.117.232 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Media scrutiny section is WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP

This article is supposedly about a small, otherwise non-notable church in the hinterlands. However, the media scrutiny section is clearly intended as a POV fork aimed directly at Sarah Palin. Non-reliable sourcing, blatant synthesis & orginal research, etc. This is material that could clearly not pass muster on a WP:BLP yet it somehow turns up here. This section needs to go. Ronnotel (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted. Balloonman is essentially proposing that the article be renamed to better fit that topic, and the rest of the article be thrown away as NN. I haven't seen anyone posting to talk recently that likes it "just the way it is". Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this article deserves no mention of the scrutiny whatoever. That said, I agree that as is, the section has serious problems as you both describe. A quote-farm-avoiding single paragraph would seem reasonable. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have a stab, Baccy? Ronnotel (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You beg the question by assuming it is "nonnotable." If it is noted, it is notable. It satisfies WP:N on the basis of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the church. Institutions with some association with a political candidate do not become "inherently non-notable" so that we have to interpret any coverage of the church or its pastors as somehow being "really about the candidate." Edison (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the current version, we have all sorts of things in that section that are sourced to non-RS, extensive quotes from a treatise on spiritual warfare, and a variety of quotes about Jeremiah Wright. If any of us were suggesting that these should not appear in Wikipedia anywhere, that might be censorship. All that's been asserted here is that they do not belong in an article ostensibly about a small-town Pentecostal church in Alaska--I call that good editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, based upon your edits, it is clear that you are a firm supporter of Palin-McCain. So let me ask you this, do you dispute the fact that the only reason why the Church/Kalnin is in the news is because of Palin? Do you dispute the fact that both liberals and conservatives point to the Jeremiah Wright controversy? Conservatives generally by saying things like, "This is an attempt to create a controversy like Wright?" Liberals generally by saying, "This is the McCain equivalent to the Wright Controversy, and if that was fair game, then so is this?" It's part of the coverage. Again, this is the ONLY reason why WAoG is notable, as such it should be properly titled. As a small Pentacostal church in Alaska, this church does not merit an article, it doesn't reach that level of notability. As a Church that has become a focal point in the presidential campaign due to Palin, it does.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not insert personal attacks. This may be the mildest of all possible personal attacks, and uttered in completely good faith, but "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." is off-limits. Feel free to reword the question without any speculation of who I do or do not support, and I'll be happy to respond. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you appear to be a Palin-McCain Support is in no way shape or form a personal attack... in fact, if you were to look at my user boxes, it should be clear where my loyalties lie as well. If you take it as an attack then I apologize, but it was in no means an attack. The facts are, however, that the only reason this Church is notable is because of this ONE issue. The facts are that people on both sides of the aisle have made references comparing Kalnin to Wright. Conservatives in the attempt to say, "this is merely a ploy to create a Wright Controversy" and liberals by sayin "this is a Wright type controversy." The facts also exist that there is an article on Jeremiah Wright controversy explicitly because the controversy was bigger than the individual. IMHO the media scrutiny here is bigger than the notability of the Church.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting ready to refactor my response and got into an edit conflict with your clarification. I really don't want this to be a "D vs. R" issue, and bringing up who supports whom can't help discourse here.

Basically, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not my problem. I did not participate in any way in the Wright editing, nor do I have to in order to have an opinion here. I really don't care which option is selected: clean up the coatrack (media-supplied or not) and make this about the Wasilla Assembly of God (and ONLY the Wasilla Assembly of God) by merging any Sarah Palin-related content to a Sarah Palin related article, or by renaming this to another title Palin-related title entirely, which has no pretense of being about the Wasilla Assembly of God. All I have ever argued is that the media scrutiny material does not belong 1) in this article, as a WP:COATRACK, and 2) in Wikipedia at all, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Given that I seem to be in the minority on the last bit, I'd much rather have it be somewhere else in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as an article on WAoG, it doesn't belong here... but I don't believe an article on WAoG belongs on Wikipedia. WAoG is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Thus, I think we should rename it to discuss the coverage of the controversy. IMHO, the article shouldn't be so much about the allegations, but about the coverage of said allegations. I think the coverage has grown beyond just NEWS, but become something more, and that something more deserves it's own article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Coatrack---Yes... the media scrutiny of the Church is a coatrack issue. That is why it is in a section called Media scrutiny and has a college professor of politics pointing out that such scrutiny is to be expected. The ONLY reason Wasilla is notable is because the media (and notable bloggers/individuals) are making the church into an coatrack. Thus, if an article is to exist on this Church, then it has to do so because it is addressing how the media is covering the issue.
• Undue---Thus the need for a name change. This church does not deserve an article on it's own. It is completely non-notable, and would have failed any AFD prior to Palin's selection as VP candidate. Heck, if you take Palin out of the picture, it would still fail today. But the reality is that the Church is in the news EXPLICITLY because of Palin's having attended there. If you limit the section to one paragraph, then you are hiding behind UNDUE in an effort to ignore what makes the Church notable--- like it or not, the Church/pastor are covered every day on various radio/TV/newspaper/magazine articles explicitly because of Palin's past affiliation. You would be hard pressed to find an article about Wasilla that doesn't mention Palin. As 98% of the coverage of Wasilla is directly tied to Palin, it is hard to substantiate a claim that the article is overly weighted there---especially since the references to Palin are 1) that the Church garnered international attention due to Palin's current role (absolutely true) and 2) that such criticism was to be expected as she was a surprise candidate. EDIT: In fact, I would go so far as to say, that the Church is so non-notable that the other stuff dealing with the church is UNDUE... who cares if the Church collected 39 baskets of food? That is not notable---just mentioning it is UNDUE. An annual concert that attracts a 1000 teens---completely non-notable. Who cares? Nobody outside of Alaska. The churches big claims to fame are that insignificant.
• BLP---What exactly is the BLP issue? There are multiple sources that cite the sermons----thus while I personally suspect that the author's who cite the sermons are lazy and relied upon the Huffington Post research---I can't prove it, the number of sources citing the sermons covers any reasonable expectation of verifiability. The news is how the media has interpretted the sermons to mean certain things---which may or may not be accurate---but we are not violating BLP when reporting how the certain elements perceive an issue. A number of people have (incorrectly?) interpretted Kalnin's sermons to mean certain things, as those assertions are being presented as the basis for Kalnin's theology, the inclusion of those positions (when attributed to an individual/group as compared to cited as fact) is not a BLP violation. If somebody writes "XXX is a racist bastard" that is a BLP violation, if there is a compelling reason to include a quote, attributed to somebody who is an authority or should know, that says "XXX is a racist bastard" then it isn't a BLP violation (necessarily.)
• The section is "aimed directly at Sarah Palin"---er, care to explain this one? Did you read the article? The Church/Kalnin is clearly in the news because people are attempting make it an attack on Palin, but did you actually read what was written?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Future Direction !Vote

We have two proposals on the table, and I'd like to get a formal consensus check for who supports which, so no one's opinion gets overlooked:

A. Move the article to a title focusing on the Sarah Palin related controversies.

1. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Notability here is the association of the church with Sarah Palin. Moving the article will properly reflect the raison de etre for the article and will make it easier to identify content that should or should not be included. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
2. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC) This church would not be notable were it not for Sarah Palin. It is not an especially large church by Assemblies of God standards, or by standards for evangelical/Pentecostal/charismatic churches in general. Its pastor's comments would not be scrutinized if Palin weren't the VP nominee, as there are plenty of other pastors of this theological strain that have said similar things. (I know — I've heard my share of them.) I would argue that this should also apply to Wasilla Bible Church.
3. Let's look at the facts. 1) The church and minister are non-notable entities. On their own, they lack any meaningful media mention outside of non-meaningful coverage in their local paper. 2) Over the past three weeks, there have been about 1300 GoogleNews articles on the Church---probably 98% of those articles mention Palin. 3) The media coverage that ties Palin to the Church is the ONLY legitimate claim to notability. 4) The fact is that the Media is using the Church as a Coatrack---plain and simple. Relegating this issue to "one paragraph" is to turn a blind eye to reality. We may not like it, but the church is notable BECAUSE of Palin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment re move to Palins related articles - Clearly the sermons and speaker funding controversies would not have arisen if not for Palin's nomination. But except for the sentence moved to the "Masters Commission program" section about speaker funding by taxpayers, Palin had nothing to do with the controversies, as the dates of the sermon topics indicate they occured after 2002. The best example of this is the sermon assertion that "critics of a pastor will go to hell", which is unrelated to Palin as anything could be (and has disappeared in butchery of User:Balloonman's thoughtful and well worded original contribution. The sermon only came to light because of a witchhunt looking for Palin church bloopers, but Wikipedians can not make the sermon go away, or tie it to Palin, by moving information off the church article into a Palin titled article. EricDiesel (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice observation... moving it to a Sarah Palin controversy is not the answer... rather it should be in Wasilla Assembly of God Media Controversy or somesuch.192.147.26.38 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(insert # ~~~~ above this line if you support this option)

B. Trim the controversy section to restore NPOV

1. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
2. The article, as is, is using too many unreliable sources (blogs, and advocacy pieces) for this material. # The article does not evidence the level of reliable source support needed to have the amount of content it currently does, and is even further from the level of reliable sourcing needed to support a controversy article. GRBerry 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
3. yes, but only if "trimming" restores NPOV. Ronnotel (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Without prejudice to prudent (BLP/NPOV) expansion of the trimmed topics on other applicable pages, if not already done so. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Trim and restore User:Balloonman's version - The article section should stay and be restored to User:Balloonman's first version. This "vote" to move content out of the article discussion is an end run around a failure to delete the article. User:Balloonman's repeated (and ignored) comments elsewhere are correct, that the "Controversies/Media Scrutiny" section is almost all that gives notability to the church. The church will likely be the subject of scrutiny for years to come, as Palin will either be vice president or a major national political player for years to come, and her base of power will derive from her position on the role of faith in politics with academic study of the influence of her former churches likely to wax more than it wanes. EricDiesel (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

C. Do something else or leave as-is--please specify

1. "Trimming" sounds like a euphemism for "censoring" and Wikipedia is not censored. All content should have reliable sources. The article should be about the church and not just about Palin. So there is no basis for moving it to an article about "Palin controversies." There are plenty of reliable sources with substantial coverage of the church and its pastors. That satisfies the notability requirement. The normal editing process should be able to keep the article sourced and NPOV, since a number of skilled and experienced editors appear to be watching it. Edison (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I endorse Edison's line -- what can be sourced should be kept, what can't should be excluded. If the topic stops being notable in the future, it can then be prod'd; until then, for now, this is clearly notable, and it's clearly a seperate subject from the governor. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Keep Page for now per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God. An article named after the church appears to be the proper place for things that have happened at the church, including Ed Kalnin's sermons which have become notable thanks to Sarah Palin's candidacy, as well as Sarah Palin's address at the church. The information is sourced, factual and notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(insert # ~~~~ above this line if you support this option)

Comment

(In a mild tone of voice) I think option B is quite meaningless. Trim doesn't point to anything in specific but implies that the section should be shorter, irrespective of what is taken out. How that will restore NPOV, assuming that there is a biased point of view, is not clear. First, there needs to be some indication of why the section does not comply with NPOV standards. If there are statements in there that are backed up by reliable sources, then they can neither be considered POV nor should be trimmed. If there are statements that are not backed by reliable sources then these statements should be listed and removed (unless a WP:RS can be provided). As it is now, by calling for a vague 'trim', the !vote itself is in danger of appearing to be a POV fork of some sort. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like support for option C; if so feel free to note there. The rest of your comments need considerable clarification. First, B is far from meaningless. You may not understand what it proposes, or you may not agree with its premises (if the latter, naturally you do not see what to trim), but it still has meaning. More importantly: you are actually mistaken to suppose that reliably sourced content is necessarily NPOV. RS and NPOV are very different things; NPOV also includes (or more accurately, demands avoiding) WP:UNDUE. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The first issue to be decided is whether a majority of editor favor trimming or renaming and expanding. Those are two essentially incompatible directions. If the initial consensus is "trim", then the follow-on question becomes "Trim what, in order to achieve what?" Thus, the lack of specificity is intentional in how I worded the question. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point is that deciding what to trim after the fact is akin to saying that the section is too long regardless of content. If content be an issue, then the vote should focus on what to trim, taking each item separately, rather than on the entire section. Either way, it seems clear to me that the whole article is about Palin (why else would we care about this church) and pretending that it is not is what is leading to all the trouble here. (I'm going to !vote option A and butt out for now!)

That sounds like option A, sorry I misunderstood you. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but rather figure out what it is you are supporting above. That said, you certainly can bring up a point by point discussion of what needs trimming or clarifying. But I have good reason to think that what this editor did with that proposal was to avoid gutting the section themselves (which, as we both can imagine, would cause a ruckus here) and rather attempt to get consensus for it first so as to minimize disruption. The fact that it is receiving support here, regardless of what ends up being done, is a sign it was a smart move. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let Stand and restore User:Balloonman's version - The article section should stay and be restored to User:Balloonman's first version. This "vote" to move content out of the article discussion is an end run around a failure to delete the article. User:Balloonman's repeated (and ignored) comments elsewhere are correct, that the "Controversies/Media Scrutiny" section is almost all that gives notability to the church. The church will likely be the subject of scrutiny for years to come, as Palin will either be vice president or a major national political player for years to come, and her base of power will derive from her position on the role of faith in politics with academic study of the influence of her former churches likely to wax more than it wanes. EricDiesel (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Partisanship, Pakistan Daily Times, Balloonman’s Contrib, “Masters Commission program” v “Controversies/Media Scrutiny” Section

• 1 “Masters Commission program” v “Controversies/Media Scrutiny” Section - The last sentence in the WAoG Master’s Commission Program section does not belong there, as it is not about the Master’s Commission program. It belongs in the Controversy/Media Scrutiny section, in the context provided in User:Balloonman’s very well worded original contribution.

What do the the two sections have in common? Nothing. They're just both controversies and there's a reason the rest of the editors changed the title away from controversies and to something that describes the source or subject of the controversy. Ever wonder why, with all the other editors looking at this article and discussing it on this page, you're the only one who advocates for this position? Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thuoght you were the one who changed the section header, and I thought your change was an improvement. EricDiesel (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2 Pakistan Daily Times - User:Balloonman’s assertion the Daily Times (Pakistan)article on WAoG is “plagiarism” is both false and is an attack on the author and editor, both living persons, and both among the most highly respected journalists in the world. The Daily Times article clearly differentiated between reporting on the Huffington Post article, and reporting on what was found in the Daily Times review of the church sermons.
• 3 Partisanship - Please do not incorrectly speculate as to my politics as is done here and elsewhere, speculating I am a “pro-Obama partisan” because I think unflattering true information should be in a relevant encyclopedia article on a church. Here are some facts. Obama is the least qualified presidential nominee in my lifetime, but is highly experienced in one field, as a lawyer, which is rarely mentioned, as it would make him unelectable. Hillary is still shell shocked from her landing in Kosovo under fire (not really a fact, but sarcasm based on “Hillary-fact”). I have met Biden, who recently tried to pass legislation that specifically would have undone ten years of my personal work.
• 4 User:Balloonman’s Contrib - That said, User:Balloonman’s original rewrite of the “Controversies/Media Scrutiny” section was masterful, completely neutral, worthy of being in an encyclopedia article, and completely dispositive of the matter. It should be restored verbatim. The current revision of User:Balloonman’s original contribution is embarrassingly bad, at best a mishmash of theological speculation and apologies. User:Balloonman’s masterful contribution on this section should be restored, and is unlikely to be improved on. EricDiesel (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?

There's an awful lot of text on this talk page, generated in just the past two weeks. Anyone object if I set up autoarchiving on this page, with a window of, say, 10 days? That should keep the content pared down a bit without squelching any ongoing discussions. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, ten days is easily enough. Be WP:Bold and do it. EricDiesel (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. It should pick things up on tonight's run. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Media scrutiny" section too long, Contains False statements

• The whole section should not be much longer than this. -

1. criticise pastor go to hell, 2. criticise Bush re katrian go to hell, 3. vote for Kerry no go to heaven, 4. Iraq war is about Christianity, 5. taxpayers pay speaker costs, and 6. real witch hunter and persecutor as a regular. - That's it. Whole section. Done.

• Here is one of many examples of blatantly false statements in it now - :*“The Huffington Post reported that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode.” The Huffington post never reported that. EricDiesel (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• This whole section has become a COATRACK for complaints and false statements about the media, it should be about "controversies" about the church, not a paranoid rant about the media, and an apologia for Pastor Kalnins and Pastor Murthee. EricDiesel (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington post never said, and I quote the Huffington Post here 'said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."' EDIT I see what you are saying there, I fixed it, "Kalnin's said" As for leaving it where you want, then it would be reporting false incomplete information. The fact that the Huffington Post made several allegations, that have been latched onto by other media outlets does not make it reality.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2. Then there is this –

“The Wall Street Journal has reported that Wasilla Assembly of God congregants speak in tongues and that church beliefs include that the world-ending Armageddon is near”, which has nothging to do with any controversy. It belongs in a section on church beliefs, which disappeared long ago.

• 3. And there is the following nonsense opinion, irrelevant to the church, with sources, not major media, but organizations whose stated purpose is to push a political agenda. --

“Brian Fitzpatrick, a senior editor for the Culture and Media Institute, says that this allegation demonstrates a fundamental theological misunderstanding. According to Orthodox Protestant theology, salvation is not a future event, but rather a current state of being. In other words, "Kalnins was not saying God would send Kerry supporters to hell."[7] In fact, he was questioning one's current state of salvation, because "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time."[8] Brian Fitzpatrick, a senior editor for the Culture and Media Institute, says that this allegation demonstrates a fundamental theological misunderstanding. According to Orthodox Protestant theology, salvation is not a future event, but rather a current state of being. In other words, "Kalnins was not saying God would send Kerry supporters to hell."[7] In fact, he was questioning one's current state of salvation, because "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time."[8]”

The whole paragraph should go, with its speculations by someone from a political organization with stated aim of getting the “liberal media”, unrelated to the church. This section should not be a coatrack to hang coats of a media bashing overt POV organization that is unrelated to the church. Information about Fitzpatrick’s speculations should be in an article about him or his organization, not WAoG. Otherwise why not just write down everything from every blog? (Fitzpatrick did not even get the religion right, orthodox protestant v Pentacostal, nor the straw man quote, “go to hell” v “salvation”.) The first line of the first section at Wiki Pentacostalism has the position on the meaning of Pentacostal “salvation”, Kalnins’ word (that does not even appear in the article anymore). This whole paragraph should be cut out. EricDiesel (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've shortened the section back in the direction of the original... but Kalnin's words were misquoted in the Huffington Post piece.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An additional sentence would be, if there were a reliable source, that Huffington misquoted from the vid sermons it posted, which should go both here, as well as in Wiki Huff post article if true. Huff Post, like Fox News and MSNBC, is biased in selection of topics, but all three have historically been very reliable as to the content of factual statements. EricDiesel (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Shorten to only Twelve Sentences, Change Title Section to “Controversies” (then everyone stop arguing with each other)

Shorten to three context sentences - nine “Controversies” topics sentences - twelve sentences total – This then gives concise encyclopedia article. Including further sentences mentioning Palin, or mentioning how good or bad is the reporting of the media, is a COATRACK for Palin or the media. If any additional controversies later “arise”, a single sentence can be added. Scrutiny of controversies is by more than just the media so change title to “Controversies” -

Three Context Sentences at beginning ---

• (i ) Palin supporters find controversies and scrutiny of church by media and others is an attempt to create manufactured controversies a-la Obama pastor, a) by nit picking through years of sermons, or b) by misinterpreting sermons, deliberately or in ignorance of standard religious theories.
• (ii.) Palin detractors argue that the knowledge of Palin’s religious environment is of great import, as it influences and has influenced public policy in a way that is unique to Palin, given her basis of support in the religious right.
• (ii.) Mainstream media scholars argue that such micro scrutiny is expected, a) for a relatively unknown politician thrust into the international limelight b) with few press interviews to date, and c) with circulation and ratings being the sine qua non whereby sensationalist subjects like religion can drive story topics."

Nine Controversy Content Sentences ---

• 1 Criticize pastor, go to hell. (really does say something about church view of authority).
• 2 Criticize Bush to hell, in context of Katrina handling. (which even Bush and most Palin supporters criticized)
• 3 Special role of Alaska in the end of days (different from most Pentecostal positions),
• 4 Speaking in tongues is “unusual” . (which even media with editorial positions supportive of Palin, such as WSJ are either unfamiliar with and report it as unusual, correctly or not)
• 5 Inviting and familiarity with actual witch hunter and persecutor, who, with led a few hundred people to hunt down the witch who caused traffic accidents and gave her ultimatum to switch to Christianity of face expulsion from town, and who had special unique style of speaking in tongues applied in WAoG prayers to successfully influence voters in Alaskan governor election. (the congregation was familiar guest speaker, with familiar special but unique speaking in tongues style, and role of such prayer in having effect on election outcome (the vid of interaction of Palin with
• 6 Jesus had warlike thoughts, so congregants should too. (this is controversial in a way that saying Mohammed had warlike thoughts would not be)
• 7 Taxpayers covering costs for commencement speakers. (This was nickel and dime stuff, but under ii is alleged to be indicative of view of church state relations, and relevant to accused hypocrisy re being a reformer)
• 8 Iraq war about religion, in context of near consensus that either WMD or democratization was basis”
• 9 9/11 resulting from religion war, not US troops on Saudi soil since 1991

(The portions in parentheses should NOT be included in the article, but are talk page remarks, fitting the topics into context of i to iii. )

If an additional controvery "arises", then add one sentence to make thirteen' sentences in tota, for entire section.

Anything more than these twelve sentences is a COATRACK, either for attacking Palin, or for attacking the media, and makes the section too long. EricDiesel (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

COATRACK tag

This tag has been up here for a while and the link to the discussion here is no longer valid (I assume it's been archived. Since most WP:COAT issues appear to have been resolved and the page's section regarding Sarah Palin has its own tag, I'm removing the tag at the top.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected due to edit warring. It can be unprotected when editors collectively begin discussing how to collaboratively write a version that complies with policies. Sterile edit warring is not acceptable. GRBerry 16:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. This article is clearly being used for ideological purposes far beyond what a small, out of the way church in rural Alaska would seem to merit. Ronnotel (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GR, I was contemplating it, but decided that it would be inappropriate for me to protect it as I have made numerous edits here and am not independent of the article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

(Thread moved from user talk page) Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Wasilla Assembly of God. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which content is in voilation and why? What was unreferenced? Tautologist (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Wasilla Assembly of God, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You did not respond to my questions. All info was from reliable sources. Please answer previous questions. Tautologist (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread WP:BLP. If you really don't get it, I suggest you bring it up on the article talk page. Please also note that per WP:3RR, BLP reversions are unlimited, just in case you might be counting. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You did not respond to my questions. Which content is in voilation and why? What was unreferenced? Tautologist (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You really, truly do not get that calling someone a "witch hunter" violates WP:BLP? Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He calls himself that, and boasts about it, and so does WAoG, per the reliable sources. He is called that in reliable sources, too. Tautologist (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, why do you not discuss any of your multiple reversions of this article? WP:BLP is a serious issue and if you think it is being violated, even in spirit, in this article, this is the place to talk about it. Here we can all participate in the discussion relevant to your charges. chbarts (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time you have specified your objection, as you deleted everything, not just the sentence with "witch hunter". The expressoin is a violation if used figuratively, but it was used literally, quoted from multple media sources. Tautologist (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ughh what a mess. Even if sourceable, that sentence reads just awfully, as well as most of the rest of the section. Consider, "success as a witch hunter and a prosecuter". That sounds like he was an overly enthusiastic and vendetta-motivated prosecuter. The net consequence of such poor prose is BLP violations, but I can agree that rephrasing/reworking most of that section could fix that without gutting the actual content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If any of the editors had tried to repair the content, rather than simply reverting to a BLP-unnaceptable version, that would have prompted a different response. I've brought this to the attention of BLP/N since forward progress appears to be lacking here. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this approach: let's build up, rather than build down. The article is better with nothing there than with that coatracky mess. But if written well much of the content can be reintroduced differently to make it better still. As a regular of that noticeboard, I expect others from there will agree. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses to some previous posts:

1. It's not my job to fix defective insertions. If I chose to do so, I would be expending effort on contributions that should have rightly been expended by their original authors. This provides no disincentive to insert poorly formatted, researched, and/or worded material in the future, and I have no interest in rewarding workmanship that's not up to Wikipedia standards. I'd rather spend my time elsewhere, like WP:GAN or creating new articles.
   • While I've fixed several contributions in the past to use WP:CITET, I have no interest in continuing to for editors who appear fully capable of including adequate citation (that which allows another editor to quickly locate an available online reference, or request a copy from a librarian for non-online resource) for the sources they allege.
2. I am not responsible for explaining that "persecutor" and "witch-hunter" are not words to be used lightly, nor of the risks of paraphrasing a source which doesn't say what ends up in the article, nor any of the rest of WP:BLP.
3. If anyone reverts material yanked as a BLP issue, he or she assumes all liability for inserting that material. Not believing me or thinking that I haven't explained myself adequately isn't sufficient.

The impact of full protection is that we're forced to edit new contributions here on the talk page. I don't have a problem with that, since many of these issues would have been avoided by editors robustly engaging in WP:BRD. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. But please, assume good faith, especially for those of us editors who have only been around for less than a month. (In my own case, all of ten days.) I haven't memorized all of WP's policies yet, so when I ask for clarification about why you edited something, I'm not being fatecious. I really don't know. And, as I gather happened with the above, if you remove a large chunk when your main problem is with the use of one term, such as "persecutor" or "witch-hunter," it doesn't hurt to assume that others can't read your mind over the internet. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I've said has been intended to convey that I believe you're acting recklessly or maliciously. If you got that impression, you have my apologies--that was certainly not my intent. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. :) I'm gonna go edit things that aren't being warred over, now... Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary Source

I don't know if this is in the archives already, but I've got the link to Wasilla's video/audio sermons here, from their own website. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens Deletion based on "Pakistani" news media are not reliable source , but Wasilla Assembly of God is for its own article

User:Jclemens' deletion of an entire section was based on "Pakistani" news media not being reliable as a source, but that a Wasilla Assembly of God webpage on itself is a reliable source for its own article. Pakistani news media are as reliable as that of any other nation. Wasilla Assembly of God web pages, especially pages that overtly make (false) assertions about major media reports, are not sources for an article on itself. The account for Wasilla Assembly of God, Waaog, was closed since it was editing articles on itself. Citing a web page of WAoG as a source contradicting major media sources is not a good source citation. Espeically as the page cited misquotes news stories on itself by confounding the "Bush critics go to hell" with "Kerry Voters don't get into heaven" stories into "Kerry voters go to hell", then attacks the straw man so created by saying it never claimed Kerry voters go to hell. But even if the WAoG web page was accurate, it is not a source. EricDiesel (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally have questions about the accuracy or reliability of this source. I don't doubt that the quotes MIGHT be accurate, but I do think we need to find a more reliable source for quotes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And on rereading my tone in the above, I need to tone down how I am making a point so I can work with, not in opposition to, Jclemens. EricDiesel (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So... "Pakistani news media are as reliable as that of any other nation." has got to be among the sillier statements I've seen on Wikipedia. Without getting into the niceties of the differences between Pakistani culture, government, and news media, the article is substantially less detailed than the U.S. reports, such as USA Today, upon which it is most likely based. The quotes in the article lack context, and are written for a primarily Muslim audience not personally familiar with U.S. political and religious discourse--exactly the sort of place where context would be most appropriate!

I've addressed the use of the church's website elsewhere. The argument that the church answered straw men is itself specious--who said the news media got it right? Note that the Huffington Post source says Kalnins "questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven"--which is spot on with what the church said he said, and consistent with the quote they posted. That is, the Huffington Post, no fan of religious conservatives, the media outlet who broke the story agrees with the church's statement on what was actually said--Cherry picking tertiary media sources who picked up and rephrased the statements to cast Kalnins in the worst possible light is not Wikipedia's business. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Huffington Post is not a source. Pakistani News stated that it independently reviewed the videos and reported accordingly. See PBS Newshour “International Press Freedom Awards” for 1999, won by Pakistan Daily Times editor Najam Sethi. PBS Newshour “media correspondent Terence Smith reports on the perilous business of journalism in Pakistan and talks with Times editor Najam Sethi... winner of a 1999 Press Freedom Award.” Foreign Policy (see Wikipedia article, etc.) magazine describes Najam Sethi, the editor of Pakistan's Daily Times, as “ one of the country’s most respected political analysts”. If anyone in the world should be respected for honest journalism, it is Sethi and his papers. If you have heard any recent international stories about the secular media in Pakistan, and attempts to maintain press neutrality and freedom in the face of personal danger, the stories were likely about Sethi and his two papers. I overreacted, recalling what Sethi has gone through in the name of press freedom and neutrality. Pakistan Daily News is run by a journalist's journalist, and underacknowleded in the western media outside of their press awards ceremonies. EricDiesel (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric, I'm going to have to call you on this now.

• The Pakistan Daily News wrote: But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode.
• The Huffington Post wrote: But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

You can't acknowledge that the Huffington Post isn't a reliable source, and then cite the PDB as a reliable one, when the PDB plagerized the Huffington Post verbatim.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, you are absolutely right. Putting the two next to each other makes it very clear. That was astute reading on your part. I actually find Huffington Post fact statements are reliable, but too controversial for the only source in Wikipedia on a hot political potato. You are also correct about examining sermons with a microscope and intent to find scandal where poor Kalnins could have no idea of the scrutiny he would get years later. It is unfair, but it is out of anyone's control. I also think the author and editor of the Pakistan Daily Times are as upstanding as can be. They have a perspective on press information unlike others, their freedom being taken away, and their country's freedom of information being assaulted at both ends, by a military dictattorship and a would be theocratic one. They likely checked the sermons and found nothing to add or subtract from the Huffington wording, but I don't know how news works. That all said, your final contribution, before it got altered beyond recognition, was as comprehensive and neutral as is possible, and should be put back in the article with its exact wording. Any modification or additions to it just muddy things up. EricDiesel (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Credibility of Huffington Post - A big portion of a section on this page cites Huffington post. This is hardly a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee

MSNBC re- WAog teachings and Muthee - Transcript

FYI or reference, from verbal boradcast, with ohter stories redacted - MSNBC 9-19-08 – [14]

MSNBC TRANSCRIPT re Muthee and WAoG church beliefs:

• “The minister, Muthee, who laid hands on her at the Wasilla Assembly of God in 2005, the one she credits with helping make her a governor…

"Palin- , “And he‘s praying that ‘Oh, Lord, if it may be your will, 'may she become governor, or whatever’, he just prayed for it. He said, ‘Lord, make a way and let her do this next step.’ And that‘s exactly what happens.”

• “Pastor Thomas Muthees started his Prayer Cave Ministry by conducting a witch hunt against a woman in Kenya. A woman he claimed was casting demonic spells, that caused car accidents. And Palin says he helped her become governor.”

“The preacher who she credits with helping her become governor started his career chasing a woman out of their Kenyan town, insisting she was a witch who caused traffic accidents.”

• That Pastor she said laid hands on her and helped her become governor. He started out by publicly branding another woman a witch and claiming she was causing car accidents.”
• “An evangelist so closely tied to the Republican vice presidential nominee that she gives him partial credit for making her governor of Alaska.
• “Times of London” reporting today that Pastor Thomas Muthee (ph) not only began his career by literally persecuting a woman in a Kenyan village as literally a witch, but that he boasted about it, and Governor Palin‘s church in Alaska boasted about it, too.”
• PALIN: "We forgot to talk about Pastor Muthee. As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me. You know how he speaks, and he‘s so bold. He‘s praying, lord make a way, lord make a way. And I‘m thinking, this guy is really bold. He doesn‘t even know what I‘m going to do. He doesn‘t know what my plans are. And he‘s praying not, oh, lord, if it be your will, may she become governor, whatever. No, he just prayed for it. He said, lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that‘s exactly what happened. Again, very, very powerful coming from this church. So that was awesome about Pastor Muthee.
• OLBERMANN: “Times of London” assembling previous reporting on Pastor Muthee. He is an African evangelist who founded the World of Faith Church, also known as the Prayer Cave, in Kyumbu (ph), Kenya in 1989. He did so after, he says, he and his late wife were called there by god because there was demonic presence in the town being blamed for a number of fatal car accidents among other ills. In a trailer for his evangelical video, Muthee tells how he found the source of that bad spirit; “we prayed. We fasted. The lord showed us a spirit of witchcraft resting over the place.”
• According to the “Christian Science Monitor,” six months of praying and research led him to a local named Momma Jane. She allegedly was involved in fortune telling and therefore responsible for what plagued Kyubmu. Pastor Muthee publicly declared that she was a witch and gave her a choice, be saved or leave town.
• First she stayed. Then Muthee held a crusade; 200 people joined in his grocery store basement prayer sessions. Momma Jane became a pariah, people panicked. Police raided her home. Somebody shot a snake thought to be a demon. After she was questioned and released, Pastor Muthee‘s witch is said to have left town.
• According to the “Times of London,” Muthee still refers to this witch hunt in his sermon, ten of which were delivered at the Wasilla Assembly of God in the fall of 2005, during the time Sarah Palin was preparing to run for governor of Alaska.

SHANNYN MOORE, RADIO JOURNALIST: “…certainly her church believes in quite a few things that seem sort of outside the realms for most of us. You know, speaking in tongues, certainly the whole idea that Alaska is going to be the last day‘s refuge for so many, that hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to Alaska for the tribulation period, is part of their whole platform… this last days idea is—it‘s certainly not the view of many Alaskans.”

• MOORE: I think that this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was. He ran on the fact that he had chased a witch out of a town and that he was able to do this sort of spiritual warfare, which is something that they talk about a lot at this church, spiritual warfare, that they‘re able to go into communities and really target the demonic areas and pray over them and actually change their crime statistics… So this is all part of the belief system that this church has put out. And it‘s pretty far fetched, I think, to many of us. I think we would actually want to put more cops on the street. I think that the rapture isn‘t environmental policy for many people, but certainly to this church it is.
• MOORE: Right, this June, a couple months ago. And she‘s talking about the fact that he laid hands on her and how that was—that really is how she got—she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor"

MSNBC 9-24-08

• "And there's now videotape of Pastor Muthee, the laying on of hands, the man who began his mnistry by calling a neighbor in Kenya a witch, claiming she caused fatal traffic accidents and running her out of town.

Just three years ago, he was praying over Sarah Palin, and in her presence, still talking about witchcraft.

• MUTHEE: “In the name of Jesus, every form of witchcraft is what we rebuke, in the name of Jesus.” Tautologist (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Thomas Muthee has his own article, what do you propose be included in this article? Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is another guest speaker of this church. The church boasted of him being a person who hunted human beings, accused them of causing fatal accidents through witchcraft, and persecuted them. It goes to the core beliefs of the church, as analyzed by Moore in various places. Short bios of 'all of the invited church speakers who have views unusual enough to merit international press coverage should be in this article, as it illustrates the kind of beliefs the church promotes. This article says nothing of the unusual vews of this church, such as that Alaska has some special role at the end of the world. Things done by guest pastors at the church belong in the church article. A church inviting someone who actually hunted human beings and accused and persectuted them for witcvhcraft belongs in the church article.Tautologist (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about you start off by providing specific reliable sources for what you allege, and we can start there. Your allegations go beyond what's alleged and sourced in Thomas Muthee. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable recommnedation. I have a proposed draft and sources, including the above, and Moore is a respectable journalist. I propose a section on things that define church positions and practices, such as their belief system as it differs from other churches, and the kinds of speakers who they have and what they say. Also a separate section on the media itself, without anything about the speakers and beliefs. It may potentially be used as a coatrack for attacks against the media, but insofar as it relates to and affects this church, it belongs here. Tautologist (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also reasonable to expect that Muthee, being a traveling evangelist, has made much these same statements in numerous other churches, some of which likely have Wikipedia articles of their own. It would then be only fair that you add this material to those articles as well — or else add it to 'none of them and leave such comments in the Muthee article only. To list these statements in this article alone and ignore them in other church articles still smacks of coatracking and POV, which I still believe is the ultimate purpose of User:Tautologist. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would view this as the corralary to WP:OSE. In other words, just because other stuff doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't add it. If we follow your argument then no articles would ever be improved, they would spring to life complete and fully sourced. Padillah (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogus argument. If the statements this person made in WAoG are "notable" for the purposes of this article, and it can be shown he made the same statements at other churches which have articles here, then that information should be included on those articles. But if the statements are not notable enough for those articles, it's not notable enough for this one. Period. There is not corollary to OSE. The only reason these statements have appeared here is a continuing effort by some to disparage Sarah Palin. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Realkyhick that any church with an article at Wiki who boast of having Muthee as a guest pastor shuld have this mentioned, but not that no info should go in this article before all these are tracked down. If a church had Mother Theresa speak, a boast for any church, and a notable speaker for a small church. Both speakers would be indicative of kind of speakers the church invites. I will ask over on the Muthee talk page if anyone has the info.

• Uh, don't you think there might be just a little bit of difference in notability between Muthee and Mother Teresa? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is a huge difference. But founding 400 churches is very notable. And a rural church in ALaska inviting African pastors is exactly the kind of thing that the premier post WWII French historian Braudel argued should be looked at in historical research, such as an encyclopedia user researching changes in racial attitudes in rural American churches. Tautologist (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

@Realkyhick - I don't agree that if something is notable for one place it should be notable for a completely different place. If the Pope speaks at a Roman Catholic church that's moderately notable (he is kind of important). If the Pope speaks at a Jewish Temple that might be a bit more significant. If he spoke at Al-Aqsa Mosque that would be a BIG DEAL. If a church is known for it's views (the LDS Church for example) then the people that speak there aren't needed to establish those views. If the church has no published doctrine or consistently displays speakers and view that run counter to published doctrine then the speakers are more important in those articles to establish that pragmatic doctrine vs. published one.

None of which means this article isn't being targeted. Of course it's being targeted, the sudden exposure and deep feelings on both sides are unavoidable in these circumstances. But just because it's being targeted doesn't mean guests didn't speak there. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me. We can keep the POV out and maintain a neutral article but reality rules the roost here and if an editor can cite a reference that the guy spoke then we have to give credence to it appearing in the article. Padillah (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But if Muthee is like most evangelists and guest speakers that speak at Assemblies of God congregations and similar churches in other denominations (or non-denominational churches), it is highly likely that he spoke at other such churches and did many of the same things there that he did in Wasilla — and I'm talking about similar churches, not churches of a significantly different theological stripe. In other words, having Muthee speak at WAoG is not uncommon, as speakers from foreign countries often make tours of United States churches, usually to raise awareness and/or financial support. (As a member of an A/G congregation, you'll have to take my word on this). To elevate Muthee to the status of Mother Teresa or the Pope for argument's sake is quite a stretch. Muthee is not that big a name within Pentecostal circles, and I had never heard of him before this came up — and I've been active in the Assemblies for 35 years. Summary: Muthee's individual appearances aren't all that uncommon or notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. The only question left is - Did Muthee's talks introduce dogma that's not published or common practice by the church? If so then we should include them as fringe (being careful not to give them any more weight than fringe dogma deserves). If not, if the talks he gave can be cited elsewhere in the doctrine then skip it. Mention he talked (along with other guest speakers that have talked) and let it go. I need clarification on one last point: did he speak directly to or perform a prayer or blessing directly for Palin? I don't mean one of those "in her presence" things, lots of stuff is done "in my presence" without my consent. I mean someone laid hands on her and conferred a blessing to her (in LDS speak, it's the religion I'm familiar with, sorry). If it was done directly to her then it might be worthy of mention here and should be mentioned in her article. Padillah (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the A/G, I would say that the denomination does believe that witchcraft exists as one of a number of manifestations of Satan's power, although the practice is more prevalent elsewhere than in the U.S. I do know that the Assemblies considers Wicca as the practice of witchcraft. So Muthree's talks were probably not outside Assemblies of God doctrine or beliefs, although he may have expressed them more extremely than most. Again, these are just my views as an A/G member, nothing more. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Realkyhick, As a member of the A/G, have you been to the laughing churches? I just saw a video, and everyone is being critical of it, but it looks like about as much fun as anything I have ever seen, even better than the music in some African Am gospel churches, which can be prety pick-me-up in mood. (im not kidding, the critics are a bunch of stuffy dour sourpusses.) Tautologist (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am a little familiar with this movement. I should add that most congregations involved in this movement are independent charismatic/Pentecostal churches, with a few from A/G and a few from other denominations. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Muthee, together with Kalnins, brought Palin to the front and prayed over Palin specifically in plain English, to protect her from witchcraft, and told congregants to pray for her election victory and to protect her from witchcraft. The fact that he is a black African in a small rural white church is one of the Braudel Structures of Everyday Life kind of history facts that is significant. A researcher on changing racial attitudes in the US would be well served by an encyclopedia with this kind of info. If the MSNBC Moore reporting is accurate (all ten sermons are on video for anyone to check), WAoG boasted of a pastor who boasts of being a witch hunter. This should be easy to verify by looking at the posted sermons. Palin is only relevant as she was an official church speaker in 2008, or insofar as she specifically attributed her election to Muthee's prayer, whence it becomes significant that the governor of a state attributes WAoG guest pastors with her election victory, which would be a significant piece of info for any church of any size. Tautologist (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the black preacher-white rural church thing would be as significant in Alaska as it would be in, say, the rural South, and I say that as a Southerner. I don't think racial issues are nearly as big a deal up there as they are in the South. Even so, it's not unusual for a black preacher to speak to an A/G congregation that is predominantly white, no matter the location. (Most A/G church populations in the U.S. are mainly white, with a handful of mostly-black churches. My own church is about 85-15 white to black ratio.) Again, just my observations and personal experience. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, unles AoG doesn't believe in witchcraft AND there are more than two guest speakers that have introduced witchcraft to the services, I'd say mention the blessing in Palin's article (in passing) and mention that Muthee spoke here and that's about all we need. If it's not revealing anything new what's the point of having it? I don't think we need a transcript of his prayer, that's WP:UNDUE. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Muthee: witch hunt issues

Discussion re- The Anchorage Daily News reported that travel expenses for the 2008 commencement speaker, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, were paid for by Alaskan taxpayers, not the church.[13]The commencement speaker lectured to the Masters Program graduates about how they should apply their particular training to the world. The commencement speaker gave the example how her success in a path governor was affected by a prayer of a noted witch hunter and persecutor, pastor Muthee, who in response to a large number of auto accidents, gathered a number of people and hunted down a local woman, accused her of causing auto accidents with her witchcraft, and gave her a choice of converting to Christianity or leaving the town.[14][15][16]EricDiesel (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Was Muthee ever at the Wasilla Assembly of God? Was he ever a speaker there? Did the congregation or one of its members actually endorse him? If not, then there is absolutely no cause to include information on him in this article. Stick it somewhere else, and stop trying to make this article an attack piece against Sarah Palin. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The multiple media stories are described as about Wasilla Assembly of God. The U.K. Times Online stories have most of the details. Muthee was so familiar to church graduates that, in the commencement address, he was referred to with no further description than his name, his manner of speaking in toungues was referred to with only his name given, and the content of one specific prayer given at the church in 2005 was recalled. I moved the information to the article section related to Palin, as Jclemens suggested. This church is the focus of media scrutiny again, now with barely a mention of Palin, just the church, regarding this and taxpayers paying for speakers of the church. See transcript of MSNBC Olberman report for more details. EricDiesel (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So you added a section about the activities (1) of a person (2) mentioned by a guest speaker (3) at a commencement ceremony (4) for a ministry (5) of the church? I'm sure Kevin Bacon must fit in here somewhere--I count five degrees of separation from the actual church itself. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee spoke at the church per numerous cited sources. A speaker at a church is not five degrees of separation from the church. Please be responsive. Tautologist (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merely a comment, but would either Bro.Tautologist or Bro.Jclemens like to offer a touchstone test for whether or not BLP-anti-coatracking has crossed into sepulchre-whitewashing ??

Just so that responsible editors not wishing to get sanctioned by Admins can tell -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So others are aware, EricDiesel has recently had his account renamed as Tautologist; this is the same user as started the section, not a different user. GRBerry 17:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the response to EricDiesel/Tautologist, as he is, to the best of my knowledge, the only editor on this article who has actually tried to get anyone (that would be me) blocked. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Sepulcher washing", ha, ha, sort of has a past tense quality, better than whitewashing.
• 1. Muthee spent ten weeks at WAoG as guest pastor, and maybe more that I do not know about.
• 2. WAoG "boasted" that he was a successful witch hunter to congregation, including Palin. The boast regarding Muthee was that he successfully hunted down a fortune teller, and together with 200 people he had gathered, accused her of being a witch who caused a spike in traffic accidents. She was threatened if she did not convert to Christianity. The "witch" got out of town! It was a real witch hunt. Serious and dangerous stuff. Both Muthee and WAoG attributed this to the lessening of the spike in traffic accidents. WAoG people asserted that witch hunters could be used to reduce crime in Wasilla, while Palin was mayor.
• 3. Muthee and Kalnins layed hands on Palins, at the same time, in front of the congreagation, and prayed over Palin and others that they be protected from witches. The scene was on videotape. Palin credited this prayer for getting her elected governor. The boast regarding Muthee was that he successfully hunted down a fortune teller, and together with 200 people he had gathered, accused her of being a witch who caused a spike in traffic accidents. She was threatened if she did not convert to Christianity. The "witch" got out of town! It was a real witch hunt. Serious and dangerous stuff. Both Muthee and WAoG attributed this to the lessening of the spike in traffic accidents. WAoG people asserted that witch hunters could be used to reduce crime in Wasilla, while Palin was mayor.
• 3. Much more info is coming today, after transcription of misc news broadcasts yesterday. I posted a link with transcripts and other news sources, but bro Jclemens deleted it and threatened me with being kicked off Wiki if I posted this info again.
• 4. There is 'much more on unusual church practices, e.g., on getting taxpayers to cover church speaker expenses a few times. And a reapeat of "pastor critics go to hell", following criticism.
• 5. I have been researching in past international news stories... especially in Kenya. The church already had interational coverage long before the Palin phenom, because witch hunting is pretty serious stuff. Lots more on the church's unusual habits is coming.
• 6. (The "media" section has turned into a Coatrack for attacks on the media, so does not belong in this article. This article is about the church, not a recital of opinions of right wing critics of the media (or even neutral ones), who attack the media, and try to turn the story into one about the media, not the subject (the church, in this case), when they don't like what is reported by it. Wikipedia should not repeat this POV by turning an artricle about a very unusual church, with very unusual practices, into a Coatrack of commentary on the media. Tautologist (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To respond:

• When another editor calls a BLP issue, reinserting it without fixing it is, in fact, cause for being blocked.
• Calling someone a name is never OK, even if it may be sourced. You didn't say "source XYZ referred to Muthee as a witch hunter" or "a self-proclaimed witch hunter" if there is a reliable source that notes that he called himself a witch hunter. Wikipedia does not pronounce people things. Wikipedia reports reliable sources pronouncing people things.
• Changing usernames, neglecting to disclose that to the talk page, and proceeding with a contentious edit following a period of consensus stalemate fails to demonstrate a collegial and collaborative editing style, as does failing to understand an issue before reinserting BLP material.
• Likewise, repeatedly failing to include links for multiple sources, and failure to match citation template style used throughout the rest of the article is disruptive.

Why, pray tell, did you not take a break from POV-warring over Palin issues as recommended by Keeper76? Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That is nonresponsieve. Tautologist (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand Jclemens problem with the term witch-hunt in the Thomas Muthee article now. He thinks it's calling him a name to call him a witch hunter, despite the fact that the terms "witch" and/or "witch-hunter" are used in every source I've found on him, and that Muthee himself prayed that Palin be protected from "every kind of witchcraft." In this case, it's not a political term, nor is it exaggerated, which is why it should be wikilinked. He thought Mama Jane was a witch. He and his congregation ran her out of town. Muthee and associates called it spiritual warfare. I can see the argument for WP:OR, so I am in fact leaving it out. But it is NOT defamation. Just my two cents. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? A lot of sources call Adolph Hitler a monster, yet Wikipedia doesn't call him that. Why is that? Because it's not a helpful description. Witch hunter is an unquestionably pejorative term; to apply it to a living person requires extraordinary sourcing, not just some journalist calling him a witch hunter. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're splitting hairs, I didn't say he was a witch hunter. I said, as supported by sources, that what he and his congregation did to Mama Jane was a witch-hunt, per the original definition of the word. And I let your edit stand because, upon more careful review of said sources, the specific term "witch-hunt" was not used by him or his associates. I didn't and don't understand why you're upset by that. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunt is a pejorative term as well. Just read the lead from Witch-hunt "A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and mob lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials."--it explicitly implies homicidal violence or the threat of such, and what Muthee and his church apparently did was pray to God that Mama Jane convert or leave town, and she left town. I agree that "spiritual warfare" was a better term, and have no problem with the Thomas Muthee description of the Mama Jane incident as it stands now. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to call Hitler a "monster" at Wiki. It is appropriate to call Hitler a Nazi, but it is not appropriate to call Bush or Cheney a "Nazi" at Wiki. It is not It is not appropriate to call Senator McCarthy witch hunter, no matter what the parallels to witch hunting. It is appropriate to call guest pastor Muthee a witch hunter if the expression is used literally, not figuratively, if he is literally a witch hunter. He calls himself one, as does WAoG. An interesting joke that hits both sides is, "the media and political ops went on a witch hunt looking for something in Wassilla Assembly of God and what did they find there?... Muthee." Tautologist (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To add to the above, the villagers wanted to stone Mama Jane to death, and when the police intervened, they ended up shooting and killing her snake. If that's not violence, panic, and threats, then you got me. At any rate, the term is not currently in the article, and this isn't entirely the right place to discuss it. In future, I'd appreciate a comment on the appropriate Talk page so others can easily understand what's going on before they edit. Thanks! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FangedFaerie, I am embarassed to say that I chuckled as I was reading your first sentence, then checked myself when I realized that this is in no way funny. My edit used wording from the MSNBC trascript here[15]. Can you imagine the terror that woman must have experienced, and she apparently got lucky the police showed up. There is also workding on the general mindset of the church I believe that most Pentacostals would likely have walked out on hearing someone actually was a witch hunter and persecutor and boasts of it. Palin returned to praise him in 2008. It looks like I am expressing a POV just by writing that last sentence, but it is a neutral fact.Tautologist (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And what reliable source does anyone have that says Muthee endorsed or condoned any of that? If any of us are accusing him of inciting mob violence, then that is precisely the sort of assertion which must be unequivocally sourced. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify: What source quotes someone at WAoG (Kalnins?) as introducing him as "Pastor Thomas Muthee, Witch Hunter" or him saying "Greetings from Kenya. My name is Thomas Muthee, and I am a witch hunter!" If source X calls him a witch hunter, you can say "source X calls him a witch hunter" you may not say "he is a witch hunter" Wikipedia may repeat reliable sources' stating of controversial statements regarding living people; we do not and will not ever endorse them in Wikipedia's voice. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee, other issues

MSNBC, Moore-

1 - If MSNBC or Shannyn Moore are considered reliable sources for factual content, it should be added that " The church boasted that Muthee had publicly accused a woman of being a witch and thus causing traffic fatalities, whereby the woman left her home. " This is based on the MSNBC and Moore quotes below - Moore- "this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was. He ran on the fact that he had chased a witch out of a town and that he was able to do this sort of spiritual warfare, which is something that they talk about a lot at this church, spiritual warfare, that they‘re able to go into communities and really target the demonic areas and pray over them and actually change their crime statistics… So this is all part of the belief system that this church has put out. " Tautologist (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it's correct. You can quote whatever MSNBC says and attribute it to them, but you cannot state as facts what they state as facts if those alleged facts would violate BLP. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2 - It would be a nice balance if anyone could find a WAoG speaker of note that was less controversial, but equally of international repute; this is very likely to be the case, but harder to find since media tend to report bad news, not good news, so sources other than media would be the place to look. Tautologist (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• 1. Muthee is significant in being credited for creation of 400 churches. As such, his being a guest speaker at WAoG is informative about the kind of speakers WAoG has. Tautologist (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• 3 - The change in attitudes of small rural non African American churches is of significance to researchers of such changing racial attitudes in America. An encyclopedia should include such information, along the lines of historical research of The Structure of Everyday Life, by Fernand Braudel, the foremost French historian of the postwar era, whereby a researcher could go to an encyclopedia and find such information, essential in an encyclopedia according to Braudel. That this church invited a pastor from Africa should be included as such. Tautologist (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• 4 - Proposed consensus information to include -

I propose, at a minimum, that a there be a section on " Sermons and Speakers " , which would include at a minumum sentences along these lines-

• "Pastor Ed Kalnins preaches a religious philosophy involving laying of hands, speaking in toungues, and spiritual warfare, whereby religious, social and political issues were considered to be part of a larger religeous conflict. It was taught that social issues such as crime could be affected by pratyer. The 9/11 attacks and Iraq war were considered to be part of a war over Christianity. He preached that critics of a pastor would go to hell, and questioned whther people who voited for presidential candidate John Kerry would be able to have salvation. "
• " In 2005, Wasilla Assembly of God invited notable black African pastor Thomas Muthee to speak for ten weeks. Muthee was known for conducting spiritual warfare, a topic of sermons of Kalnins. Muthee was known for having been involved in the creation of about 400 churches in Kenya and other areas of Africa. In one his sermons, Muthee prayed over congregants that they be protected from witchcraft. "
• " In 2008, Alaskan governor Sarah Palin returned to the church to speak to the church. She reminded congregants of Muthee, and credited his prayer for her step from mayor to governor. " Tautologist (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All three of these statements are BLP improvements and a step in the right direction. They can be copyedited for awkwardness, though. :-) Putting things in passive voice doesn't alter BLP issues--I'd rather see a "Source X reported that so-and-so did such-and-such" construction than an "it was alleged that..." or similar. What I don't see here are the specific cites to reliable sources to back up these claims. If Kalnins said that critics of the pastor would indeed go to hell, that would be an interesting thing to see directly supported by a reliable secondary source. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, my wording is usually pretty awkward.

2. I noticed on talk pages that there are arguments regarding WP:trivia, whereby inclusion of little things about this church, like their small social programs, might be objected to for inclusion. I think these shed a good historic light on the church. A good perspective on what, is what is not trivia, is pre-eminent historian Braudel's Structures of Everyday Life.

3. A good source is the Pakistan Daily Times for the following three reasons. a) They can not be accused of being Obama partisans since they personally hate both Clinton and Obama. The article's author was the highly respected press secretary for Butho, and lost his job when Clinton accepted the military coup as a fait acompli. In their editorials they were scathing against Obama and supportive of Mccain, since Obama and McCain disagreed about Obama saying he would go into Pakistan in hot peursuit. b) Also, the article editor won the most prestigeous international press freedom award, a kind of "nobel prize for journalism". c) as Balloonman astutely pointed out, their article wording was almost identical with the Huffington post, but the Huffington Post wording came from the videos themselves, and more importantly, they added to the Huffington wording that they reviewed the videos. Tautologist (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Poppycock! The Pakistan Daily Times quotes an unreliable source verbatim. Repeating something doesn't make it true. Are you asserting that they've done research the Huffington Post has not? Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I told myself I'd stay away from Muthee, but I wanted to insert one factual correction here. He gave ten sermons during the week of Oct. 11-16, '05. Not ten weeks, ten sermons, not counting the Sept. '08 visit. I surmise, though I'm not putting it into his article, that they had some kind of special Bible week and he did sermons twice a day for five days, or something like that. It's also hinted that he's visited the WAoG church before 2005, but I can't find a non-cached source. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WAoG on Muthee

FangedFaerie, do you know if the vids show WAoG describing Muthee or anything from his history? Tautologist (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The original videos are here, though they have either gotten so popular that the server is overloaded or the WAoG has taken them down. Bits and whole videos are out there on YouTube for those wanting to see them without citing YouTube [/CYA]. Anyway. To answer your question, if I understand what you're asking, the videos show him being introduced, and his sermons, and one of them shows him and Kalnin praying over Palin. I haven't watched all of them, so I don't know if anything about his background is mentioned or not. I kinda hope so, because I'm interested to know more about him. Way off topic: I went on a few missions trips in my youth, and there are things about him that strike me as familiar.

I'll take the time to watch them, maybe this weekend?, and get back to you. If there's anything useful, I'll note times and cite it in the original Thomas Muthee article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That will save a lot of discussion here. The main question is Moore said-

" this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was. He ran on the fact that he had chased a witch out of a town and that he was able to do this sort of spiritual warfare, which is something that they talk about a lot at this church. "

The question is, what part of "this pastor's record", and who is "they", Kalnins or the whole congregation? And what is the "something that they talk about a lot at this church", the spiritual warfare, or the chasing out of town, or both?. It seems clear that Moore intended to imply WAoG thought Muthee was a witch hunter. But if so, why not be less ambiguous? If WAoG knew Muthee was a witch hunter it shuold definitely go here. But if it is clear they did not, I am going over to the MSNBC article and put the info in there, since this would be intentionally misleading info to run on a news show. In either case there is notable info, either about WOoG, or about Muthee, or abuot both. Tautologist (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee at WAoG in 2005 and 2008 - What Muthee said - what WAoG said about Muthee

The main question is Moore said-

" this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was. He ran on the fact that he had chased a witch out of a town and that he was able to do this sort of spiritual warfare, which is something that they talk about a lot at this church. "

--->> Muthee returned to the Wasilla church September 2008[16] [17]

This makes the content of Muthee's 2005speaches relevant for inclusion, as apparantly WAoG liked what he had to say in 2005. It still rmains to be seen why MSNBC and Shanna Moore reported that the church boasted of him being a witch hunter, and who the boast was made to. Tautologist (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a couple of transcripts of the video, though I can't find a source that stacks up for reliability guidelines. Still, here are some links: [18][19][20]

He talks about seven areas of society that need "transformation":

• 1. Spiritual - "If all we do is come to the church and get people saved and then they go, I don’t think much will happen in our society."
• 2. Economic - "The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today. When we will see that, you know, the talk transport us in the lands. We see, you know, the bankers. We see the people holding the paths. They are believers. We will not have the kind of corruption that we are hearing in our societies." (my emphasis added on one part that is now being heavily disputed in the Blogosphere)
• 3. Politics - "That’s why I was, you know, I was so glad to see Sarah here. We should pray for her, we should back her up. And, you know, come the day of voting, we should be there, not just praying, we should be there... If the believers had not done something in this country, your president would not be in office today." (my emphasis)
• 4. Education - "We need believers who are educationists. [sic] If we had them, today we would not be talking about the Ten Commandments being kicked out of the church, I mean out of our schools. They would still be there. One of the things that you, you know, I would love you to know, I’m a child of revival of the Seventies, and that revival swept through the schools... Christian Union is nothing more but a bunch of kids that are born again, spirit-filled, tongue-talking, devil-casting... We need God taking over our education system! Otherwise, we, if we have God in our schools, we will not have kids being taught, you know, how to worship Buddha, how to worship Mohammed, we will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery." (my emphasis)
• 5. Media - "If we have a living church right in Hollywood, we would not have all the kind of pornography that we are having."
• 6. Government - "I’ll ask Sarah, would you mind to come please? Would you mind?... Bring finances her way, even in the campaign in the name of Jesus, and above all give her the personnel, give her men and women that will back her up in the name of Jesus... Our Father, use her to turn this nation the other way around. Use her to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers so that the curse that has been there long can be broken... Every form of witchcraft, it will be rebuked in the name of Jesus."

If I can get access to the original video again, or a more reputable source will do a transcript, I'll put it in his article. Otherwise... sigh. It's kinda sad, because I honestly don't care so much about the Palin thing. I'm more interested in him. (Duplicating this on Thomas Muthee talk page.) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LEGIT SOURCE: [21] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has access to them, additional videos to look at are the videos of the Kalnins sermons immediately before Muthee spoke in 2005 and again before Muthee spoke in 2008. Also immediately after. These would likely have info as to what WAoG said about Muthee. Tautologist (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have combined and processed everyone's comments above, and proposed the following three sections for consensus. I put them in three sections so any lack of consensus, if any, can be focused on the specific section.

If there are no objections within a couple of days, i.e., consensus is agreed, the the lock can be lifted and changes a below can be made, as consensus is reached. Tautologist (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

.

Palin muthee clip on Colbert Report

If you watch the 10-02 Colber Report episode, it shows Muthee laying hands on Palin and talking about witchcraft. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Which begs the question... why report it in the location article (here) vs the officiant Thomas Muthee or the congregant Sarah Palin? Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The pastor, guest pastor, and church commencement speaker talks given to the church, and posted at the church web site, and brief descriptions of the speakers as to what they are known for are relevant to the church, especially as the talks were referred to in later church speaches and sermons, were the subject of international media attention, and resulted in invitatoins to come back and further sermons and speaches. Jclemens, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to make finding information more difficult for a reader to find, but to provide information and usability of an article. Tautologist (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why we want information in the one most relevant place, and use Wikilinks to link together the relevant knowledge. Thomas Muthee is already linked from here, so unless he's supposed to be a summary style subordinate page (which seems inappropriate to me) his information goes in his article, and we wikilink from here to there. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add the coordinates: {{coord|61.57156|N|149.45282|W|display=title}}

Endorse this as noncontroversial. Jclemens (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Jclemens, there was an edit conflict while we were both making edits. I did not save my edit and I will rewrite it, but please check to make sure I did not accidentally delete your most recent edit. Tautologist (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you may have nuked in your flurry of activity on this page today, it wasn't my edit. Thanks for checking. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation error

Citation number 6 (after "a great deal to learn about evangelical culture and theology") is missing a vertical bar between "Fitzpatrick" and "date=2008-09-05". Also, there are errors in citation number 4. This is why full protection undermines wikipedia. Plasticup ^T/C 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite errors

{{editprotected}}

Citation number 6 (after "a great deal to learn about evangelical culture and theology") is missing a vertical bar between "Fitzpatrick" and "date=2008-09-05". Also, there are errors in citation number 4. This is why full protection undermines wikipedia. Plasticup ^T/C 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Fixed number 6 and reformatted number 4. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Article missing much information

• There have been consensus proposals for three new or modified sections up for weeks now, here[22], here[23], and here[24]. All comments have been addressed regarding them. They should now be added.

• Wikipedia is the first thing up in a Google search of "Wasilla Assembly of God", where there are about 100,000 web pages on Wasilla Assembly of God. There are about 23,000 web pages about "Muthee AND 'Wasilla Assembly of God'", as well as about 500 news stories for the same in the last six weeks of news alone. If an encyclopedia user were to look up Wasilla Assembly of God at Wikipedia, one would get no information about the well sourced factual direct relationship, and would not see the name "Thomas Muthee" in reading this article.

• Keeping information out by a small number of people, who can provoke an article admin "protection" through vaguely worded deletion summaries, and inciting edit wars, is a disservice to encyclopedia users. This is especially true given the discussions of religion and writing assignments going on in high schools with the new Bill Mahr film, Religulous, which was in the works long before religion became a factor in this political season. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with accompanying discussion of religion and government, is being revived as required reading in the high school curriculum. Aldous Huxley's historic text, The Devils of Loudun, about historic witch hunting in France, is also being revived.

• The ability to include properly sourced neutrally worded information should be "protected", as well as protecting the exclusion of information by blocking the entire article. Tautologist (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus suggestion for first section, Pastors and Speakers

" Pastors and Speakers

The church's founding pastor was Paul Riley. As Governor, Sarah Palin, a former member (having left the church in 2002), renamed the street on which the church is located Riley Avenue in honor of Riley.[2] In 1999, Ed Kalnins took over as pastor. Kalnins's views have attracted international media attention due to Governor Palin's selection as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.[3] Church speakers and guest pastors include national and international political and religious figures, including Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, in 2005 and 2008, and African pastor Thomas Muthee, founder of approximately 400 churches in various African countries, in 2005 and 2008. "

• NPR[25], Chrisitian Science Monitor[26]], Times of London[27] Tautologist (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks very good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will request block removal. Tautologist (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with that for two reasons. 1) There are plenty of other people who haven't weighed in, even though they expressed strong feelings before, and 2) This proposed wording has been stale for almost two weeks. Are there no new updates to it? Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this section is good to go in as is. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus suggestion for section - Church Beliefs and Practices

" Church Beliefs and Practices

Church beliefs are taught and applied in practice by its pastors, speakers, and congregants. Pastor Kalnins and guest Pastor Muthee jointly promote the theology books of Rick Joyner. In addition to beliefs and practices that set some Pentecostal churches apart from other churches, such as speaking in tongues and laying on of hands, Wasilla Assembly of God has beliefs and practices that are specific to Alaska, such as a theory of an end of the world, (“end times”), in which Alaska plays a special role as a last refuge. Ed Kalnins states, "“I believe that Alaska is one of the refuge states… in the Last Days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to this state to seek refuge.” " “Mapping” (the locating, through research and prayer, of geographic areas, individuals, and groups, as being witches or the subjects of demonic possession or witchcraft) and “spiritual warfare” (which is performed in the physical world in parallel to the spiritual world) are preached. Kalnins asserts that the physical Iraq War is part of a spiritual war contending for the Christian faith. Kalnins preached having warlike thoughts regarding Iraq is consistent with the thinking of Jesus. Muthee has preached that violence is desirable. Journalist Max Blumenthal reported on his recording and posting of a video of Guest Pastor Muthee in September 2008 at Wasilla Assembly of God, with Muthee stating that " We come against the spirit of witchcraft! We come against the python spirits'”, and that the Wasilla Assembly of God pastor took the microphone from Muthee and added, "We stomp on the heads of the enemy!”. The power of prayer is taught to have effect not only the spiritual world and world of human psychology, but also in the physical world regarding physical and political developments in Alaska, considered being a part of God's will. Church pastor Kalnins preaches that the Iraq war is part of a spiritual war contending for the Christian faith and, similarly, accompanied on stage by Kalnins in one 2008, invited church speaker Palin told congregants that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan, with the US military being on a task from God in Iraq. Guest pastor Muthee asks congregants to pray for protection not only from spiritual world matters such as witchcraft, but also for intervention on specific real world matters, such as provision of funds or personnel in the Alaskan race for governor. Accompanied by Pastor Kalnins, speaker Palin told church members that specific Alaskan physical events, such as the development of an oil pipeline for Alaska, are God’s will, and that a prayer to God at the church by guest pastor Muthee, for assistance with finances, personnel, protection from witchcraft, and assistance in taking the next step, were partially responsible for Palin being elected governor.

• NPR[28], Chrisitian Science Monitor[29]], Times of London[30], Miami Herald[31], Minnesota Independent, Center for Independent Media[32]Huffington Post[33] [34], Talk2Action [35] [36] [37] [38] Tautologist (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC), Max Blumenthal [39] Tautologist (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1. I can't seem to find anything about "Alaska playing a special role" in end times in the references provided. Where did I miss it? 2. BTW, spiritual mapping is not specific to this church, nor is spiritual warfare. The only thing that link them to Alaska is the fact that this church prayers for or "maps" locations in Wasilla or Alaska, but that is really no different from another church in another location praying/mapping similarly for specific needs or locations within its community. I think that particular clause is somewhat overstated. 3. As for the oil pipeline, that might merit a specific reference to Palin asking for prayer because she believed it was God's will. As it is worded now, a reader might infer that the pastor said this. 4. Lastly, the things that Kalnins asked for prayer for are not unlike what many Pentecostal pastors ask for their own communities, for the Iraq War, for funds (happens a lot!), and so on. 5. In other words, some of the matters suggested as WAoG-specific in this section really aren't. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I stuck numbers in front of your sentences to keep track. I made modifications per numbers, with some sources including actual photos and videos. Tautologist (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This section doesn't belong in anything remotely resembling this iteration. It restates too much about AoG and Spiritual Warfare in general that should not be incorporated into a specific article. Additionally, it really needs every statement cited to a reliable source, and what you have here has a bazillion refs at the end. You're also sourcing stuff to the Huffington Post, which isn't a reliable source.

What I'd like to see now is this section, with WP:CITET formatting on every cite, hashed out on this talk page before going in. If you're willing to hash this section out here rather than in the article, I'm good with unprotecting the page. How does that sound? Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above comment- "restates too much about AoG", only WAoG specific sermons included; Huffington Post has video posted, is not only source, and particular articles were either written by respected scholar or respoected journalists and academics; "this section, with WP:CITET formatting on every cite"- done. All other concerns listed here since Oct 1 - also done. Tautologist (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this specific information is in AOG or spiritual warfare articles. Which statements are restatements ("restates too much about AoG and Spiritual Warfare in general")? Tautologist (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will go back and sort the refs in this section into specific sentences. Tautologist (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus suggestion for section, Media scrutiny

“ Media scrutiny

In September 2008, the Wasilla Assembly of God found itself under intense media scrutiny as a result of former congregation member Sarah Palin being selected as the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate.[3] International curiosity about church sermons was so intense that it caused the church website, where videos of its sermons and speakers were posted, to be shut down.[4] The site was restarted a week later.[citation needed] In unidentified sermons, the Huffington Post reported, Wasilla Assembly of God senior pastor Ed Kalnins, "preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."[5] Media attention also focused on Muthee’s prior background, Muthee’s sermons at Wasilla Assembly of God, and reference to Muthee’s previous Wasilla sermons by Palin as church speaker. Muthee was internationally known for having begun his career by publicly accusing a woman fortuneteller of causing traffic fatalities through witchcraft, for which she was subsequently persecuted by town authorities and members of Muthee’s church. During one appearance at the church, Muthee publicly prayed for Palin, asking God to protect her from witchcraft, and supply people and financial resources for her campaign for governor.

Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor with the Culture and Media Institute, says the Huffington Post article "says more about [the authors] than about Palin. Though they cover the religion beat for AP, Gorski and Zoll have a great deal to learn about evangelical culture and theology." [6] Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said that such scrutiny was to be expected whenever a surprise vice presidential candidate is selected because the “The surprise guarantees that the other side hasn’t done the research".[7] “When a presidential candidate surprises the country with a relatively unknown choice, then all hell breaks loose,” Sabato said. “It did with Ferraro, it did with Quayle, it’s happening with Palin."[7] Sabato postulates that the goal of the Democrats is to find controversial statements to counteract the criticism Barack Obama faced due to his affiliation with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.[7] The conservative media watchdog, Culture and Media Institute, went so far as to declare the effort as an "obvious attempt to create a Jeremiah Wright-style scandal".[8] Others believe that the religious beliefs of Sarah Palin "raise important questions: mainly, what is Palin's faith and how exactly has it influenced her policies?"[5] They argue that despite her leaving the Wasilla Assembly of God in 2002, long before the controversial sermons,[7] she has maintained a close relationship there by speaking at the church in June 2008[5] and, on the same visit, receiving a blessing by Kalnins.[9] ”

• NPR[40], Christian Science Monitor[41]], Times of London[42] Tautologist (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would change the last sentence [in first paragraph] to, During one appearance at the church, Muthee publicly prayed for Palin, beseeching God to protect her from witchcraft during her campaign for governor. (Or was this after she was elected? I've kinda lost track of the timelines here.) User:Realkyhick (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (Editor signature missing from reorganization and added per history page) Yes, this was my comment. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was during campaign. I made modifications as suggested per actual words and to clasrify tmeline. Tautologist (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this section should be here. It should be in the Thomas Muthee article, and only briefly summarized in the WAoG article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unarchiving and where to go from here

Let's not unarchive, please. There's an easy way to wikilink to Muthee's section if anything needs to be brought up again. It's not clear to me how unarchiving prior discussion material serves to illustrate whether what you proposed two weeks ago needs to change again based on others' input or on new news sources posted since you proposed the text.

I've been avoiding commenting on this until other people do because last month we had a dozen passionate editors here, and only you and I, Tautologist, seem to be still contributing to this talk page. I would endorse asking the various editors documented in the archived discussion to comemnt on the text you've proposed. What I think would be stupidest is if the article is unprotected, edits go in, and then editwarring picks up right where it left off. That way lies badness.

So what, if anything, would you change from what you wrote two weeks ago? Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you briefly summarize the argument for full and indefinite edit-protection? Plasticup ^T/C 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was full protected because of statements violating BLP being readded multiple times. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an argument for some blocks and (maybe) a short period of edit-protection. Indefinite full-protection is overkill. Plasticup ^T/C 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything Tautologist currently proposes complies with BLP policy--there's no longer anything calling Muthee a "witch hunter and persecutor." While much of what's proposed isn't anything I would agree to, it's also certainly not the BLP-violating original insertion that triggered this protection. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have updated (eviscerated and replaced, really) the request for unprotection. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking in tongues and laying on of hands

• User:Jclemens deleted the information "speaking in tongues and laying on of hands" from the church Practices and Beliefs section.
• The deletion in the edit summary was "This is the sort of thing that doesn't differ between WAoG and AoG's in general, thus is redundant here".
• Many encyclopedia users might not know this, and may not have time or desire to track down every link and read every linked article for basic simple information. An encyclopedia reader is better served to have summary information in one place.

• Is there a reason that serves an encyclopedia user that this information should remain deleted? Tautologist (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is redundant and doesn't describe a way in which the Wasilla Assembly of God differs from any other Assembly of God I really don't care whether readers of this article know this, nor should you, because we Wikilink to the Assemblies of God article. It is not our job to put everything into every article, it is our job to put relevant material into an article. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is made clear that this is a feature of Assemblies of God in general then I have no problem with it. Such information is vital to understanding this article. Plasticup ^T/C 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not vital, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How is information on assemblies of god not relevant to an article on an assembly for god? When I write an article on Hurricane Dean I still have to explain what a tropical cyclone is. You can't just link to an article and say "we're done with it". You have to explain things such that readers of this article with no background knowledge will fully understand what the "Wassilla Assembly of God" is. Plasticup ^T/C 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't, and yes, we can and should. Actually, looking at Hurricane Dean I don't see any explanation of what a hurricane *is*, just how Dean differs from other hurricanes. That's the same standard expected here: that the article explain how WAoG differs from other Assemblies of God, not how it is the same. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the article shouldn't dwell on the similarities, but it does need to explain what is meant by an "Assembly of God". This is an encyclopedia. It is meant to elucidate. Plasticup ^T/C 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used in a way that gives the impression that the church is "strange" or out of the ordinary to people who are not familiar with the AoG or petecostalism in general. Many churches believe these same exact things. They just aren't Pentecostals either. Many Charismatics from mainstream denominations share similar beliefs. I really don't understand why it is necessary. On articles on Methodist or Anglican congregations I don't see any sections dealing with doctrinal views as they share the same views as the denominations they are affiliated with.Ltwin (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Citations belong immediately after the assertions they support. Per WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When faced with unsourced statements there are three approaches. You can cite the sources, you can flag the sentences as needing citation and rely on other editors to cite them, or you can delete them. Why have you unambiguously chosen to do the later? Plasticup ^T/C 01:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the text, as it was, did not meet Wikipedia standards. As it gets cited, it can go back in. No one is harmed by forcing editors to adhere to Wikipedia standards. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By axing whole sections you know it is less likely that they will be re-added and sourced. Why not tag them with {{fact}} and see if it improves? Plasticup ^T/C 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a paragraph with Fourteen (14) citations at the end. User:Jclemens deleted the entire paragraph as lacking citation! User:Jclemens also voted to delete the entire Wasilla Assembly of God article in an afd. No article at Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) has a footnote on every clause of every sentence, especially when multiple sources apply to a block of a few sentences, and are listed after the sentence block. User:Jclemens is for some reason intent on vandalizing this article by deletions to make it unreadable and by edit wars with multiple editors. He ignored the talk page consensus discussion for two weeks on this section, after he got the whole article protected from having information added by edit warring with multiple editors, deleting entire sections with no good reason. User:Jclemens, why are you so intent on keeping information out of this article and making it difficult to read and use by encyclopedia users looking for information? Tautologist (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here, and take him at his word. He says that he was removing unsourced information. Perhaps he thought that it was unsourced because all of the references were at the end of the paragraph, rather than interspersed throughout it identifying the individual claims which they support. I think that he was a little heavy-handed, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Join me in rebuilding that paragraph without weasel words and with ironclad references. Plasticup ^T/C 03:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautologist, please find me another paragraph with fourteen citations in Wikipedia, in which all the citations are at the end, and none whatsoever are included with the facts they purport to reference. Are you really suggesting that you had no idea that citations belong with the assertions they supported? If so, now you know. See Wikipedia:Citatations#Inline_reference for more details. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this very simple article has been in a constant state of information deletion by Jclemens for weeks. The deleted information originally had citations attached to each sentence, but Jclemens deleted them all. For example, he insisted on deleting information about Muthee, a guest pastor at the church for at least twelve different sermons, and whose sermons specifically at this church are driving hundreds of news stories about the church.

Jclemens talk page argument for deletion of any Muthee information was -

• "So you added a section about the activities of Muthee (1) a person (2) mentioned by a guest speaker (3) at a commencement ceremony (4) for a ministry (5) of the church? I'm sure Kevin Bacon must fit in here somewhere--I count five degrees of separation from the actual church itself.” (A guest pastor at the church is zero degrees of separation in network and linking theories.)

Jclemens used this “good faith” “argument” about Muthee to delete the entire section on Kalnins’ sermons and much additional information that is completely unrelated to Muthee. It is not even an “argument”. I assumed good faith for weeks, watching Jclemens edit war with others until they gave up and left, but it became clear there is some other motivation than a belief that Muthee’s sermons as church guest pastor is five degrees of separation from the church. There are other such “arguments” that fill the talk page archives following mass deletions. I assumed good faith for weeks after I created this, my first Wikipedia article. Good faith cannot possibly be a motivation for the past mass deletions, as these deletion “arguments” required motivation to come up with. After weeks of mass deletions of all information, the motivation is a desire to keep information out, not good faith. Take a look at the edit wars Jclemens had with other editors. I will go back and parse all of the sources once again, but there will just be some other “argument” for mass deletion. (And putting a definition of “cyclone” or “hurricane” would be appropriate in an article on a particular hurricane, responding to Jclemens example. I did not even know the difference prior to Katrina.) Tautologist (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So, there are a couple of possibilities, 1) I'm a vindictive deletionist, and 2) I'm right. Actually, those two aren't mutually exclusive--I could be both. How about you assume bad faith? Not in the sense of ad hominem invective, but in the sense of constructing an impeccable article from which neither I nor any other editor would have cause to delete information? Funny thing, that works equally well no matter what my motives might be. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will assume good faith again, and I will rewrite with citations line by line, even for noncontroversial common facts. I will include subsections for belief and practice subtopics, with only a few sentences with citations in each subsection, and with {see|other article} direction below the subtopic sections headers, as you seem to want for information covered in depth elsewhere. We will see if you then watch the article section and subsection to protect it from deletions as rigorously as you have made deletions. If you do so, I will publicly apologize on this talk page. Tautologist (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do also make sure to not make interpretations or pronouncements "X advocated violence" is a lot iffier than "The AP reported that Muthee advocated violence as part of spiritual warfare" But once you have the citations adjacent to the statements they support, I can go ahead and make those sorts of corections as well. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's a reasonable request. Tautologist (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive Citations

Why does this statement, originally found in the Church Beliefs and Practices section, need all of these citations? "Pastor Kalnins and guest Pastor Muthee jointly promote the theology books of Rick Joyner." Ltwin (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, there was a very long paragraph with a whole mess of citation at the end. I deleted most of it as not properly cited, but left the citations such that it will be easier to reinsert the statements alongside the respective supporting citations. I believe Tautologist is working on reconstructing the paragraph with citations. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for leaving the citations up for convenience. I am about half way finished re-reading all of the citated articles to match them up to the sentneces from which they came. Tautologist (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WAoG vs. AoGs, expansion efforts

Tautologist, in looking at the current state of the article, I'm not particularly impressed.

• 1.) Currently, Assemblies of God clocks in at 45k, while this article exceeds 60k. There is no particular reason why this article should be longer than the parent denomination's article.

• 2.) I recommend you go back and excise redundant material yourself, but I will do so if necessary. A good bit of the excess length probably stems from redundant citations, which is a separate problem. You have left the article in a state that is very messy.

• 3.) 24 separate citations are showing template errors, and there's been no apparent effort to use <ref name=> style formatting. You did see my example for you on Thomas Muthee, right?

I've slapped an {{underconstruction}} on the article for now. Please fix the majority of these issues in the next six hours. If that's not possible, I'm going to revert to a previous version and you can work on this in your sandbox again until it's ready for primetime, because

• 4.) it's certaily neither properly referenced nor an improvement over the previous version. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1. As stated in the first sentence of the edit, Assemblies of God is a fellowship, not a "denomination". Why can an article for a church not be longer than a fellowship it belongs to?

• 2. What redundancies are you referring to, the sections are self contained with little overlap except for clairity?

• 3. What template errors? Why should content be deleted when the citations are clearly understandable, rather than fix them? You argued to have the entire article deleted in an AFD, and have been in a constant state of trying to delete information put in by others ever since. You objected to my previous citation styles, which were the same as used in other articles, and as you know I created Wasilla Assembly of God as my first at Wikipedia article, so please spefify the errors, so please do not delete the entire information content once again.

• 4. You state that there is "no improvement", after you deleted the entire thing with an objection was that there was not a reference attached to each individual sentence. Now you say that doing the large amount of work by re-reading each sentence was referenced is not an improvement. Please explain. Tautologist (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Some comments. First, do not refactor my talk statements--it's not necessary and it's poor etiquette. On to your points...

1) If the article on a particular congregation is larger than its denomination or fellowship, that's probably a good indicator that redundant information is being placed in the local congregation that should go in the fellowship/denomination article...

2) ... such as Wasilla_Assembly_of_God#Values, which does not reference WAoG specifically, and any sentence that includes "In Assemblies of God churches ..." or "The Assemblies of God have ..." Those are dead giveaways that what follows doesn't apply to this particular church. Even when you're trying to compare and contrast, far too much effort is spent on highlighting general Assemblies of God beliefs.

3) As of this version, more than six hours after I asked you to fix them, there remain 25 instances of "You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}." in the article's reflist.

4) A more terse but accurate and cited version is preferable to the version that exists now.

Consider the sentence "For example, Philip Munger, a professor at the University of Alaska in Anchorage, said congregant Sarah Palin learned that humans walked the Earth at the same time six thousand years ago, and claimed that she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks of dinosaurs in fossils (dating back at least 65 million years, according to dating based on quantum physics).[16][17][18][19]"

• Ref 16 doesn't mention Munger.
• Ref 17 is one of the aforementioned broken citations.
• Ref 18 doesn't mention Munger.
• Ref 19 doesn't mention Munger.

Thus, you have a possible BLP violation for Munger AND Palin.

On the basis of these errors, I will be moving this version to a sandbox under your user page, and restoring an older version of this page. Please feel free to keep editing it in your sandbox, until which time it is of sufficient accuracy and quality to replace this page. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your interim version of the article, as it existed on this page prior to my revert, has been saved at User:Tautologist/WAoGSandbox. I notice you have other sandbox'ed versions, but I did not believe it appropriate to overwrite any of your work. Note further that the BLP and citation concerns are my reason for proceeding in this manner--had items 1 and 2 been the only issues of disagreement, your work would have stood in mainspace and we could have continued the debate about proper allocations. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you were still working on a version of the article while I was reverting it. Unfortunately, it still has the same BLP issue--What I'd recommend you do is edit the version of yours that clobbered my reversion, and then copy/paste that back into your sandbox. Hope that doesn't screw up your editing too badly--it had been an hour and five minutes since you last saved the page, so I was unaware you were currently editing it. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the information is well (and multiply) sourced for every statement, and the language is almost identical to that in the sources. What BLP issue are you referring to? Tautologist (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've bolded it for you. I haven't yet checked to see whether the lack of citation persists in the current version, but it existed at the time I moved the revisions to a sandbox. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, you were correct on the Munger citation; the broken link was the most relevant, and two of the others were left from the end of a longer sentence, which I broke apart. I have fixed the problems. Tautologist (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Assemblies of God

This article is linked to the Assemblies of God, but to be more accurate it should be linked to the General Council of the Assemblies of God USA as that is the fellowship that this church is in. The Assemblies of God is a world federation of independent national AoG fellowship. Just my opinion.Ltwin (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Ltwin. I thought it was pretty unusual that the church position regarding violence was so different from a fellowship that historically is among the most pacifist churches in history. All of the sources say "Assembies of God", so do you have a source so a change can be made? Tautologist (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• You don't need a source. The official name of the organization is the "General Council..." but its known as the Assemblies of God. It's kind of like the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the only recognized member of the Anglican Communion in the United States. Every Assembly of God in the US is going to be in the General Council of the Assemblies of God because this is a fellowship of individual churches. The General Council is a member of the Assemblies of God. You can kind of look at it like the states are members of the United States of America, and the USA is a member of the United Nations, but the USA is completely independent and soveriegn apart from the UN. If you want a source just go to the WAoG's website. Go to the Abou Us section and scroll to the bottom where you will see a link to www.ag.org which says its the General Council of the Assemblies of God USA.
  1. About the pacifist part, the US Assemblies of God was the parent of all other national Assemblies of God fellowships so they were at one time pacifist, my guess is that overtime as they became more established they adopted views similar to other Evangelical Christians. I do have to tell you that coming from a Pentecostal background I think these statements are probably misunderstood and taken out of context, though it may sound violent, it most probably is referring to spiritual warfare and not actually harming ppl physically; though it isn't unusual for a pastor of this segment of Christianity to be in support of a war being fought by America.
  2. However, this church, with the exception of the "Alaska's role in the end times" part, does not differentiate from Pentecostal streams in this country much. The Wall Street Journal article was incorrect. The AoG and other Pentecostals do not believe the end times are happening now. That would imply that the rapture already occured, which it obviously hasn't.Ltwin (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a source is needed to add information, especially because all of the mainstream media sources in the article say that Wasilla Assembly of God is a member of Assemblies of God, but if you find one that says the other sources are wrong, I will add it. Tautologist (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me. They are the same thing. Just one is world level and the other is national level. Churches are affiliated with thier national level not the worlwide level. The common name is the Assemblies of God. It links to the website for the General Council of the Assemblies of God US on Wassilla's official website. What more verification do you need?Ltwin (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The assemblies of God is a denomination. It is called a fellowship because churches voluntarily agree to join it. But after a church joins it, its constitution states that it cannot leave. If a local church votes to leave the fellowship, it surrenders all its property to the district and national organization. Though in its beginnings it was a fellowship of loosely knit churches, it has slowly become more of what we would consider a denomination today. While churches can handle thier own affairs, they can't feely leave without loosing thier property, thier pastors and ministers must be licensed by the Assemblies of God to be able to preach in thier churches, and all ministers and candididates for membership have to agree to the doctrinal statement of the national organization. Despite what they may say, this is a denomination.Ltwin (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding denomination vs. fellowship, I got the wording from the beginning Wikipedia article on Assemblies of God, which was written by members. If you have a source that could help make the correction to the other sources, including the Wikipedia article, changes can be made. Thanks. Tautologist (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The other sources aren't wrong. If you look on both the groups articles you can see they are the same thing it is just that for wikipedia, it would be more organizationally correct to link it to the Assemblies of God in the US. Both are one and the same. Once again the Wasslla Assembly of God official website links to the official website of the Assemblies of God in the US. I'm sure they know who they are affiliated with.Ltwin (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased

I was going to hold out on judgement until the "Under Construction" tag had been lifted, and now I have to say that these edits have not made this article better. It seems like they are trying harder to make this church seem like the wierdest, strangest, in left field church in the world. The only belief that I see as strange is the "Alaska role in the end times" thing. As I read this article all the way through, which is difficult and painful, I will be bringing out points I think need to fixed.

• These titles are horendous and ugly. New section headings need to be written.
• Many of the core beliefs are common to most Christian denominations, but some, such as beliefs regarding the end of times (end of the world), and practices such as speaking in tongues, differ.[9] The church practices a more extroverted religion compared with other Wasilla evangelical churches, such as Wasilla Bible Church; for example, members of the Wasilla Assembly of God stand up, shout, clap, sing, and cry during the service.[9][7][10][11]

About the end of times thing, WAoG may have a wierd belief, but as a denomination/fellowship the Assemblies of God's official of the end times is no different then most other Evangelicals. Don't make the reader think the oddities are shared by the whole Assemblies of God. About the "extroverted religion", what is so notable about it? Lots of churches across America and the world have highly emotionally charged services. Churches in the African American tradition are known for them.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• A core belief of Assemblies of God churches regarding the physical evidence of a person speaking in tongues, is that it is "physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit". But Wasilla Assembly of God views speaking of tongues as a "gift", not a necessity for evidence of Baptism. Kalnins estimates that only about half of the people in his church have this gift, a gift that Kalnins says he has, but does not often boast of or show off.[9][10][12][13][14]

This is not notable. Pentecostal's commonly refer to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as a "gift". They always have. And there are many Pentecostals that don't believe speaking in tongues is the only evidence of the Baptism.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The church teaches a literal interpretation of the Bible and a nuanced interpretation of physical evidence in science, including teaching creationism, that humans were created by God exactly as depicted in the Bible version of Adam and Eve, and young earth creationism, that the earth and universe are only about 6,000 years old, with humans and dinosaurs living side by side at the same time

Wow, an Evangelical church teaching a literal interpretation of the Bible and believing in creationism!!! Please tell me this is suppose to be a joke?Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Philip Munger, a professor at the University of Alaska in Anchorage, said congregant Sarah Palin claimed that humans walked the Earth at the same time six thousand years ago, and that she had seen physical evidence of this in pictures of human footprints inside the tracks of dinosaurs in fossils (dating back at least 65 million years, according to dating based on quantum physics), and Kalnins says of this, that it is something that is in the heart of believer, whereas an empirical scientist would say it is strictly a matter of empirical observation. [21][22][10] Kalnins says that creationism should be taught in schools alongside with evolution. [22]

If this is about Sarah Palin it should be on her page.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The church views toward science differ sharply from some other Christian denominations, such as Catholicism, which promotes a combination of evolution and intelligent design over creationism, and has working research divisions in the Vatican, with scientists doing conventional research in physics and astronomy , relying solely on empirial evidence, and assuming theories such as relativity and quantum physics which imply the universe must necessarily be billions of years old for consistency under standard theories in physics, chemistry, and geology, and that fossils of dinosaurs are millions of years old.[21][11][9][23]

I don't denie that a Pentecostal Evangelical Protestant church would have very different veiws with the Catholic Church. But you cannot equate all of Christianity as being basically in line with the Catholic Church on this point.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wasilla Assembly of God believes that we are living in the end times, when the world will end, and that Alaska plays a special role as a last refuge in the end times. Ed Kalnins states, “I believe that Alaska is one of the refuge states… in the Last Days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to this state to seek refuge.”[24] Although petroleum based oil was not in use in Biblical times, Kalnins says that the Bible “specifically mentions oil instability as a sign of the [end of times]" being at hand, and that “oil wars [the Iraq War] indicate” the end of time is near.[7][11]

I actually agree that this belief is quite different than most churches and it should stay, as long as it uses reliable sources.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The church teaches conservative social values, both specific in the bible and not; prohibiting social dance, teaching the subordination of women to men, opposition to any kind of sex education, including opposition to teaching abstinence, and opposition to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when necessary to save the life of the mother.[8][10][3][25][12][22]

Most of these are not really notable or different from other churches. But if they taught subordination of women to men, why would Sarah Palin have run for governor and vice president? She'd obviously be leading men. So I think this is a little over emphasized.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The church views homosexuality as a sin, and that it is a personal choice, not genetically based.[10][25][10][12][22] The church promotes and uses the books and theology of Morningstar Ministries head, Rick Joyner, who became famous in the United States for calling AIDS as an "obvious example" of God's penalty for homosexuality, a statement still on the Monringstar Ministries website; church speakers include coauthors of books with with Joyner from Morningstar Ministries, and church students have been sent to Morningstar Ministries.[27][8][28][3] Ed Kalnins says of homosexuals that he “would like to set them free”, and that in his heart he “loves them” as people, like “alcoholics”, and as people “they are awesome”, and he “does not do this hate thing”, but prays for them. [12]

The first sentence is not notable! Thousands to millions of Christians share the same belief!!! Who cares about Rick Joyner? This isn't Rick Joyner's Wikipedia article.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The church teaches strictly following an authority without question. Kalnins has stated that critics of a pastor, such as Kalnins, will go to hell, “You criticize the authority, you're literally bringing in hell with the criticism." [9][29] Kalnins also said, "I hate criticisms towards the President [Bush], because it's like criticisms towards the pastor, it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."[30][8][31][32][33][33][26][9][3]
• Those are two very different statements! Lets stick to what they actually said, we can live without your commentary.Ltwin (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• The section Pacifism, violence, spiritual warfare, witchcraft just needs a complete rewrite.Ltwin (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• The section Healing abilities of certain pastors is not notable. Other people believe this.
• This section God’s intervention in partisan politics, sides in a war, and in commercial matters also needs to be rewritten and most of this information is not notable and the stuff that is smacks of POV.Ltwin (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• No one has said anything is "strange" or "weird", because you call them "strange" and "weird" does not mean they are.

"*Beliefs and practices do not have to be "strange" or "weird" to be in an encyclopedia; the only purpose is to provide information that an encyclopedia user would want to know, no matter how they intend to use it.

• These are statements that Kalnins and his guest lecturers have gotten out to the media when they had the chance to talk about what their church is about, knowing that what they said would be printed, so they are the things chosen by the church to define it. And there is nothing weirder about them than my beliefs or yours. Kalnins is entiteld to his view whether or not a Wikipedia editor likes it or not.
• Rick Joyner and his teachings are part of this church's curriculum, members of WAoG are sent to Morningstar Ministries , and the two coathors of books with him are frequent speakers. When Kalnins went to Africa to distribute books, he picked Rick Joyner books to ship there. He is entitled to do so, and you should read them before forming vaue judgements about them.
• Every sentence in this article is composed from reliable sources of information, and no information from reliable sources that considered it worthy of print in a short information source was omitted.
• The titles are standard for Wikipedia, mainly just the three or four main words in the sections. The purpose of titles is to be for researchers, not to glorify a church with a POV.
• In the other article on Assemblies of God, you referred to this church as an "obscure" church up in Alaska, but this church is entitled to its beliefs, and which of them to bring to the attention of the media.
• If you read the sources, all of the language was taken striaght from quotes. This article is not a sermon by Kalnins and Muthe and his other speakers and guest pastors, so the scare quotes were removed without any change in the content.
• The only POV is the POV of the church, as they picked the information to make public to define their beliefs, and promoted the ideas of their own choice, to which they are entitled. Or of the neutral mainstream media reporting on the churchand scholars writing about it.

• I disagree entirely with censoring information that encyclopedia users would want to know if they had access to the information. We can not start censoring information to try to make the church look one way or another, according to one editor's theology. One reason this church is doing so well is that they are picking which issues to promote to define the church, and it is not proper to try to cut out information to try to make the church into someone else's image.
• I am sure you are well intentioned, and if you have additional information that you think should go in, please provide sources and lets put it in, but calling things that the church believes and promotes "a joke" is not proper. Tautologist (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't support sensoring, and I didn't call them strange or wierd; but the language in the article does everything to suggest that. You are right they don't have to be wierd to be on wikipedia and an article doesn't have to go into detail of every non-notable belief a church has. If there is something notable about this church it should be mentioned. But some of the things in this article mentioned above are indistinguishable from other churches. I also think the article attempts to link these beliefs and qoutes to Sarah Palin. If you want to write on the religous views of Sarah Palin, go to her article. Do the same thing with Rick Joyner. Rick Joyner is a famous man in these religous circle and many churches probably endorse his book, but does this article need a whole section dedicated to that?Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, as you can see in the edit history, I wrote the religion section in Sarah Palin's article here[[43]], and the article on the church she goes to, Wasilla Bible Church here[[44]]. You can go see the information. Wasilla Assembly of God is a much more extroverted church, and the only things about Palin directly relate to her visits to the church, or were commented on by the church.

Define an "extroverted church" the definition you gave in the article is no different than other Pentecostal or Evangelical churches. Lots of Christians stand up, clap hands, cry, and yes many speak in tongues. How is this anymore extroverted?Ltwin (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was studying Wasilla Assembly of God and other related churches long before Sarah Palin was nominated, and I only first ever heard of her when the Muthee visit happened at this church back in 2005. I have been extending the historic work of Aldous Huxley, working with his late wife Laura Huxley, for some time now, and this article would look exactly the same whether or not Palin was nominated. The only difference is that Pastor Kalins has been given a greater media platform to put forth the information he wants to about his church. (Note that Huxley's research on the churches in Loudun, is very similar to research regarding the association of Wasilla Assembly of God, Muthee, and the many projects that this church does jointly with Muthee in Africa and Alaska.

• You may also claim that the sentence I added, "The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services.[26]", should be deleted, because it is common to many churches. But it is exactly this kind of fact that is important for historic researchers, as defined in The Structures of Everyday Life, by the greatest historian of the second half of the 20th century, Braudel.

• I used to be a pacifist, and worked with churches of like mind, but when the Taliban denied the care of doctors to women, and Clinton did nothing about it, I changed more to a view that is like Kalnins might be on this.

• Kalnins was asked about Joyner's comments on AIDS, as the comments are in the writings taught in the church's curriculum, and Kalnins did not dispute it in the interview. We have the complete church sermons, as we started getting them long ago, after Muthee came in 2005, and I have reviewed hundreds of hours of material. I only selected the thinhgs that Kalnins puts forth in interviews, or advances in his curriculum. When he talks about gays, he seems to be of kind heart, although I do not agree with him. I intentionally left his comments agreeing with Joyner out, and instead referred only things that this church teaches about Joyner, because I am personally hoping Pastor Kalnins has a change in viewpoint, so if anything, the POV might be the opposite from what you think. If the church's views seem "strange" or "weird" to you, using your words, it would not seem that way if you studied other religions in other parts of the world, especially in history prior to the 20th century, you would not think this any more of this church. The central point of view is information that others found worthy to print, and Kalnins and other church speakers singled out to say to the church, whch is exactly what .

• Finally, I am aware of many programs in Africa that Kalnins worked on with Muthee, and funded through Muthee, but I can not find sources that other editors would accept yet, but I am still working. If you have information like the "children in poor neighborhoods" stuff, lets put it in. Tautologist (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Once again we have let this article drift into a laundry list of beliefs expressed by the church that are meant to cast the church in a negative light, and by extension cast Sarah Palin in an unfavorable light as well. With the exception of the part about Alaska being a state of refuge in end times, which is something that is definitely a unique belief to this congregation, I see nothing in this long list of beliefs that is significantly different from those of other Assemblies of God congregations, the Assemblies of God as a fellowship (functionally equivalent to a denomination), or the vast majority of other evangelical and Pentecostal churches. We are once again giving undue weight to this laundry list and letting the article serve as a coatrack for those who seek to disparage Palin. I will state this once again: This church would not meet Wikipedia's notability standards were it not for the fact that Palin was once a member. It is merely average in terms of size of its membership, and has not distinguished itself in any other way, positively or negatively. The laundry list needs to be greatly condensed or removed entirely. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hick (I wish I had gotten first dibs on your nick), you are being judgemental (and, I guess, so am I in saying that), in that this does not "diparage" anyone or "cast an unfavorable light". My best friend is a high priest in the Russian Orthodox church, and their services are so milk toast and monotonous that I can't go. The political partisans have it all wrong, since there are many people who agree with the stuff in the article, the church and its members who are helping edit it, and Palin was picked for the very reason that getting this information out will energize her base. But that is irrelevant to this article, as the article would be the same independently of Palin's nomination, except that it is easier to get sources from all the media attention. The McCain people asking Kalnins to tone it down are being insulting to this church. The stuffy, conservative, totally pacifistic, "don't state your opinions publicaly", and overly academician versions of churches are not all there is (fortunately). I don't mean to sound harsh (hard to do when not talking face to face) but it is insulting to this church to call it an "unfavorable light" to say that writing down the beliefs and practices, that they were deliberately putting out in the public before the nomination, and continued when Muthee returned last Spetember. Stuffy somber churches that don't speak their mind in public are on the out. I wrote the article on Wasilla Bible Church, and kept it low key like they like, working with members of that church, and I worked with WAoG members on this article, uintil admins shut down their account. There is nothing wrong with anything they have done that is described in the article, and all of the information is publicized by the church. If they get something wrong, that is what forgiveness is all about. It is better to speak your mind and get it wrong sometimes than act in a way that you don't believe, which is no better than lying. The extroverted Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Ed Kalnins would probably be best friends if they were in the same town, since they have the same personaility and extorverted practices (but they would argue all the time, and diagree on almost every issue). Tautologist (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with Realkyhick. Tautologist I would ask you to take a look at other articles on church's in Wikipedia. See if any good articles are anything like you have created.Ltwin (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Define an "extroverted church" the definition you gave in the article is no different than other Pentecostal or Evangelical churches. Lots of Christians stand up, clap hands, cry, and yes many speak in tongues. How is this anymore extroverted?Ltwin (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(My personal definition is, "extroverted" = "more fun". Wasilla Assembly of God is more fun. After watching the church's videos, I would go to to Wasilla Assembley of God in an instant if I was in Wasilla, but I would probably fall asleep if I went to Wasilla Bible Church.)

But more to what you were really asking, Ltwin, you have asked the exact right question. I was going to use a different word, but because all of the tens of editors who have commented in the talk page over the past weeks, I used the exact word. "extroverted", that was in the source, so no one would complain. What the source is referring to is two things. One is that the church practice in its services are very "lively" (Wasilla Assembly of God is an associate of the "Laughing Church", which looks like one of the only churches that has the best part of the spirit as its main feature, in my humble opinoin). Two is that Kalnins and Kroon have almost identical beliefs, but Kroon is very reserved, and Kalnins likes to get his opinions, like those in the article, out in the media and out in the world in a showy way. If you look at the Wasilla Bible Church article that I wrote, Kroon has pretty much the same teachings and opinions as Kalnins (except for political partisanship), but Kroon has said he does not like to be out in the public with his ideas, and Kalnins likes to advertise the things about his church that are in the article. Just so you know, Wasilla Assembley of God members (under the closed user name, User:Waaog, helped write this article. Palin partisans tried to delete all of the stuff because they thought it was "emabarassing", which is an insult to this extroverted church. Note that the church members have not attempted to delete any of the information, as it is really not "weird" or "strange", but just opinions and practices that they like to get out in the public. I recommend you check out some African churches and you will see what "extorverted" means... and you will like it. Tautologist (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautologist listen too me ok. I am a second generation Pentecostal, I have no stake in trying to ruin this church. In fact, I want to insure that the true characteristics of this church are understood by the reader. I really don't think you understand how common this stuff is. My church exhibits these same chararcteristics. They run, jump, shout, speak in tongues, are slain in the spirit, etc. But that doesn't mean that my church Victory World Outreach Center deserves any mention in an encyclopedia article because of it. Unless thier beliefs differ from the Assemblies of God in any way they should not be noted in this article.Ltwin (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys obviously are judging this church (I don't think with a bad intention, but judging nonetheless), which has been helping edit this article, calling things which the church openly advertises with any chance in a media interview "strange", "weird", casting "an unfavorable light", etc. The most insulting things I have heard was when Rev Jeremiah Wright was told by Obama to tone it down, and Ed Kalnins was told to stop being himself and for the church to tone it down until after the election. What an insult! I was very happy to see that when Muthee came back, they did not tone it down in any way, as stated in the article. Don't take it from this that I endorse the witch hunting stuff, Mama Jone Njenge is a pastor too, and should not have ever been assaulted even if she was a witch, but good for them! These are their beliefs and they are still getting them out, the stuffy silent somber opinionless religious majority and detractors be "darned" (to borrow a word from Palin)! Tautologist (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good partial definition of "extorverted", very passionate and very expressive (from the church website!). Every Assembly of God church does not have to tow a somber party fellowship "party line", like you guys seem to want to impose by putting in your opinion of what the church "should" be like as a fellowship member. A casual encyclopedia reader would likely assume the church has beliefs in biblical passages, and shuold not have to trace down every link to get simple information.

It is very biased to declare what this church believes and puts out in the media to be "weird" or casting a "dark light" on politicians. Tautologist (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The bias should not go so far as to delete information put out by the church, and referenced in the sources, to create a bias by deleting things so the article makes the church into what the higher-ups outside of Alaska want it to look like to the public, omitting information that is considered by others outside the church to cast a bad light on politicians or other fellowship members, by effectively censoring well sourced information by deletions. Tautologist (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WILL YOU LISTEN TO ME? I never said the church was wierd or strange. What I said was that your edits are designed to make it look that way. Most of their beliefs are not strange. The more you add non-notable information about thier belief in your partisan and ignorant tone, the greater you make the reader think this is outside the norm of Christianity. As a Wikipedian and a Pentecostal Christian, I am deeply offended. Your edits are making a bad article, and when I share with you my opinion you refuse to listen and to evaluate what perceptions your actions give off. Your edits come off as biased and non nuetral and ignorant and you don't seem to realize it. I hope you read this and examine edits in a non point of view fashion.Ltwin (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was becoming exhausted from all the weeks of constant attempts to delete the entire article, then followed by constant attempts to delete information. If your church had an article, I think the things you wrote above would be very relevant. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a place for people to get any and all information they are interested in. For example, as I said above, my best friend is a Russian prince whose brother is an Oxford PhD in theology and super high up in the Russian Orthodox church (He and his two brothers are the last of the Golitzin Russian Royal family mentioned in Toltoy's War and Peace). His church services, though, are the opposite of what you described, solemn and dragging on and on, no fun, not lively at all. To me, there is a reason for a cheerful person to be called "spirited". This kind of detail is what an encyclopedia user wants, or just simple factual details. A sociologist might have a completley different use than a news reporter, or a political partisan, or a high school student, or a theologian. Informatoin for all of these different kinds of users should be in the encyclopedia article, so the more info the better, and the more info, the more neutral an article becomes. But more technical stuff should occur farther down in the article. Tautologist (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Add info, don't delete info

I have been trying to boil down the "core beliefs" of Assemblies of God into a very short section, designed for an encyclopedia reader who maybe completely unfamiliar with the bible, to be the first subsection in the "Beliefs and practices" section. I can not get it short enough. I am thinking of a very abbreviated version of the section in the Assemblies of God article. I have been working on it for a few days, but it is still too long. Has anyone already done this or make suggestions? Tautologist (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on the Assembly of God. You don't have to have a doctrinal statement on an individual church's article. If you say that XX church is part of XX denomination/fellowship, then most people who'd want to know about the beliefs of this church would say "Ok I'll click on the link to the article on this denomination and learn what they believe." With that said the only belief we need to note is the "Alaska's role in end times" belief.Ltwin (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How would "most people" know that? "Most people" are not Christians, and do not know what a "doctrinal statement" is. How do you know what "most people want to know"? I wanted a consise statement of the four core doctrines, and I did not find it until you changed the reference, and I found it on a link there. How do you know what "we need to know". I have had a large number of people read the article and send me emails thanking me for the information. Please stop trying to censor information. It has been going on non stop since I created this article. How do you know waht the only belief the censors will allow is the Alaska's role in end times? If the information was not interesting, it would not be in thousands of newpaper stories. Tautologist (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You still are not listening to me. We have links on Wikipedia for people to click. It is not censoring. The information is still on Wikipedia, but on a more appropriate article. This is not your article. I realize you are new here so let me give you a hint. We do things by consensus here. We have to agree. Their are no sacred cows here and like it or not you are going to have to work with me and any other editor who comes along here. If you can't do that then this is not the place for you.Ltwin (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautologist, it appears that Ltwin, Realkyhick, and I are all opposed to your addition of redundant information that describes all Assemblies of God into this article. I will be removing such redundant material as not supported by consensus, even if it is reliably sourced, since not all reliably sourced material needs to be in this article. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens and will assist you. If this article is going to stay on Wikipedia it should at least be a good one.Ltwin (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Assemblies of God, Wasilla churches

(1)As with all Assemblies of God members, there are sixteen statements of the core doctrine. Four are considered essential (cardinal) doctrines. {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) The first is of the four is that (2)salvation (going to heaven)will not occur from simply doing good (2)deeds (acts), but requires accepting Christ as your Lord. The second concerns Baptism in the Holy Spirit, which is evidenced by speaking in tongues (3)(which is a physical manifestation that sounds like making unintelligible speech to outsiders). The third is that the physical body can be healed by the Holy Spirit through prayer, and for some but not all, (4)by pastors who have special abilities, commonly referred to as faith healing. The fourth involves the the end of the world (eschatology), called “end times”, in which Christ will return to earth (Second Coming of Christ) and take those who are worthy to heaven (rapture), and the rest will suffer through rule by the antichrist.

1. This sentence is redundant as it is mentioned above all ready.
2. Why are you dumbing down Wikipedia? Most people can guess what salvation means and those who can't can read the article which you can link to. The same things with deeds and acts, which are synonymous with each other.
3. That's a really neutral tone and way to put it, "unintelligible speech to outsiders".
4. Pentecostals believe that anyone with Jesus in thier lives has the power to heal people. Not just ordained pastors.

A doctrinal statement for a local congregation that does not differentiate from its parent denomination in doctrine does not need its own section. A Methodist church, Episcopal church, or a Baptist church wouldn't have one so why should this one, unless you have another motive by doing this. Of course the "Alaska's role in the end times" should be discussed because it is a notable difference. But all this other information is unnecessary and I have a suspicion is being used to paint the church in a negative light and that is not what Wikipedia is about. We have to be neutral.Ltwin (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone who uses an encyclopedia is a Christian. My Chinese girlfriend does not know. She did not know anything in the article until she read it, and now she wants more. I did not "dumb it down". I defined words, and took the content from another summary in another Wikipedia article. Tautologist (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples

I would like you to read these articles on controversial subjects and compare. Brownsville Revival and Lakeland Revival. Notice the Brownsville Revival took place at an Assemblies of God church.Ltwin (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reference. I know I am supposed to think they are weird, but they actually sound like fun to me. Even if a person does not share the beliefs, being surrounded by happy and ecstatic people is wonderful.

• Some suggestions for the articles are dumb them down, and add more detail. For example, I don't really know what a "revival" is, since many people seem to mean different things by it, so a short definition would be helpful so the continuity of reading is not broken by constantly following links. It would be good for a reader like me to have more details of the the particulars of the events, more background and context, e.g., comparing these to other similar events, and short definitions of the terms, so one does not have to follow links to lengthy articles to find simple info. Also more details of "criticisms", and a more critical viewpoint. The more info, the better, especially if it is organized from simplified and dumbed down stuff at the top, to highly detailed and technical stuff at the bottom. Very good work overall, though. Tautologist (talk)

That's a lie. The link takes you to the article Revival meeting. Nice try though. On Lakeland though realise the Christian revival links to two different article. You must click on revival to be taken to Revivalism.Ltwin (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I hit the word "Christian" next to revival, thinking they were one link for "Christian revival", rather than two links, one for "Christian" and one for "revival". Tautologist (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have said you lied. It's been a stressful day, but that doesn't mean I have to take it out on Wikipedia editors.Ltwin (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop censoring information, "wholesale deletion of information", "Nuke whole thing"

• Pleaes stop trying to censor information from this article. Since I created it, there has been a constant attempt to keep information out because a small handfull of editors do not like the information. This church and related churches have a long history of trying to ban books and censor information. If you do not want to read the information, you do not have to, but others are entitled to access it.

• "Nuke whole thing", and "wholesale deletoin" are not valid reasons to revert work of editors. Tautologist (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about consensus. The consensus is that these edits violate NPOV, may be an attempt at coatracking, and are trying to unduly influence the reader regarding this church. If you wanted an article about the Sarah Palin minister controversy then you should have named the article that. However, you didn't, and this article must be about the Wasilla Assembly of God-NOT Sarah Palin, Not Rick Joyner, and NOT Muthee. Certainly Sarah Palin and Muthee should be mentioned, but the aim of this article should not be focused on them. This is about the Wasilla Assembly of God. Much of the information you have put in the article are not relevant to Wasilla AoG, such as Rick Joyner, creationism, abortion, etc.Ltwin (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new outline

I propose the following new outline for the article below:

I. History

II. Controversy (or whatever else will do)

Ed Kalnins (statements and "Alaska's role in end times" thing)

Sarah Palin

Muthee

III. Ministry

Community outreach

Master's Commission

What does anyone think?Ltwin (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as a much better outline. However, since the Kalnins, Palin, and Muthee sections are all BLP, they need to be scrupulously sourced. They do not appear to be adequately cited to reliable sources in their current state. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I support my own proposal? Yes, they would have to follow wikipedia procedures.Ltwin (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Um, it's generally assumed that you support a proposal you make, unless you have multiple personality disorder or something. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL just making sure, I've usually worked on articles with little or no other editor involvement. I'm not sure of the proper consensus etiquette.Ltwin (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I suggest getting rid of the Master's Commision segment and just mentioning it in the Ministry section, I don't think this information is really notable. I do have plans to expand the history section, but not to night. Hope this is an improvement.Ltwin (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Talk2action has shown up on an WP:RS/N thread as a non-reliable source, so I will be excising it from this article sometime soon, but overall I think the article has been improved substantially by your edits. Good job. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it funny...?

You put alot of negative stuff in this article, but you seem to forget to balance those negative stuff with qoutes that like these,

The Bible, Mr. Kalnins said in an interview, foretells world events. "I don't think it's God's will to have a war," he says. But in Iraq, America is fighting an enemy that has made it a war over beliefs, he said. "I really think it is a holy war. It's a war of gods. ... When someone fights in the name of God, that becomes a holy war."

Mr. Kalnins is an enthusiastic supporter of "Governor Sarah," as he calls her, and of President George W. Bush, who, he believes, was put in office by the hand of the divine. "I believe criticisms come from hell. God has placed this man in authority. ... You criticize the authority, you're literally bringing in hell with the criticism." "Palins Faith Is Seen In Church Upbringing [45]

This is one of the sources you use but you skew it to a negative viewpoint. It has to be balanced.Ltwin (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. When I started this article, I put the full quote in over and over and over and over, and editors complained it was too long, and cut it down again and again. So I just put their cut down version in, so as not to go through it again. I think the more information the better. That is what an encyclopedia is for. But you will find that someone will find some excuse to delete the whole passage if you put in the full quote.Tautologist (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologize if I have not assumed good faith with other editors.Ltwin (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. There was an edit conflict, and I was wsriting "assume good faith" at the exact time you were writing an apology! I have spent the majority of the past few weeks just trying to keep information in this article, and a small group of partisan censors are using the most ridiculous reasons to delete it, like "Pakistanis are not reliable sources", or "MSNBC is not a reliable source". I think you should not be removing the explanations of terms in English. How is a Buddhist encyclopedia reader supposed to know what "end times" means, or "tribulation"? I did not know until I looked them up. The purpose of the article is to help all potential users by having all the available information that they might want, and to make it as easy to read as possible. Could you take a look at your recent edits in that light?Tautologist (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes I can. The problem is that you have an overly long, tedious article to read. Readers get bogged down in all these minute details that sometimes they just lose interest and quite reading. What is attempted by sticking to the point and relying on links to other articles to fill in the rest is that it allows a reader to reasonably be able read, comprehend an article easily. If they don't understand something or want more information, and there is a more detailed article, then links are availible to that reader if he/she so chooses to do so. Take for example this article. If we attempted to delve into everything the AoG believes we would have a redundant article, one that has basically the same information found on another article. What do you think about my proposal above?Ltwin (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautologist, I also understand your point about having orginally put the full qoutes up there but consensus was against it. However, especially when dealing with people the whole context of a person's statement has to be included in an article. That doesn't mean that you necessarily have to qoute a whole statement, but if a person has said something and then other statements carify on his original statement then it should be noted in the article. In my opinion, after reading the qoute above that as it currently stands now the article does not provide the full context of Kalnins statements which definitely need to be included.Ltwin (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

• Huffington post has been repeatedly adjudicated as an unreliable source.
• Mahalo.com. Per this "Anyone can edit pages on Mahalo and submit links to Mahalo."
• Talk2Action is a collaborative POV blog site. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixes in place

Well, it took a while, but without materially changing the text, I was able to remove all the questionable sources and trim down a bunch of the over-citation, such that Ltwin's edits are strongly and properly supported. I commented out but left in a few citations that seemed to be high quality, but weren't supporting the text they were next to. Those are still in the article, waiting to be placed back next to areas needing reference. There are a few uncontroversial citations that could use citation templates, but I'm done for tonight. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Take a gold star out of petty cash. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope I helped a little -- this article started out in pretty poor shape. Collect (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned refs

These are apparently reliable sources which don't support the sentences they were originally attached to. Feel free to add them back in to support an appropriate assertion. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.
• Lampman , Jane (September 23, 1999). "Targeting cities with 'spiritual mapping,' prayer". The Christian Science Monitor. (This one is about Muthee, don't see any use for this in this article, given he has his own.)
• "Palin's Record On Church-State Separation". Associated Press. October 11, 2008.

If they don't actually say much in addition to what is already in the article, is there a need for a "complete bibliography"? Collect (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but they're here so someone who takes an interest can get at them more easily than by going back through the prior revisions. I've not run across anything that would be necessarily improved by citing one of these two sources, but that doesn't mean they might not have some value sometime. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside - the unreferenced material on "Master's Commission" seems to have ben far off the mark. The only full source for what it is is the AG site, which I give an exceedingly short precis of. It is almost precisely copied from LDS practice. Collect (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, great catch, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it did seem questionable. Glad the article is finally getting reasonable though.Ltwin (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Source leads back to... Huffington Post

Currently, the ref entitled CBS2 links to "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/animal/main4407986.shtml" However, that link in itself is just a link to "http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014517.php" which looks VERY bloglike and ends up getting the bulk of that particular piece from... "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html" So, we still have blog material, even though it's been laundered, in the article. Does this bug anyone?

Another problem is that that source doesn't support the full Kalnins quote. We need a published RS that does, or it needs to come out, I would say. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

When a "reliable source" uses Huff, and does not have its own sources, it is quite iffy. This is one case where the WP definition of RS needs attention for sure! Collect (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Huffington Post not considered a reliable source? Plasticup ^T/C 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The rationale about a "reliable source" is that the article has been fact-checked by, say, a newspaper. Huff does no factchecking on articles in it, they are, at best, opinion pieces usable as indiactors of their author's opinions only. Thus long lists of examples of "peer-reviewed journals" allowed as RS, and lots of cases of anything remotely blog-like as not meeting RS. One example -- a Salon article reporting the SAT scores of Palin -- which were a hoax. Would you accept Salon as a RS about her SAT scores as a result? WP:V is important. Huff fails. Collect (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Huffington Post fact-checks its articles. It may be a blog, but it is a professional blog. When used responsibly it can meet the criteria of WP:RS. Plasticup ^T/C 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard conflicting things on this. Has there been an WP:RS/N thread on using HuffPost for BLP stuff? I'm perfectly happy to abide by whatever consensus has been established, I was just trying to point every reference back to the original place of publication, and this single remaining issue makes me uneasy. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If CBS News trusts that blog post I don't see how we can challenge it. Plasticup ^T/C 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't trust it per se, they just included it, with a link to the original Washington Monthly. Without a lot more research, I'm not clear on the amount of vetting done or editorial oversight exercised. The Washington Monthly, in turn, has about 50% of the text copied verbatim from HuffPost. If we're going to use that, why not cite the Huffington Post directly? Frankly, my inclination at this point is to find an unquestionably reliable source to sub for that one, to avoid any doubts. Given the ink spilled on the topic, I'm relatively certain that will be no problem. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

vide "Palin SAT scores" hoax. Sure Huff does a full factchecking of its articles. sic. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/disgrasian/sarah-palin-below-average_b_133435.html Even Salon did a correction. Point? Huff is not a RS if it is taken in by a hoax and does not correct. So much for it doing "fact checking" for sure. Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a CBS News article. The argument for excluding the CBS article is that it has the same content as a Huffington Post post. This is rather twisted logic. CBS is a reliable source. End of story. Plasticup ^T/C 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We're talking about a Washington Monthly political column hosted on CBSnews.com. It's not branded as a CBS News article, hence my tracking down the original publication. It may be adequate sourcing thereby, but I'd rather find better. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal How about we move ref #2, the USA Today reference down, and lose the long block quote? Regardless of whether or not we keep the Washington Monthly blog post in or not, that block quote needs to be fully sourced from one RS (not off the sermon videos, sorry) or be pulled. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

kalnins

Do we risk muddying the article with lots of Kalnin's quotes and inferences? Unless, of course, we can claim pastor = beliefs of church congregation? Collect (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless Kalnins is notable enough to have his own article, which I don't think he is per WP:BLP1E, his stuff can go here. I think it's been sufficiently cut back to reflect what high-quality reliable sources have had to say about him. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Muthee

I understand and agree with the need to keep info about Thomas Muthee minimized in this article, but his mini-section was pretty awful. I hope my edits are acceptable. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your edits are fine--good job. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Excellent editing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?

Plasticup turned off archiving. I'd like to continue it--I think it serves to keep clutter down and focus discussions on current topics under discussion. What does everyone else think? Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This talk page isn't getting enough traffic to justify it. Plasticup ^T/C 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the topics no longer active should still be archived. Those issues have been resolved and it only makes it hard to distinguish between active discussions.Ltwin (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Try contacting a copyeditor, just to give a quick run through for typos/redundancies.The Ed Kalnins Controversy section is in particular need of rewording.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some of the links use different date formats. (2008-09-08 compared to 8 September 2008)

    Done Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article doesn't really give the reader a thorough understanding of the history of the church. Surely something other than Sarah Palin happened? I added a {{when}} tag in the history section; the year this happened would be a minimum. More concerning is the undue weight given to recent events and controversies

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There seems to be a lot of space given to the controversies of recent times, probably because it has the most resources. Try moving the controversies section below the Ministries information, having it as the first major section does appear a little biased. I am also a little concerned about the above mention of bias, but I haven't had sufficient time to investigate those claims further.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Unsure whether recent activity constitutes an edit war.

   I believe it does not. It's been essentially stable for three weeks, after one user failed to return after being blocked for sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

   I was pretty certain it wasn't - that was the warring I was concerned about. \ / (⁂) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   What is the likelihood that a picture of the church is found and usable?

   I'm not in Alaska, nor are any of the editors who've contributed most to this article. I'll see if I can ask around, but we've had a photo request up for weeks with no success. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, the article is in a reasonable shape. I'm putting it on hold until the above issues are sorted out, particularly in regards to the history section. \ / (⁂) 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

   Failed due to reasons below \ / (⁂) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I really doubt if this article is focused. IMO, There is WP:UNDUE to Palin.
  • If you'll look again WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints, not to coverage. For good or ill, the vast majority of coverage of this congregation has happened since Palin's rise to prominence. If the article deals more with Palin than anything else, that's a side effect of the focus of the RS coverage, that the editors of the article have tried to balance. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Main aspects like architecture, critical to an article relating to a building, is not covered.
  • The article focuses on the religious organization, which predated either of their buildings, rather than on the current physical structure. RS coverage of the church building itself appears nonexistent (see my above response) and thus we don't have any basis on which to discuss the structure. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• GA criteria do not need an article to have an image, so it's a pass there in my view. Though an image will be appreciated.
• "It teaches a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible." is WP:OR (original research) ref 1 says nothing about it. Also for a such a claim, a more Neutral source (not official site) is needed.
  • I'll find a better way to put that--I think that was leftover from a POV editor who no longer edits the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to the claim of WP:UNDUE, I was avoiding using that link because the majority of sources regarding the Wasilla Assembly of God are about Palin. As I said above in my comments, if the history was expanded enough, it would level it out to a reasonable ratio. In regards to the architecture, unless it was a particularly notable design, I can't see the need to describe the building. I guess a photo would cover it, but that is looking unlikely for the time being. I'm only keeping it as a 'nay' so if someone notices it, they can add an image: it won't affect the end result. Finally, in regards to the 'strict and literal interpretation', I would've thought that their own website would tell us what they do with the Bible better than another source could. \ / (⁂) 06:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How is the progress coming along? Haven't seen much movement so far. \ / (⁂) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't had time to sit down and redo the Kalnins stuff yet--was hoping someone else would step up, actually. More critically, I can't seem to find more detailed historical information than what's already in the article, which was listed as a critical deficit. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep the article on hold, but what would you think of simply rating this as a fail, allowing you to focus on the improvements needed without the time constraints. I'm sure once one or two editors get to work, you'll be able to renominate it before the month is out. \ / (⁂) 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and give it the week, and then fail it if improvements aren't forthcoming. Just because none of the editors have stepped up doesn't mean they won't. If they don't step up within the week, then I probably won't renominate it until and unless I get better historical info. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting done

I've gone through the article and tried to clean up things per the review. Can you look things over again and provide any new comments as appropriate? I've still not been able to find an RS to augment the history section. If that's a dealbreaker, I'm afraid I don't see a way around it. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work with the copyediting. In regards to the history, I don't feel that without an expanded history section that it passes 3a, maybe even 4 too. I'm going to fail the nomination, for the reasons above. The only thing I can think of to find a RS, is to either go to Wasilla and visit the church physically (too inconvenient, and could for most :) ), or to wait until everyone forgets about Sarah Palin, and get new materials from the church one they feel the world isn't watching them. \ / (⁂) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Can you go through and give the article an assessment? It's still "start" and "unassessed", I believe. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessed as B-class. \ / (⁂) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting Kalnins

Our GA reviewer has a point--the wording of Kalnins' controversy section could be improved. It looks like it's the consensus text after an ideological edit war, and I don't think that's a good thing. Does anyone want to take a crack at rewording that section, to capture the essence of what's there in an NPOV manner with a unified and appropriate voice? Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot find anyone, try WP:GoCE. I'm not sure how busy those guys are - it might not get done in seven days. \ / (⁂) 06:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a few other editors who should be interested in getting this passed. Frankly, I think the history specificity is the biggest challenge to a GA pass. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Exorcism and quotation marks

I came here to look for "good" links to the exorcism thing about Governor Palin. Unfortunately, I noticed here that the AP link for that story no longer works. Sorry I cannot help, because I am myself still searching for MSM links.

I took the liberty to correct a quotation by Kalnins. Admittedly, the quotation marks were also missing in the source - but it is not really controversial to correct the source's grammar when it is only punctuation. After all, you cannot really use something like sic to indicate the source's error on that. However, even though the introductory phrase mentioned Iraq, the words "But in Iraq" should never have been deleted from the quote. After all, it could be argued that Kalnins was talking about Afghanistan as well, or even meant "ever since 9/11" and, particularly considering what the guy thinks about 9/11, there is quite a danger of WP:SYNTH by deletion here.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd intended that change, in order to trim the wording down to the least awkward bit of the Kalnins' quote, but I can live with your version too.

Which "exorcism thing" are you after? There was an absolute plethora of stuff in the blogosphere, some of which was quite silly, but we've gone through a protracted edit war in order to keep this article to MSM links. At any rate, there are a couple of things I can think of which might be an "exorcism thing" but the closest is the whole Thomas Muthee/Mama Jane incident. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation and glad to help really. The broken link is to "Burke, Garance (2008-09-25). "Palin once blessed to be free from 'witchcraft'". Retrieved on 25 October 2008." It is still on ABC news ([46]), the South African Mail and Guardian [47] and the UK Independent [48]. The text seems the same in all three cases. I have no idea which one to use. The ABC News, and I agree US sources are preferable (if only because the counter argument is also formulated by a US source), tries to load an additional pop up window, and the South African page loaded faster with me for some strange reason (it contains more ads - could be a time zone thing) than the British one - but then the Independent is probably more trusted around the world than a South African newspaper. Burke is used to reference "Muthee's sermons have also been scrutinized, especially during a 2005 appearance at the Wasilla Assembly of God during which he prayed for Sarah Palin, asking God to protect her from witchcraft and for God to supply people and financial resources for her then-campaign for Alaska governor." --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, the terminology confused me. An exorcism is a religious attempt to remove present demonic or evil forces from a person or place. I never interpreted Muthee's prayer over Palin as an active exorcism, but more a blessing and prayer for protection from future witchcraft. The Independent source looks like an excellent one, it appears to capture everything I remember from the AP article, if not a bit more. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the text is the same in all three. Huffington also has it, but in this case is almost surely not the original source. It is just a question of which link is the most appropriate. Are you sure that the fact that the repudation following is by a US source, does not argue against using a UK source? Of course, it will not be visible in the text, but still. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think The Independent has been questioned as inadequately reliable for BLP material. ABC news is fine too, but I hate pop-ups. I'd prefer either to a South African source. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for finding and fixing that. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin category

What is the rationale for this not being in the Sarah Palin category? KConWiki (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... that no one ever proposed adding it? Feel free, it seems appropriate, it just never got brought up before. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainly -- at this point, Sarah Palin is quite tangential. Collect (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the only reason this congregation has enough RS coverage to merit retention is her former membership. Elsewise, it would simply be yet another Pentecostal church in "the sticks". Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Last Days" quote

Per cite - the full quote included a statement that the church should be prepared to minister to them. Emphasis was on church being able to grow as I read the quote. Not on the "Last Days" being imminent. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is cool, too. I'd rather give something like that more context, than remove it. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)