I don't believe so. I came upon it in RC while working on MWT and taking a break by fighting some vandalism (relaxing AND productive, although it proves that i need to get a life). I contacted the user about it: "Hi there, I noticed you've been adding to [[Pentecostal Mission]]. Thankyou for your contributions to Wikipedia; they are much valued. However, please remember that Wikipedia [[WP:NPOV|follows a neutral point of view]]. As a result, we cannot assert the existence of any particular divine being, referring to god with a capital G and as 'Himself' violates this policy. Please do not be discouraged from editing; just in future be aware that we may have to modify your contributions slightly so as not to imply the superiority of any particular religion over another. [...] " I don't think there's been any significant attempt at removing the POV, nor has there been any obvious attempt to put it back in after it has been removed. {{fact}} seems a little... mean. I know that sounds childish, but [[WP:BITE]], its true. One of the editors in the last 50 changes actually has a userpage (besides the CVU members RVing), while another has a talk page only because a newbie unfamiliar with policy (unsigned comment) has asked him if he is really who his username implies him to be. The rest are IP editors. I don't really care about this article in particular, I mean on a whole. Is there some sort of POV taskforce / wikiproject? I know there's some sort of taskforce for 'countering systematic bias' but I'm not so sure how it works or how effective it is. On 9/12/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The original article appears to be a copyvio. The new text is just too POV to even consider leaving in the article. Ian