Talk:All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California)

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Speculative, unsourced material

The article had some speculative material which I removed. It also has quite a lot of unsourced value judgments. A quick reading of news accounts showed some of the IRS information to be flat-out wrong. A lot of the controversy with the IRS issue revolves around shades of nuance, and the article made some flat-out, black-and-white assumptions and presumptions. More research and more careful editing is needed for this topic in the future. If the church continues to push its case through appeals, this may be a big future topic. UncleFester 05:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material should be true to the source

The article included the false statement that in September 2007 the IRS cleared the Church of any wrongdoing. A close reading of the article cited shows that the IRS concluded that the Church had indeed broken the rules, and that the IRS informed the Church of that in September 2007.

However, the IRS did not revoke the tax exempt status. That's a separate issue.

I also added a citation to the September 25, 2007 CCH news article on this. CCH indicates that it's unknown whether the IRS will assert monetary penalties against the Church. Famspear 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weasel?

Someone added a "weasel" tag to the article. I don't see what in it is weasel words; can the be identified in talk please? I'm removing the tag pending some explanation here; feel free to add the tag back if it's accompanied with explanation (including specific examples) here. Tb (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify "weasel" please? Revsusanrussell 04:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revsusanrussell (talk • contribs)

COI clarification

As a member of All Saints Church I have a vested interest in this article -- which was badly in need of updating -- being accurate and current. The history content is intended to achieve those goals with an appropriately neutral point of view. Revsusanrussell 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revsusanrussell (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- thanks for the clarification. I think you've done a good job, especially as you've been removing the weird promotional tone. I'll try to help out- remind me if you haven't heard back in a week or so, and keep up the good work, especially by finding references! tedder (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Definitely a learning curve -- thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revsusanrussell (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Revsusanrussell 03:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revsusanrussell (talk • contribs) [reply]

I also am interested in ASC (and a member, with some COI issues therefore), though with much less knowledge than Susan. I am delighted for all the work she has done lately. Wwheaton (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 2011 COI flag?

It appears to me that the April 2011 COI flag has been overtaken by events (OBE). The editor in question (revsusanrussell) has posted nothing related to this article in more than 6 years, although many other editors have posted changes since then. I believe the COI flag is now irrelevant and should be deleted from the main page, since it now is irrelevant and distracting. Of course, the discussion should remain on the Talk page for historical reference. Any objections? Bruin2 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than six months have passed since I posted the above comment. There has been no other action or comment by editors since then, so I conclude that the silence means consent (concurrence with my previous comment). There is no explanation for the multiple issues or tone flags, so I presume whatever those issues were about have been resolved in the meanwhile. I have removed the outdated flags from the main page today.Bruin2 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]