Talk:Assemblies of God USA

Neutrality issue 2024
For more than a month, contributions have been made which have drastically overhauled the article by removing properly cited, and objective information on the history and organization of this Christian denomination. It almost seems a bit more promotional, rather than unbiased by providing an objective understanding. I would propose this is a minor challenge as one of the main contributors is also a Pentecostal, though this cannot be used to deduct them as acting in bad faith. However, there does seem to be a bad faith issue with contributing in the sense one accused other editors of disliking Chi Alpha with its mentioning in the article: "Removing accusations involving LGBT - the accusations amounted to not liking Chi Alpha because it does not pro-LGBT. Tightened language to reflect the cited sources." Until a consensus is reached, I believe it is best to revert all of those specific, seemingly dubious changes until a consensus can be held in this article page discussion. The remainder of statistical updates, alongside other citations being added are definitely wonderful. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User:TheLionHasSeen, I did not accuse any editor of not liking Chi Alpha (whether an editor likes an organization is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia). I described the accusations given in the sources that were provided. Currently, the relevant part of "College ministry expansion, retraction, and controversies" section looks as follows:




 * The statement in the first clause has 2 sources, both articles from the Rice University student paper. First thing to point out, neither article describes Chi Alpha as a cult or "cult-like". In regards to the "controversies with the LGBT community", the articles discuss that some LGBTQ members of Chi Alpha are conflicted because they like the student organization, but they don't agree with its religious views on homosexuality and the fact they couldn't be student leaders and practicing homosexuals at the same time. The article quotes a bisexual student's account:




 * Another quote from the same student:




 * So, yes I guess we can describe Chi Alpha as believing that homosexual activity is a sin. I'm not sure that's really a "controversy", but whatever. The second clause of the first sentence says that there have been "psychological and sexual abuses throughout" the country. That is a major claim. Source 3 is an article from another student newspaper, this time from Winona State University. This is where the phrase "cult-like personalities" is found. But it is not used to describe the entire national organization, but the local chapter at Winona. It was mostly about how some people didn't like how Steph Peterson managed the chapter. Source 4 is a news article describing the arrest of a Chi Alpha pastor in Texas for child abuse. However, the article said nothing about him abusing members of Chi Alpha.


 * The Christianity Today report is being misrepresented in this article. The registered sex offender was not a minister but a mentor. The 2 pastors who allowed him to mentor despite knowing of his status were removed from their jobs by their congregations. And the denomination conducted an investigation. Why was any of this information removed?


 * I am going to restore the revised version I had previously authored to maintain fidelity to the sources and to remove the undo weight given to sources focusing on individual chapters. Ltwin (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitations to white ministers only
According to this archived article from Word and Witness, 20 December 1913 invitation to the organizational General Council was inclusive and extended to "all churches of God in Christ, to all Pentecostal or Apostolic Faith assemblies who desire with united purpose to cooperate in love and peace to push the interests of the Kingdom of God everywhere." https://pentecostalarchives.org/?a=d&d=WAW19131220-01.1.2&e=20--1--img-txIN This would challenge the claim on the third paragraph that invitation were only send to white ministers. How do we make sure that both claims are represented here? Or is it possible to do so? Tinihere (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY for more information on how Wikipedia allows primary sources to be used in Wikipedia articles. Essentially, the best sources are reliable secondary sources, see WP:SECONDARY. We have a recognized AG historian, Edith Blumhofer, cited in the first paragraph of the "General Council of 1914" section. The relevant sentence states, I'm not sure if the COGIC Book of Discipline is a reliable source for information on another denomination. Unless we can find a reliable source stating that invitations were only given to white ministers, that probably shouldn't be in the lede section. The lede section is supposed to be  (see WP:LEAD). It should not give details that are not already included in the body of the article. Ltwin (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)