Talk:Jesus Army/Archive 3

Content and Balance

My comment about this article is that it seems curiously unbalanced when it comes to content. Surely there is much more to be said about the Jesus Army than when they left or joined the Evangelical Alliance etc. This is a side point, really. Yet this is the first section after the introduction! There should be a whole section on the JA's charitable work through their Jesus Centres (I gather a new one has just opened in central London - why no mention here?). There should be more detail on the community side of the JA's operation, perhaps detailing its similarities and differences with other intentional Christian communities in Europe and the US. There should be a section about the JA's growing youth movement - a friend of mine tells me that this is quite significant and it certainly marks something of a contrast with the trend in UK churches. As it stands this article is weak in that it simply doesn't say enough. (If I had time, I might try to add some of this myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileypirate (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points.On a purely personal level I'd be very interested in learning more of the jesus army youth movement through this article and how that differs to other churches as my local church offers very little for the youths.Manicpixie (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The JA's ability to appeal to young men has undoubtedly accounted for much of its success in recent years. It would be interesting to know how young women are appealed to, given the JFC's emphasis on submission to men, which is rather at odds with the attitude of most other churches.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the article is desperately unbalanced, and there is a vast amount of material not covered. In Newell's chapter on the Jesus Army in Charismatic Christianity, there are 20 pages including endnotes. Of those about two paragraphs touch on opposition. In Chryssides there are 13 pages on the Jesus Army, one of which refers to the EA/BU saga. In Hunt in Pneuma, there are 21 pages, 1½ of which deal with opposition. That should give some idea of the proportions needed to reflect the balance as seen by neutral writers. I think we have dealt with past controversy more than well enough and others should feel free to expand the factual side of what the Jesus Army actually is and does. John Campbell (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the controversy you speak of confined to the EA/BU saga, John? Does concern expressed by INFORM, CIC, chaplaincies, planning departments and parishes, (ref expanding community uses of houses etc) not indicate an on-going concern about the JA? Why has it been possible to exclude mentions of cult concern and opposition groups? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because others do not see things in the same light as you do. Hence the proportions above, as reported by neutral observers. John Campbell (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We are all neutral, dear heart ;) it is just that more neutral people here see things your way. I suppose that is natural enough. People who see things my way have other interests, while JA advocates are more focused in on this subject. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my point. The WP:RSs I referred to above are academic in nature, not "advocates" for the Jesus Army. John Campbell (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

John, could the sources you mentioned be used to add more information about the Jesus Army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileypirate (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are those sources available to read on line John, would you be able to tell me where to find them if they are please?Manicpixie (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please increase the indent each time, using an extra ':' compared to the previous entry. Also please sign your comment with four '~'s. I am sure these sources would be more than suitable as we have already agreed that they are WP:RS. They are cited in full on the Article page itself. Click on the ISBN and Wikipedia takes you to a page where you can find (among other things) a link to a search for the books online in Google books. I have also provided a selection of quotes from the books in these talk pages (see the links to the Archives at the top of this page). There are also some links to useful sources on [1]. But you may wish to search for sources yourself, and probably ought to. You can try a Google Books or Google Scholar search for "Jesus Army" John Campbell (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I may well take a further look at this.Smileypirate (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed moratorium on edits by John and Peter

I am a little surprised that you, John, and Manicpixie, believe that much in this article is unsourced, given the very considerable effort we went to to write it, line by line....ensuring that nothing went uncited. I can understand the need for tweaking....but the wholseale re-writing of sections that even you have suggested?

I would like to propose that you and I agree a moratorium on edits, to allow the article to stabilise and to ensure that our contributions are not either undoing what we achieved before or merely countering the efforts of others. Haven't we done our bit?

I want to step back from all this. I certainly don't want to spend my summer holiday thinking about it. I can do that confidently if I don't feel that in my absence all that we have done will be unravelled. I don't get the impression that anyone who you might consider comes at this from my angle is interested and Manicpixie has said that he wants to leave things until later.

The whole idea was that we'd write an article which we could live with....and then back off. But now it is taking over our lives again. I agree that it isn't the article I would have liked either, but is it really unbalanced in favour of ex-members? From where I am standing, quite the contrary. You avoid the scrutiny and criticism which some feel you deserve, while being able to speak in some detail of the good works you do, where etc.

What do you think John? How do you fancy a summer free to get on with the things that matter to you? Me, I am off to get my flying licence. There is a PC in the club-house, but I'd rather be blogging my flying, than on here on fire-watch, trying to avert an edit war.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said that much of the article was unsourced peter, what I actually said was "Given that much of the contentions on this article have been about unsourced stories/details" That is 'not' saying that much of the article was unsourced, its saying that there have been strong debate over things that weren't. One area where I think the article unbalanced is the lack of information on the youth movement within the church, I think more needs to be put up on that section. I'd rather not have to leave double checking the sources I have but life is very busy at the moment.But if I get more freetime will be following up on them.Oh,it's not taking over my life peter, far too many other things to do that's all.Manicpixie (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Manicpixie. I am afraid I misunderstood - I get you now. I think John and I spend more time here now than we originally hoped would be necessary. I wasn't actually referring to the time you spend here. But, we are all busy with other stuff and this should not take up a disproportionate amount of the free time we have. I want to feel I can leave the article without having to keep checking that the hard work John, Rumiton and I did has not been all undone in my absence. I think that if John and I back off and agree ot leave things a while, little will change here, especially if you got on with your stuff too.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually spend a very small percentage of my freetime here Peter, I have far more important things to do.Manicpixie (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try not to see everything I say to you as some kind of jibe. I think I made it clear that I was talking about John and myself; I only include you, if at all, out of politeness. The section is about a moritorium between John and me. In fact, reading my last posting, I can't quite see why you thought it justified the suggestion that I, unlike you, have nothing better to do. The fact is that we all have more important things we'd rather be doing; thus the proposal.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't taking anything you said as a jibe nor was I implying anything.I was only explaining myself but it seems you're the one that have seen things as a jibe.I'll butt out of this section for now and leave it to you and John!Manicpixie (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if offense would be less easily inferred if you took a bit more care with your choice of words and consider how they might be read?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you & I, Pete, have achieved as much of a consensus as we are going to, and that Rumiton's help was vital. With that in mind I agree that the two of us between ourselves are unlikely to improve much (if at all) on what has already been written. John Campbell (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand you completely, John. You mean that you will continue to edit if I back off. Naturally, I can see why you would wish to keep a close eye on the article but my feeling is that since this is a controversial subject, it should have strong editors from both sides of the issue to ensure balance. My concern is that you will continue to champion the JA here, while there will be nobody willing to take on the frustrations necessary to do what I have been doing. How about agreeing not to change anything we have agreed together without contacting me first; only editing anything others contribute - or adding new sections?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you take me to be saying. What I meant was that the discussions between the two of us were unlikely to produce any improvement and it was sensible to back off from them. In addition, I don't intend to initiate anything new, either by editing what we have already worked on or by adding new material, but I will probably continue to contribute to the discussions as appropriate. John Campbell (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is pretty much what I meant, except that I thought you intended to work with Manicpixie and Smileypirate on something about the current youth scene; certainly I think they will wish to make such edits, which I know Manicpixie in particular feels would give greater balance to an article which says less about the present than about the past? Providing it doesn't become a SOAP/promotion for the JA (as I think the Jesus Centre references are already in danger of being), I have no very strong objections to that idea, especially if you exercise the same strict principles as you have until now (notwithstanding a shifting consensus in favour of the JA when I am not here).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In your absence I would feel more strictly constrained to avoid potential conflict of interest. John Campbell (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect you for saying that, John. Thank youBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiply Christian Network

During the edit process we appear to have lost all reference to the Multiply Christian Network. It is referred to in material in the Talk Archive pages and maybe elsewhere. William Kay suggests that it is significant, and we ought to reinclude it. Anyone up for it?

• idea (Evangelical Alliance magazine), May 1999: "... Multiply Christian Network, which links more than 30 churches in England and Wales with others abroad. Multiply was initiated in 1992 by the Jesus Fellowship Church."
• William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004). "The Army is noted for ... its linkage with more than 40 other independent Christian churches in the Multiply Network."

John Campbell (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, it used to say: "The Jesus Fellowship is also linked to other churches and groups in the UK and elsewhere through the Multiply Christian Network." John Campbell (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the multiply christian network mention should be re-included, how on earth did it drop off during the edit process?92.11.1.167 Manicpixie (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything to do with teh fact that almost all the network's friendly churches are actually just church plantings of JA groups rather than completely seperate churches?79.65.186.51 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Almost all" is not really true. In the UK, as the idea quote said: "While many of the churches linked to Multiply are congregations of the Jesus Fellowship Church, there are 16 other independent churches that are partners in the network. Three of these are already members of the Evangelical Alliance." See the EA reference for more details. Overseas there are many more churches. I think it was an accidental by-product of editing the BU & EA section. John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So, that's 16 out of how many altogether? I heard that the JA effectively created a network by setting up the member churches by new households of the church being members of the network. Isn't it a bit misleading?79.65.186.51 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (if I'm wrong correct me) the JA has no church households in other countries, If I'm correct in my thinking there then to say that almost all the networks friendly churches are JA planted is in itself misleading.Manicpixie (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above you will see the figures 30 & 40 from WP:RSs I quoted immediately above. That's fairly clear and hardly misleading. As a reminder, this page is for discussions about how to improve this article. John Campbell (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How many other countries are represented through multiply John, that is something worthy of inclusion in the article if you haven't already got it there?Manicpixie (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I make it 11 nations other than the UK, with a total of 51 overseas churches, according to the current list on the Multiply website. John Campbell (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to get embroiled (am just popping in), I wonder if it does not reflect rather dubiously that so many of your affiliated churches are in Lagos, Nigeria, given that it is a part of the world best known as a centre for confidence scams which target gullible Brits? I think it interesting that apart from JA church-plantings, you seem to have so few British affiliates. Do you find that most churches which want to be associated with you are otherwise marginalised? The list seems redolent of the one Bush was able to proffer of countries which supported the Iraq invasion; small countries willing to join a major player's list, however controversial the player's objectives.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what evidence exactly you have on which to make those remarks. John Campbell (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any unfortunate inferences you can take from what I say above may be drawn by anyone else from reading the list of church affiliates in Nigeria, a country I grew up in and one which is the source of bogus emails in everyone's mailboxes these days. I am not saying that there IS any connection, of course. All I am saying is that since Multiply was essentially a PR exercise designed to improve your image as a church which was not isolated - Mike Encourager said as much himself in an email-, and I understand he spear-headed it, or so DG told me last year - a long list of Nigerian churches, from a PR point of view - might be seen as an own goal.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly indulging in WP:OR, which I thought you had learned to avoid. The point is that WP:RS do not come to your conclusion (see above). John Campbell (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunate you are that there are so few sources, that few who would write them concern themselves with the controversies which rage in the real world or with the damage left by your experiments. You are benefiting from the fact that your sources are, in the main, written in a post-cult-bashing era, where greater liberalism in sociology makes close scrutiny of organisations like yours non-PC and where careers are made being seen to be tolerant of "cults". Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF John Campbell (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is about assuming the good faith of other editors, not the good faith of the subject content. I assume YOUR good faith as an honest editor, John. You are, however, in the invidious position of speaking up for a group which continues to be in bad odour.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's actually untrue, and doesn't seem to be intended to improve this particular Wikipedia page. Your last series of comments has been aimed at the integrity of the Multiply Christian Network, in disregard of the WP:RSs quoted above. However, they do take precedence over your personal opinions. We need at least to reinstate the missing sentence, which we previously agreed disappeared by mistake during the editing. John Campbell (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What is actually untrue? That you are in bad odour? The only thing that protects you from the assertion that you are thought badly of is Wikipedia's refusal to accept sites which are populated by ex-members of groups like yours and sites where participants are critical of you. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly. John. Seeing as an agreement has been made to reinstate the missing sentence that somehow got accidentally pruned in the editing process, it should be reinstated forthwith with no further discussion needed.

What sentence, and is this something that I have agreed to or are you talking about an agreement between the two of you?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondly. Peter. I have just spent sometime catching up with the discussion since I last had time to be here and I'm sorry to say that it really does seem that you are wanting to push your own point of view without the neutral sources to back them up.How is that being constructive in improving the artical?Manicpixie (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a case of pot calling the kettle black, Manic. You are hardly neutral, let's face it. Your double act with John is quite nauseating. You only ever ask him questions to which both of you clearly know the answers. It is rather like those creepy politicians in PM's question time who use up a rationed question in mutual self-congratulation: "Does the Right Honourable gentleman agree with me that he has done a splendid job...blah blah blah?". Some kind of neutrality can be achieved when opposing parties arrive at a negotiated settlement, but there is little hope of real neutrality when the negotiators want the same thing, the promotion of the JA.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you really might care to look at WP:AGF again. John Campbell (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter. My only interest here is to see a neutrally sourced balanced artical.When I ask questions it is because I don't know the answers, if I knew the answers I wouldn't waste time asking the questions. To call me a double act on those grounds is both untrue and could be considered as offensive.Manicpixie (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of "cult" concern groups

How can we include in the article the fact that FAIR, CIC and similar groups (+university chaplaincies) continue to list the JA as a cult or group of particular concern, without breaking Wiki's own rules about not using nebulous and controversial terms like "cult"? It seems curious anomaly that because of wikipedia's squeemishness about terms like cult, the JA is able to hide the fact that secular groups with a watching brief have not been as easily appeased as have evangelical groups? Just because we are not allowed to link to forums, blogs and "apostate" sites, does not mean that reference to them is forbidden. While the JA are able to exclude references to the large number of people who continue to regard the JA with great concern, they are able to create the illusion that they are now perfectly respectable? Wiki really can be quite perverse sometimes. A neutral article need not say that the wave of concern is justified, only that its existence is very real. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are lamenting the fact that you cannot break Wikipedia's rules. But they are there for a reason. The sources you wish to use are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia which must deal in academically reliable sources (WP:RS), not opinion. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes useless as an encyclopedia. Emotive, inaccurate terms may be suitable for blogs etc, but are simply not suitable in this setting - hence Wikipedia's rules. I recently added a section called 'Literary Plaudits' to the Wiki entry on Shakespeare (a personal interest of mine) and found it removed by another editor with the comment 'I can understand why this wasn't in the article when promoted to FA - it's equal to a trivia section'. After intially smarting, I realised the comment was entirely correct - my addition was unsuitable in terms of its genre. And that is the issue here, too. Smileypirate (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So, when there is a large body of people (and several large organisations) who are seriously concerned about the damage that the JA does every year, how do we say that without breaking the rules? I understand why we should have legitimate sources, but when nobody academic has studied the existence of charities and support groups which counsel people who leave new religious movements etc, how can they be referred to? Or are you saying that because a researcher has not written about something, it has not happened? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually wish to use blogs etc as sources, Smileypirate. You may have misunderstood me. What I wish to do is refer to the fact that numerous reputable organisations list the JA as a group that causes them considerable concern. I want to know why a link to Family Action Information and Research (formerly Rescue) is not permitted, for instance?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day rules are rules Peter,there've been many times I've been tempted to go against the rules but rules are there for a reason.And before you once again accuse me of being a double act, there are things I'd like to see included but can't be because of the rules,and don't go thinking I'm a sock puppet for anyone because I'm not.I'm my own person with my own views, there are things I agree with and things I don't but unless I can neutrally source them I choose to be quiet about them because of the rules.Lets all agree with a balance within the rules we have as we aren't going to improve this article otherwise.Manicpixie (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

JA people have such affection for rules and for not challenging them. And it is a happy coincidence that wikipedia gives them a rule that makes it possible for them to hide the fact that they are regarded as a cult, because in wikispeak it is non-pc to call a cult a cult. But by all means (as I have never thought that cult was a particularly clear or useful term) let's not call the JA a cult, but I don't see why we cannot refer to the fact that people in a world unconstrained by the pseudo-academic pretensions of wikipedia regard them, with very good cause, as a cult. After all, oblique reference is made to the fact that for one reason or another in the past, they were regarded as such by some. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, your point of view is that of a small minority and not widely shared, despite your claims to the contrary. The Jesus Army is recognised as a genuine Christian church by churches and organisations across the board. Your persistence in referring to it as a cult is not only against both the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, but defamatory of myself and every other member of the church. And that is also against the rules of Wikipedia, whether in the article or on this page. Please respect the Wikipedia process, or go and play elsewhere. John Campbell (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sophistry is beneath you, John. I have actually not called you a cult at all. Scroll up and you will see me say that actually I have never thought cult was a very useful term, and if you read my blog, you will see me saying that I do NOT think that the JA IS a cult, though I do think that your authoritarian style of discipleship holds many of the characteristics of many so-called cults. So, who's defaming who? I agree that cult is a largely unhelpful term because it is emotive and allusional, without there being any universally accepted definition. So, I accept not using the word, but what I think is misguided about the wikipedia position (or at least your apparent take on it) is that for you to hold that since you cannot be called a cult in the article, no claims can be made in the article about the fact that cult-concern groups, like Ian Haworth's and FAIR continue to be concerned about the JA's adverse impact on a lot of people. I believe I have been at pains to refer to such groups as having an interest in new religious movements, rather than cults, per se. Your assertion that the fact that you are Christians means that you cannot be cultic don't hold much water. The tendency to cultism is about organisational structures and praxis, not theology, necessarily. Some argue that Catholicism, for instance, is cultic. The Boston Church of Christ, which is evangelical in emphasis is also regarded, widely, as cultic.

It is quite important that you do not seek to mislead people here about my position in order to silence me, John. However much you dislike my position, I believe you owe me an apology here. I wouldn't be bullied when I was a member, and I am damned if I am going to be bullied when I am an ex- one.Wikipedia's rules exist to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. They do not exist to protect you and the JA from legitimate scrutiny. Sophistry is deceitful and I'd always imagined that deceit was beneath you, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented your position, I apologise. But quite honestly, that was what I read into what you were writing here. John Campbell (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to say above was "That was how I read what you were saying". A mere slip of the finger. However, that does not justify abusing me, nor bullying Wiki editors. As for sophistry, I now understand you to have been saying we can't call the JA a cult, but we should be able to say someone else does. John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the point about assuming good faith that you do not read something into what someone else says, you just read what they are actually saying? You assume I am hostile (fair comment) so you assume that I speak for all the most hostile views people hold (not fair). I am not saying that the JA is a cult, though I do think that such an opinion was fair comment in your earlier days, before you became less exclusive and became open to other Christians. Minority view or not, there are still a number of groups (like FAIR) which regard you variously as a NRM, a sect or a cult, and really the term they use is less important than the fact that they feel they have good cause for concern. It strikes me that saying that they are biased is like saying that the police are biased against crime....and should not therefore be supported. Concern groups do not have concerns about you just because they don't like you, they are concerned because they are frequently contacted by families of members or by ex-members themselves, seeking help. In other words, their concerns are not based on prejudice but experience. It seems invidious to seek to use rules designed to maintain neutrality in order to censor editors from making mention of such groups.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We obviously both have our differing experiences and points of view, and that is only to be expected. What we are talking about here is how we can work together to construct an encyclopedic article. The reason these things do not belong here is that those sources are biased and not authoritative. For the same reason we can't include references to invitations to Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament (the latter for a presentation of an award), support from Members of Parliament and the European Parliament, Councillors and Mayors, membership of local Churches Together networks and ministers fraternals. And, by the way, I know of no Chaplaincy that lists the Jesus Army as a cult or group that it warns against. On a quick search of the internet, I found only that the Jesus Army is listed in the Warwick University Chaplaincy's "Guide to Places of Worship" under "Christian Independent and Other". (See this document.) John Campbell (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

yes :) I saw that. You were on the last page, with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and before a new sections on other faiths (Hindus etc).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, that is on page 30 out of 35, under "Christian Independent & other", while Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists are on page 31 under "Non conformist" and Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Sikh follow on pages 32-35. John Campbell (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I still have (somewhere in the loft) my file of letters from MPs expressing concern about you (JFC) too, along with my notes for a presentation to a Pariamentary sub-committee on cults which asked me to speak about my experiences of the JA. Incidentally, you and I know only too well in how little esteem you hold public officials whose support you seek, like the time when DG asked the local lady mayor to open a function, while he sat on the bus trashing her for her self-important worldliness. As you say, we all have our own experiences. In my JA file I am certain you have note of a conversation between the chaplain of Bristol Uni who had provided funding for the 1st edn of my pamphlet, in which Noel told the chaplain that I was not to be trusted because I was mentally unstable. A low trick which backfired.Incidentally, does suggesting in your edit summaries that I want to find a way to break the wiki rules show good faith, or is it not in fact defamatory?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And your neutral sources for the above are? Manicpixie (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is exactly what I am saying. There is a chasm between the truth and what wikipedia reveals. From where I sit, I'd say that is a dichotomy which serves your interests more than it serves mine. But as well as reading the article, serious readers will read this too, and hopefully they will see the efforts put in by some editors to keeping certain types of detail out of the article.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer the question,you've yet to give us a link to these neutral sources of yours.Would it be ok for me also to drag things out of the loft after 20+ years up there and claim them as neutral sources..I don't think so.Manicpixie (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I claim to have neutral sources, Manicpixie? What I have is evidence which would stand up in a court of law. It doesn't matter if it cannot be allowed in the article. The point is that there are counselling and information groups which exist to help members of cults, sects and New Religious Movements and these groups list the JA as being serious cause for concern. It is convenient for the JA if that fact can be suppressed, but what matters to me is that by making that point here, I am seeing to it that it is on the public record [[2]]. I think people will want to know why that fact can be suppressed when it is possible for just such a group to have an article of its own here :) So too, I have just discovered, does the Cult Information Centre[[3]], which cites the JA as a cult. So, you see, it seems that it is possible to use the word cult in the right context! It is just a matter of making the right links, now.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was that you hadn't directly answered my question in your reply, maybe I misunderstood you. But at the end of the day we need firstly up to date information in this article as much as possible and secondly we need to be able to source it for the improvement of the article. Aren't we all here to see this article as balanced as possible given the usable sources at hand? Stuff eons old from my attic just wouldn't doManicpixie (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are rather inclined to treat this discussion as an inquisition, Manicpixie. If you would try not to badger me and try not to talk to me in your sarcastic and combative tone, I might be more ready to take you seriously. The age of a source is irrelevant, but you had missed the point. John had referred to loads of stuff that he cannot use because it is biased and I said we all have loads of that stuff - like the stuff in my loft.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just say that I missunderstood you rather than getting nasty then,maybe it's you that has missed the point.But whatever,we've all loads of stuff that we can't use,but what is the point on harpping on about what can't be used,lets agree what can be.Manicpixie (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I just give back what I tend receive from you, Manicpixie. If it hurt you that you felt I was nasty, could you keep in mind that I am just as human and try not to be quite so unpleasant to me? When I realised that there is an article on each of the cult concern groups I cited earlier, I realised that they could be included anywayBristol Sycamore (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because I challenged you that doesn't mean I was being unpleasant in the slightest, and no I'm not hurt. Why didn't you say earlier that you had unbiased neutral links?Manicpixie (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These are not unbiassed and neutral, nor are they WP:RS. Pushing a POV will not help build an stable article John Campbell (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I am away for two days now. But when I get back we will have to deal with the fact that you changed the title of this section to make it look as if I deliberately intended to break wikipedia rules, when it was clear from the wording that the opposte was the case. I have changed it back. I regard this as a despicable bit of nastiness, which I would never have imagined you capable of. I think this may call for the intervention of a moderator.Not only are you not assuming good faith, but you are now being flagrantly manipulative. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Section titles are meant to be non-contentious and are not meant to represent a summary of your views. I object to posting under a section title that I profoundly disagree with. I have changed it to something totally non-contentious and I hope you can accept that. As for the rest of your rudeness, I will overlook that. John Campbell (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not obliged to contribute to any section you disagree with; Just don't post. But not liking the direction of the discussion does not give you the right to change the title in order to trash me personally, by implying an intention to break the rules. The section is not about rules but about cult organisations which list you and about how they can be included without any editor asserting that the JA is a cult. By all means ignore anything I say about your behaviour but it does not change the fact that your have been hostile and manipulative. Naturally the consensus here is pro-JA, but only because JA people have rallied to back the JA here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Only unsourced material can be removed wholesale

Please be aware, Manicpixie, that just because you don't like something in an article does not entitle you to remove it, wholesale. Only when something is unsourced can it be removed, though it is considered good practice to leave a "citation needed" request in parentheses, rather than deleting something.

You may not be aware, as I appreciate that you are relatively new, that consensus is not required before something can be added to an article. I think you may have misunderstood, also, that the moratorium was a gentlemen's agreement between John and myself and that it only covered the period of the summer holiday. If you scroll up you will see that to be the case. Essentially I was seeking to stop things changing dramatically in my absence when I was away on holiday.

If you remove the edit again, I will bring it to the wikipedia moderators' attention as a case of vandalism. I do not think that you have grounds under wikipedia rules to remove it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that consensus is not needed to add to an article but with the moratorium or gentlemen's agreement as you put it was in place I thought it rather unfair that it seemed you broke it (maybe your summer holidays are different to mine as school's still out here at the moment) I did remove your edit in good faith as it looked as you where going against what you'd first agreed to. Not quite sure what you thought would change dramatically if you're only away for a couple of days though,plus I don't see how removing an edit in good faith as I've explained above counts as vandalism.Manicpixie (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not vandalism. It certainly was not clear that the moratorium covered the summer only. Bristol wrote: "I would like to propose that you and I {Bristol and John} agree a moratorium on edits, to allow the article to stabilise and to ensure that our contributions are not either undoing what we achieved before or merely countering the efforts of others. Haven't we done our bit?". Up to you, Bristol, though.

It was clear to anyone who read the WHOLE proposal, which included: "I want to step back from all this. I certainly don't want to spend my summer holiday thinking about it" and near the end I asked you. "What do you think John? How do you fancy a summer free to get on with the things that matter to you?". Is there really anyone who think we are still in summer? It is clearly over, as is the school holiday.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The section that Bristol added was unspecific and completely unsourced, and duplicated matter that was already in the article about the anticult movement. I should point out that there being a Wikipedia article about them doesn't make any of the groups Bristol referred to into a WP:RS. It all looked like a blatant attempt at POV pushing. I think Manicpixie was quite within his rights to remove it, and if that is the consensus among the interested editors, he should do so again. John Campbell (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you say that, but I am not saying that you area cult, the CIC and FAIR are. If it is anyone's point of view, it is theirs. All the article did was report teh fact. This does not repeat what had already been said about the anti-cult movement, because that implied that the cult concern was past, while the links make it clear that the JA is STILL listed as a cult. It seems to me - and I am sure would seem to someone with no JA/anti or ex-JA connection a clear attempt to pust your POV that the JA is not a cult by seeking to censor a fact.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the BU/EA section that has already been agreed to during the edit process.As there is already mention of the 'cult' concern in that I feel there is no need for that information to be duplicated, if interested editors agree to the removed of duplicate information I'll remove it if that is within my rightsManicpixie (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful that you reinstated it. I agree that you were right to do it and do wonder why anyone felt entitled to remove it in the first place, but let me reiterate that just because the issue of culthood was addressed twenty odd years ago does not mean that it need not be mentioned here. This is because the reinstated paragraph refers to a particulatr time when there was lots of cult mania, and the article as it stands implies that accusations were put to rest. My edit refers to present-day listings of cults, suggesting that people continue to be concerned in a time wehen society is far less interested in cults generally and when most people have a tolerance of different ways of living.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed as unencyclopedic, an example of WP:SOAP and an infringment of WP:NPOV.Smileypirate (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you don't like a section which might lead readers to the fact that the JA is listed as a cult, but I can't see how you can assert that the edit as I put it is unencyclopedic: Please could someone pick it apart and show how it is inaccurate:

"Secular cult concern groups, like the British based charity, the Cult Information Centre and FAIR - Family Action Information Resource both list the JA as being a group which is of particular concern to them. Christian groups, too, have been concerned about Jesus Army: The Reachout Trust, which gives as its aim, to "Examine in the light of the Christian gospel the beliefs and spirituality of people within the cults, occults, new age and all not upholding to biblical truth"1 has also been concerned about the JA since the mid-1980s."

You only have to look at the websites of the organisations (I provided links which you have removed because you don't like them, even though they are included in wiki articles) you will see that what I assert is true. I have provided a link to the quote, so that there can be no question of that being a fabrication.

Doesn't it just boil down to lots of pro-JA people wanting to suppress the truth? Are people here saying that Reachout, FAIR and CIC do not list the JA, or are people saying that they are not concerned about the JA, are people saying that CIC is not a charity, or secular, or articled on wiki? What are you really all saying apart from the fact that you are unhappy with someone banging on about something you'd rather was not aired?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above at length. Smileypirate summarises the points above. John Campbell (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion? Not sure there has been any, let alone at length. Unless anyone can adduce any real argument, rather than just slinging accusations of bias at me, the edit will continue to go in...until a moderator can help us sort this out.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid an edit war!

For goodness sake, let's not get to the point where we need to ask wikipedia to intervene again. The wholesale removal (by chocoholica and manicpixie)of properly sourced edits are against the rules and the spirit of wikipedia. John's dirty trick of changing the wording of the section I started, attempting to change the tenor of my posting and leaving the impression that I was deliberately seeking to break wiki rules was also despicable -along with his assertion (perhaps he had misunderstood?) that I was asserting that the JA is a cult, thereby putting words into my mouth; and accusing me of defamation as a result, looked like deliberate sophistry (though I am willing to consider that it was a mistake). Underhand tactics really must stop.So far I have sought agreement before making edits, but as I am entitled to do so without getting consensus, if the uncooperative and hostile editing continues, the discussion page will cease to function and I shall join others in making edits without seeking consensus first. John and I found that however much it grates, it is preferable that edit warring is avoided and that discussion is entered into. I think we should all stop and think about whether a war is really what anyone here wants. The peace as it exists is likely to serve JA interests better than a free-for-all.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of interested editors here appears to be that your edits were unhelpful to the balance of the page. They certainly were unsourced and were not in any case from WP:RS, nor did they represemt a WP:NPOV. If that is truly the consensus of the other interested editors, I would support that edit being removed in its entirety.

Changing the section title did not in any way change the contents of your posting, Bristol, it merely made it possible for others to add their comments.

And I agree, an edit war helps no-one. But to achieve the cessation of hostilities we have to be prepared to back down. Personally I would accept the page to reverting to what it was before the latest round. John Campbell (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about some of Bristol’s comments, in particular, ‘as well as reading the article, serious readers will read this [talk page] too, and hopefully they will see the efforts put in by some editors to keeping certain types of detail out of the article’. As one of those ‘serious readers’ with an interest in British charismatic Christianity, it is clear to me that this is flagrant WP:SOAP and an obvious attempt to bypass Wikipedia’s good practice. Bristol, you are frustrated to find that your point of view on the JA cannot be aired in the Wikipedia article (a point of view which, bizarrely enough, you appear to base upon some documents from the 1980s, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood). But expressing a point of view is expressly NOT what an encyclopedia is for. Hence WP:NPOV which Wikipedia itself describes as a ‘fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia’. Smileypirate (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashing, but point out where in the edit I express a POV?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No Smileypirate, I think you must have misunderstood. My POV is based on former membership of the JA, an interest in them since the 1980s, keeping abreast of developments through the last decade or so and having had a dialogue with them for a couple of years up until last summer, when a member contacted me, asked for help leaving and then came to stay with me for the summer, and filling me in on recent practice. It is also based on correspondence with numerous people who left in the last two years. It is also based on a long term association with Mike Aldrich of Jesus Army Watch going back to the early 1990s. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am new to this site so please excuse any errors i may make, I have just discovered this page and i must say i am absolutely Blown away.I cannot understand why this chap Sycamore, has such a problem with the Jesus Army. Has he not read the History of the modern church? has he not seen what was done in the name of all our current churches , in there past, I thought we are encouraged as Christians to move in Grace and Forgiveness. God has been so merciful to us should we not show that Mercie to our brothers and sisters in Christ. If things have stood still the there would be no growth, If something is learn't from past actions and deeds do we need to keep harping back to old errors. I feel my Friend Sycamore it is time to let go of the past and move in the now and look to the future. Pophil Concerned Cornish Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pophil

(talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [edit moved to bottom John Campbell (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)]

My problem is not with the JA's past errors but with the fact that they continue to be repeated. I let go of my past. Forgiveness benefits the forgiver - it is part of his healing. But the kind of forgiveness you seem to advocate would just mean turning a blind eye to harm continuing to be done.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pophil to sign you contributions just add four ~ then the autosign won't kick in Manicpixie (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a POV is a POV and an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia.Smileypirate (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but who are you saying has a point of view? The reference to the JA being listed by some as a cult is a statement of fact. FAIR and CIC are not writing the edit, I am. And I have actually said that I don't think that cult is a particularly useful word, and I tend to avoid using it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a balanced edit, and appears to be written to push your POV. Why don't you try to write a more balanced paragraph instead, perhaps using it to replace what we agreed higher up. That would need perhaps need to start "Despite the widespread acceptance of the Jesus Army by... " before turning to these "anti" groups. Please note that WP:WTA says "If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group." But then that is what we have done in the carefully-crafted sentences that we have further up, which speak of specific concerns and are actually sourced, unlike this assertion. John Campbell (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that may be a possibility, though I wonder how the widespread acceptance can be asserted without it being just "their" POV. After all, why is opposition bias, but acceptance not? I do wonder how you would prove "widespread acceptance". It is almost as if you are ready to compromise the objection to the POV position if I am willing to allow you to put a bit of POV in which will favour you. You see my problem?

I am willing to focus on what is wrong with the JA or to focus on what FAIR and CIC say is wrong, but I anticipate putting loads of effort in just for all the rest of you to throw it out without much considerationBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[section split and continued immediately below. John Campbell (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]

Balance And Improvement

Firstly I think I should say that I am not a community member nor am I an ex community member, I don't live near this church. That probably makes my interest here pretty neutral as all I want to see is a reasoned and balanced article.

I have reverted the edits made by chocoholic as those where all things that had been previously agreed to through the lengthy edit process that went on a while ago (i hope they've all been replaced anyway but sorry if I've missed one).Those edits that I replaced did cover the concerns shown by some about this church seeming cultic at one time. As those concerns are already covered I don't see the need for them to be duplicated in any way.I don't see that the recent links added are needed for the balance of this article.

Aren't we all here too see this article kept balanced and see it improved as much as it can be? Would like to see more about the youth culture of the church added to if anyone has the resources to them.Manicpixie (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be some material in the sources I quoted earlier. Some of that is in the archives of this Talk page, but there may be more material that I can find from academic books and papers such as those. John Campbell (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Representing the range of views

One way of achieving NPOV is to recognise both sides, not necesarily to show no points of view. Stephen J Hunt refers to the "entry of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream" and says "To some in the broader movement, the Jesus Fellowship will always be something of an enigma, tending towards exclusiveness and displaying a sectarianism incongruent with contemporary Pentecostalism. To others, the Jesus Fellowship will continue to epitomize the fullest expression of Christian and Pentecostal life." That is an example of a balanced summary from a secondary source, and what we ought to seek to emulate. There are other issues with your edit, as have been discussed above

• It does not represent a WP:NPOV and appears to be a case of POV pushing, unbalancing the article as a whole and duplicating material included above
• It is not based on WP:RS, in particular you need a secondary source reporting that these are the views of the organisations you seek to mention. This doesn't include Wikipedia, by the way.
• It deals with a minority view alone
• It appears from what you have written above that it is an attempt to bypass WP:WTA and include the word cult
• It uses the words "concern" four times in a value-loaded way, without indicating what the concern might be.
• It includes material which is irrelevant to the article (the aims of Reachout, for example)

But above all, it has been rejected by the consensus of other active editors on this page. If you want to include that or similar material, you will have to argue your case more convincingly here. John Campbell (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a rewrite of the paragraph with some references and in a more balanced manner. But it still has no reliable secondary sources for the anti-cult groups' listing. See WP:SOURCES, WP:SPS John Campbell (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this was my attempted rewrite:

Despite the entry of the Jesus Army into the charismatic mainstream¹, the church continues to attract a range of views² and anti-cult groups like the Cult Information Centre, FAIR and Reachout Trust still include the Jesus Army on their lists.

1. Hunt in Pneuma, p. 24: "marked by ... the entry of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream"

2. Hunt in Pneuma, p. 40: "To some in the broader movement, the Jesus Fellowship will always be something of an enigma, tending towards exclusiveness and displaying a sectarianism incongruent with contemporary Pentecostalism. To others, the Jesus Fellowship will continue to epitomize the fullest expression of Christian and Pentecostal life."

But manicpixie thought it was not needed (see edit summary), and in any case the reference to the anti groups was unsourced. John Campbell (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Manicpixie's edit because it seemed to me that you had managed to find a way of summarising the range of views in a balanced way. Removing a balanced edit on the grounds that it does not contribute to balance strikes me as perverse. By all means, if there is tweaking for us (or either of you) to do, let it be done, but the wholesale removal of something with as little justification as Manipixie gave really isn't the way things should be done. I am sorry that I managed to completely overlook your efforts, John. You were obviously trying to find a way to represent things fairlyBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the anti groups is still unsourced as far as I can seeManicpixie (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you will be glad to know that I have found one in the Guardian and another in a BBC online article, both of which quote John Campbell claiming that Ian Haworth of CIC is talking nonsense. One of the two articles concerns the CIC having been approached by a sixth form college after their students had been targeted by NRMs. I am off to bed now, but you may be certain that I will provide the sources just as soon as I can. I am surprised that John himself did not cite these sources, as he had clearly crossed swords with the Cult Information Centre on behalf of the JA.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I am aware of the BBC online article[[4]], I am not sure that it actually answers the need as it dates back to July 1999 and isn't sufficient to source the phrase "still include the Jesus Army on their lists", particularly as this was before JA rejoined the EA. [Edit following memory lapse John Campbell (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]

However some of the new religions which have been criticised are none too happy about Mr Haworth's talks. "He's talking absolute nonsense," says John Campbell of the evangelical Christian group, The Jesus Army. "In my view he shouldn't be allowed into schools. If it's an issue of giving unbiased information, he cannot do that. We wouldn't feel it would be right for us to push a point of view in a school. That would be an unethical position."

I don't know of the Guardian article - the only ones I know of are [[5]]:

Many of the Christian evangelical/ charismatic movements use the web to attract newcomers. John Campbell, webmaster for the Manchester-based Jesus Army explains: "Our aim on the internet is to communicate the unchanging Christian message in a modern manner. I'm sure if Jesus was around today he'd use the internet!" The site runs a message board that Campbell says attracts a lot of good natured discussion, and a prayer request service.

and [[6]]:

The city council and voluntary groups including the charismatic Jesus Army church, which has won the trust and membership of many Pitsmoor Slovaks, meet some of the need with advice and referrals to new landlords. The church helped Milan find a new house in a quiet side-street just in time for the arrival of his first grandchild, Alex, plus room for the family's traditional Roma display of artificial flowers and china ornaments, including an entire shelf of porcelain parrots.

In any case, do we then just say "anti cult groups such as the CIC" [only], and give that citation, and the Wikilink? [Doh! After remembering the main reason why I rejected this citation earlier, I think it is inadequate for point John Campbell (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]

The question of balance that manicpixie brings up is not one of the balance of the paragraph but of the article taken as a whole, which is a genuine Wiki issue. It's easy to overbalance on one aspect of an article. Repeated material would be one obvious indication of that. John Campbell (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, those who have popped in and not stayed around, but who have expressed an opinion, like Gramby and someone else whose name escapes me now, have said that the article comes across as a PR exercise for the JA, don't they. It is quite clear to me (and to them) that the article is essentially pro-JA. Anyone genuinely interested in balance would be willing to concede the need for something which more fairly represents the fact that actually you remain very controversial. On the CIC front, I have contacted Iam Haworth and hope that he may be able to suggest a source which is more recent, though the implication that it would be wrong under wiki rules to just produce a link to the list itself, beggars belief.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been mixed views, actually, and I think there have been more who have expressed the view that this article overbalances on criticism. And when you say (lower down) "I am proud of what we achieved, John, and don't have any particular desire to alter it." does this mean you think the article as it stood then was balanced? The Wiki requirement for secondary sources is partly linked to the need to ensure notability (and avoid original research). As I said before, there is plenty of material that I might like to see included here but for which I am not aware of reliable sources and so cannot be included here. You might feel, possibly with some justification, that that indicates that others have not felt it is sufficiently important to report in a reliable fashion. So for better or worse it cuts both ways. John Campbell (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I think the article balanced as it stood? No, clearly I feel that it favoured you. Balance is not about scoring an equal number of hits. It is about fairly representing the truth in an impartial way. But I think that considering our opposing stances, what was achieved was fairly remarkable, and that was possible, not least of all, because of your willingness to be open with your sources. Without your recent edit the article gave the impression that you had achieved total respectability, leaving the "cult" allegations far in the past, which we both know to be quite untrue. The reason I had no particular desire to alter the article is that we have seen how doing so leads to editing by others who take your stance and who feel at liberty to change what we have already established. The article is the lesser of two evils; the greater being an edit war, which I presume neither of us wants? The two lines you added about contrasting views add value to the article without destabilising it or unbalancing it...and because they conceded the concern that some people still have, I believe you have made the article more balanced than it was. Your edit must be allowed to stand and, to that end I will endeavour to find an appropriate source. It would be absurd and frankly disingenous for wiki rules of evidence to be misused by some to suppress that fact that cult-concern groups list you, which I think is what some here want to do. I therefore hope I can count on your help to find a relevant and appropriate reference?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The BU/EA section as it stood before was balanced and doesn't need that final edit of Johns no matter how it was worded. It already says "from it's inception the JA aroused controversy" and dealt with the 'cult' concerns, to add anymore is a duplication of information already covered and not needed for the purpose of an encyclopedia. The BBC article is no good as a source as it is too old, written before rejoining the EA and those lists out dated. Surely EA membership and acceptance by other major churches is far more important than an outdated minority view.Manicpixie (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Manicpixie, a section with nothing it it is balanced! The point is that as John has written it, it is no less balanced now, while at the same time adding information which was not there already. The suggestion that the information is "outdated" is your POV, and how you measure the size of a minority is difficult to say; though it cannot be insignificant that three different organisations list you, one of them being a Christian charity. As it stood, the tense and historical context gave the impression that the JA's cult issues were very much in the past, before it achieved its current level of respectability. What John's additional information tells us is that despite this, the JA remains a concern for a certain number of people. You cannot say that because the issue of cultism had been addressed in the past, it didn't need to be mentioned again - because the context has changed. Also, I think you may wish to avoid the suggestion that in the name of balance you want to suppress the concern about the JA's alleged cultism, particularly when such an act might be seen as cultic in nature.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't worry about sources. After the weekend Ian Haworth of CIC will help us find the needed secondary sources. But I have also been reading the help section and apparently the judicious use of primary sources is allowed. I think if we went to a mod we would find that since the section refers to a list, the presenting of the list as evidence of its own existence (providing no commentary is added to the citation) would suffice. But as the application of the rules is subjective and calls for discussion, I suspect that nobody pro-JA here will want to give that concession. Let's be honest Manic, you don't like the JA being accused of cultism, so you want to use whatever argument you can muster to stop it being included. Is that not so?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol, could you please point me to what is said about the allowability of primary sources. However, if you are going to attack ManicPixie's integrity in such clear terms (when what he says is totally logical and eminently reasonable), it may well be best that we involve an admin again. Personally I would be happy for us to do so as I'm not sure that you really have the heart for compromise here, which is what is needed for Wikipedia editing. What ManicPixie is arguing for is an article which you had previously agreed, with the help of a neutral editor! On the face of it, it you who is being unreasonable and pushing a POV. John Campbell (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whose POV? It is YOUR edit that ManicPixie objects to! It was necessitated, it seemed to me, by Manic's and Smiley's push to have more pro-JA stuff in the article, stuff about all your overseas affiliates, your youth work, etc.....all things which add to the previously stable and balanced article. If I could be sure that between you you would not add anything more to the article, which would favour the JA, I think I might go away. But while there does seem to be a drive to remove stuff previously agreed to and to add yet more stuff, I think I need to be here to ensure balance, particularly when the consensus (here) is currently pro-JA and antagonistic to anything I suggest. But yes, if you think an admin would help, I am willing to go along with it. I suggested it earler, when you changed the title of my section to imply that I wanted to deliberately break the rules, if you recall?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose"[[7]] It seems to me that a list is, objectively, just a list - and is not an evaluation. But I know you will argue otherwise, so I am going to pursue the Ian Haworth angle. We needn't argue about this now....if you want to take your edit out until I can confirm the source, you may take that as my good faith on the matterBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Active and open dialogue

I haven't been here for a few days because I don't think I am doing much good here. It is hard to change a consensus when the majority of people who have been encouraged to take part since the article was stabilised are JA apologists or members. I think perhaps you misunderstand what wiki's concept of consensus is - i.e. it is not a democratic process. This page reminds me of those constituencies where the boundaries are moved in order to undermine left wing local govenent. Cynical business.

Anyway, you guys go ahead and write whatever you like here and I will come back later and see where it can be changed to more accurately reflect the JA as most people (not just the people active here) know it.

I think my energies are more usefully spent learning to fly, which I absolutely love, and when not working, contributing to active dialogue with the JA through the Sheffield Forum, where there is no censorship to speak of and where you can tell the truth without people saying, in effect, "Ooops, you are not allowed to speak the truth here, it is against the rules".

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=168369&page=26

It will be interesting to see how much of what I have just written you censor.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP again. And once again an attempt to denigrate Wiki principles and undermine the rules. Not to mention an attack on other editors despite WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. This discussion is meant to be about improvements to this article. I am well aware of what consensus means, and how we worked to achieve it in the past. However what you have been engaging in recently, and are now threatening to do in the future, seems to me to be morelike disruptive editing or tendentious editing. John Campbell (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya see what I mean, folks? John, it is only possible to achieve consensus when there is a balance of people represented. When we wrote the stable article there was a presumption of good faith and two opposing POVs submitted to a process overseen by a neutral person. That situation cannot be continued when what we have is a gathering of apologists for the JA ganging up on a single ex member, editing what he says, changing his titles, putting words in his mouth and constantly undoing his edits, then accusing him of rule breaking at every step when he gets irked by their tactics. How you have the conceit to accuse me of non-neutrality in those circumstances is incredible.

So you go ahead with re-writing an article along your lines and I will do what is entirely my prerogative, and edit it later when you run out of steam. I am not threatening you with disruptive editing (where's the AGF in your obvious sophistry and malicious allegations?) I am just saying that I won't bother to waste my life arguing with you about it first. Life is far too short.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because people don't agree with you it doesn't make them "a gathering of apologists for the JA". If other editors attempt to follow Wiki rules and engage in a consensus, it doesn't mean they are "ganging up" on you. I can't recall a single occasion when anyone has edited what you said on the Talk page (except within the WP:BLP guidelines). I am sure that other editors from a variety of backgrounds will engage constructively in consensus-building and improve this article. If you decide not to take part in that and then engage in disruptive editing or tendentious editing, I am sure they will follow Wikipedia procedures to deal with that. John Campbell (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"So you go ahead with re-writing an article along your lines and I will do what is entirely my prerogative, and edit it later when you run out of steam. I am not threatening you with disruptive editing" That sounds just what you are threatening.My interest here isn't to re write anything that has already been agreed to on the article.If things appear that seem to unbalanced the stable article I will double check the sources used to support it to see if those sources themselves are balanced and neutral enough to be counted as reliable.That is not 'ganging up on you' as you put it.The key question I'd ask myself when double checking things is 'does this lead to an improvement in the article and is it balanced,or is it a dupilcate of ground already covered and therefor not needed'Manicpixie (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, between you, you appear to have found a rule which allows you to suggest that I am lying about my intentions and to call my good faith into question yet again. I am threatening nothing; you would be unable to infer that if you were assuming my good faith, especially as I reiterated the point that I have no intention of vandalising or tendentiously editing the article. Your attitude towards me, both of you, is very hostile and completely against the ethos of wikipedia. So, rather than subject myself to an endless diet of assaults on my character and being lectured about rules which do not appear to apply equally to you, I thought I'd give myself a rest and come back when things settle down. I am proud of what we achieved, John, and don't have any particular desire to alter it. I do hope that the current pro-JA consensus does not undo the good done and lead to a more pro-JA article, necessitating further edits by me. I'll leave well alone if you will, in essence. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to apologise to you, John, for having overlooked entirely the fact that you wrote a referenced and balanced summary of the way in which the JA is now regarded. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But please note, as I said above, that it still requires a clear citation for the attitude of the anti-cult groups. Neither their web pages nor Wikipedia itself are sufficient. Can you provide an acceptable one? John Campbell (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are being civil, do you still maintain that I am intending to vandalise or tendentiously edit the article, despite my assurances to the contrary? If not, a small climb-down would go a long way.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept your assurances. 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) John Campbell (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a very small climb-down indeed! Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While you continue to misrepresent my actions elsewhere on the web it is hard to be more generous. :-) John Campbell (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are willing to flout wiki rules regarding assuming good faith in order to punish me for things said OFF-wikipedia? Is that proper?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've accepted your assurance. In what way does that flout a Wiki rule? John Campbell (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My assurances should be unnecessary, when the guidelines indicate that good faith should be ASSUMED. I had in fact already assured you of my good faith, despite which you still very publically edited my section to try to make a liar of me and suggested very openly that I intended to vandalise the site..."tendentious editing" etc. Your acceptance of my good faith in retrospect is a very small concession indeed. You insulted me and the decent thing to do would be to apologise, which is what I have just recently done when I spoted my own fault. When it comes to wiki rules, you appear to expect higher standards from me than you do from yourself?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pete, I have not insulted you in any way. Your clarification was necesary because what you had previously written appeared to indicate the contrary. You know full well that you do not own any section here, and that I did not alter any of your text, nor did I call you a liar. As I explained previously, section headings are meant to be neutral. I really wish you would stop misrepresenting me here and elsewhere. By the way, WP:NPA says: "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith." John Campbell (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you had CALLED ME a liar. I said you had attempted to MAKE A LIAR OF ME by the changing of a title to imply that I intended to do something dishonest. That is sophistry, pure and simple...and again, seems designed to make a liar out of me. On the subjecty of Subject Headers, they say that while section heads are common property, "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible" You did not do this. You just went ahead and changed it.....and not to something appropriate, as suggested by wiki, but to something deliberately provocative.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You changed my heading, which said something like "how can we do X without breaking the rules?" to "How can we break the rules?". That is hardly neutral! I do not own the section, but I have the right not to be trashed by the changing of a title, and my intentions entirely misrepresented by the change, as you did. That is one aspect which I would particularly like an admin to scrutinise.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free. John Campbell (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I've commented further above. John Campbell (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My reply is above tooBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the extent of a group's entry into the "mainstream" to be measured?

How is the extent of a group's entry into the "mainstream" to be measured? John, you have sought to balance the fact that cult groups are concerned about the JA against what is only really an unsubstantiated claim that you have entered the charismatic mainstream. Even if others have claimed as much, how is acceptance into the mainstream measured? Allusion has been made to membership of the Evangelical Alliance, but my understanding is that membership of the alliance does not imply acceptability, but merely that members ascribe to basic tenets of faith accepted by evangelical Christians. My understanding is that the EA make clear that they do not police people's belief systems or practices, but just act as an umbrella group for members; that if it ever implied respectability for members in the past, that certainly is not its role now. Should membership, in itself, be used as a measure, then? And what proportion of evangelicals are charismatic or regard charismaticism with the mainstream; and more widely, what proportion of Christians in the UK generally would regard evangelicalism as a measure of respectability?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

John, if you want to set your mainstreamness against your being thought of as a cult by some, how are we to measure the extent to which you are in the mainstream at all? And beyond the limits of christendom, couldn't it be argued that your being thought a cult is a secular opinion (except in the case of Reachout) which must be set against the views of other non-Christians? How will their approval be measured?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited a WP:RS and quoted what the author had to say. See the footnote: 'Hunt in Pneuma, p. 24: "marked by ... the entry of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream"'. That is what Wikipedia is about after all, not my or your WP:OR John Campbell (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Hunt, what measures did he use for determining whether or not you are mainstream; what authority does he have, and did he interview elders of the church and take it from you that you are mainstream? I mean, take an example we both know: Stanley Jebb's article had lots of phrases which he presumably thought were his own, but which were actually in Jesus Fellowship vernacular already, like the thing about churches not wanting to be judged by the attitudes of its ex-members, etc. It was undoubtedly a sincere article, but it could have been written by a fellowship member.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my answer above deals with the key point and says all that needed to be said. The article by Stephen J. Hunt has already been accepted as a Reliable Source. John Campbell (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hunt was accepted as a reliable source for another point being made. He was not accepted as an authority on whether you are a mainstream church or not. Did Hunt's book/article cite references to back his claim that you were part of the mainstream, or was he just expressing his personal opinion? (I see you couldn't resist reminding me what a reliable source is. Pity)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also linked to Stephen J. Hunt's article on Wikipedia in response to your request. You are not the only person reading these Talk pages now or in the future, and the links exist for the sake of us all. John Campbell (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was very useful. I have written to him asking if I could possibly have a copy of his article and asking if he wouldn't mind telling us what objective basis he had for determining the extent of your mainstreamness. I have also been talking to Ian Haworth who is having a think about how best to reference the CIC's listing of the JA as a cult. He suggested that a different way to approach the matter might be for a group which now speaks of having left its cultic image far behind to explain to the wider world the reforms it felt it necessary to make in order to find greater acceptance. I suppose it demonstrates a group's willingness to be open if it is willing to admit its past mistakes. That is something that was touched upon in the article when you said that you no longer practice corporal punishment, for instance. Would the JA be willing to detail its reforms in order to demonstrate its greater openness and put to rest any suggestion that it is a cult? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can here within the contraints of Wikipedia, nor indeed can you do a great deal with whatever Stephen Hunt sends to you, for reasons which you would rather I didn't spell out. We have to rely on what others have already published. John Campbell (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a bit ominous. Why wouldn't I want it spelt out? If you mean that Hunt's impressions of you were favourable, is that a problem? My impressions of you have been favourable too in the past, the JA is a radical people and bound to impress people. As Hunt is your source, though, why do we need to seek another one? If his comments to me favour you and support your claim to mainstreamness, I will accept him as a source, as long as it is clear that he has some objective way of measuring your respectability within the church, which as an academic interested in pentecostalism, I presume he does?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that in the context of the article, where you say that since your earlier history of being regarded as a cult you have reformed, you could very easily show the extent of the change to being a respected church, by briefly detailing the reforms. I can't see what wiki constraints would stand in your way of being open as a church; and I am confident that whatever openness there has been to others has been accompanied by an article in the Christian press about how your respectability has come about?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep coming back in my mind to you saying that we need another source other than the one you suggested, Stephen Hunt; that nothing he sends me is likely to be useful. He was YOUR reference. but the trouble is that his article is not publically available. Unless he sends me a copy, there is no way of verifying it. Why, when he has been your source for so long, do you now seem to feel he is no longer sufficient for the purpose? What is he going to send me?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to avoid saying, for your sake, is that what you are attempting to engage in is WP:OR. We are limited to working with WP:RS, such as already-published scholarly articles and books. Hunt's article is fine; the article that I said wouldn't make the point you wanted was the BBC one, due to its date being before the Jesus Army rejoined the EA. I was as even-handed as I know how with the sources, and the text we agreed previously was virtually at the limits of what has already be published in that area. I can't write just what I want to say in this article any more than you can. John Campbell (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying, John, but I am not looking to express my views as original research on this. I have asked Stephen Hunt to give me a copy of the article you cited because it is not otherwise available and I want to read it and see what he said, so that, like you, I can use it, if relevant, to support the idea of your church now being more mainstream. According to his Wiki article he is an authority on pentecostalism, so presumably knows the best measures of what makes a church part of the mainstream of charismaticism in this country. The irony is that while whatever he has written is doubtless Original Research, it is allowed. If the article you cited does not serve the purpose, I have asked if he can suggest anything else he has had published which might serve the purpose. Hard to see how you could object to that. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly sound. John Campbell (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, then I think we can work together on this. I will let you know what Stephen Hunt says/sends.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please could you stop preaching at me

John, I wonder if you could possibly talk to me without quoting wikipedia rules at me. It strikes me as deliberately provocative. And quite honestly it is also rather rude and unnecessary. If I get lost, I will ask the way or read up on the rules myself. But the way you do it is not designed to help me, but rather to win arguments...and to do so by bringing your dad with you. That is not the way to win with me. I respond to civility. For someone who would doubtless rather I just went away, and who knows I would dearly like to, your tactics strike me as counter-productive. If you needle me, which I am quite certain quoting wiki is all about, I am bound to stick around; it is in my bloody-minded nature. Others may read civility in your words, but your tone is frankly insolent. You will say that I am no better, of course. But at least I do not preach at you with every posting. And you are not in an insecure position because the consensus here is made up of pro-JA people.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wish I would go away, stop giving me so much reason to stay. I don't go away when I am bullied, I become more determined to stand my ground.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that's how you see it. You asked a perfectly reasonable question above and I gave a perfectly reasonable answer. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.193.195.197 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to give me perfectly reasonable answers that don't include links to guidelines which both of us are perfectly well aware of? Now that you are aware that it strikes me as provocative, can I assume you will do your best to avoid it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the answer I gave above hinged on the need to utilise Reliable Sources and avoid Original Research. Personally, I find your approach both rude and bullying. John Campbell (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions are a funny thing. How can I bully you, John, when I am clearly in the minority here and when I know that no edit I make to the article will be allowed to stand? I don't think I do badly when it comes to being pleasant to everyone here, considering that whatever the claims to fairness, you not only over-rule every suggestion I make but also change things I write in the discussion and accuse me of vandalism or tendentious editing when I just happen to disagree with you.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And not to mention manipulative. Aren't we are all here to see this article improved to the best it can be? We can only do that within the rules of wiki so what does it matter if someone is quoting them, after all 'assuming good faith' seems to be quoted often enough. Lets keep focused on the balance of things in line with the rules.Manicpixie (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I manipulate you, Manic? What possible influence do I have when I am a minority here, beyond the fact that I know rather more about the JA than some of you would wish? What you have to decide between you is whether you really want to deal with me as amicably as possible or whether you want me to feel provoked. I am pointing out that repeatedly quoting the same rules as if you think of me as a law-breaker who must be repeatedly rebuked, is just plain rude and unlikely to make the discussion a smooth one. I have more than proved that I can work with others to improve the article, as when we negotiated the now largely stable article (you may find it useful to read the archived negotiations before you judge me too easily, ManicPixie). It was only when largely pro-JA editors started undoing the work or suggesting/making edits which unbalanced the article in the JA's favour that I felt the need to consider edits which would redress the balance (or at least anticipate some edits which might later be used if the article becomes too pro-JA). I am not going away, so you decide whether you want war or a respectful exchange.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have a respectful exchange you will stop accusing me of being a bully, manipulative, of tendentious editing, vandalism, mischief etc. I am just as committed as anyone else here to making the article fair. I have never added anything to it without raising it here first, though I would be within my rights to do so. Nothing will be gained by painting me as a bad guy who wants to break the rules. I do not always agree with them, but I have always been constrained by them and I am quite sure I would have been censured by admin if that had not been the case. You are right that I have repeatedly referred to the need to assume good faith, but the simple fact is that your accusations, all of which are quite unfounded, seem designed to either blacken my image on here or to bully me into not coming back here. Above all, they are not about treating me with the respect wikipedia says is due to us all. What you will find, however, is that I have used plain English when asking for respect, rather than providing links; the latter always strikes me as rude because I know you already know the rules and don't need me to tell you where they are.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Centre (Creative Workshop Drama)

Creative workshop (Drama) is one of the groups running at the Northampton Jesus Centre. Since going I have found confidance and developed many friends. It's also helped with my speech as I have tended not to be clear in talking. Drama is not the only group running there is prayer support in the healing rays group, friend ship in the scrabble group expressive art does not matter if your not too good at drawing and so many more groups. Northampton is just one of many Jesus Centres helping people. There are centres such as these in London and Coventry.

X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.196.90 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

range of views - citation needed

Which part of the edit that you wrote, John, do you feel is unsourced? Are you referring to the inclusion of the JA in the list of NRMs and cults which are of concern to the Cult Information Centre? If so, why cannot the online list itself be provided as a primary source? It seems perverse to look for a secondary source which confirms the existence of a primary source, when we have the primary source readily available. Providing the source does not give it intrinsic worth. You are saying that there is a range of views; it is a subjective matter whether one agrees with one or the other. We are not saying that CIC's list is a good one, only that it exists and represents one POV.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard back from Stephen Hunt who is looking out a copy of his Pneuma article and we have corresponded a bit about your mainstreamness. I am more in the picture now, but until the article comes, I will not feel on an equal footing with you - to fairly assess its content...unless you are willing or able to provide a PDF link to the entire article, so that we can all see it? It is unfortunate that the citation you provide is not readily availableBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of secondary sources is a key part of Wikipedia. The stance of Wikipedia, which springs from academe, is that reputation counts. A researcher with a history of published articles on a subject is more likely to be careful with their statements than will someone with no reputation to lose, as well as having a greater background knowledge of the subject and an understanding of the proper techniques of research. The worth of the article stems from the reputation of the author. Like any other academic article, the Hunt article is available in academic libraries, or from the publisher. However, here is a link to a transcript of Hunt's article. Personally, I'm inclined to take out that sentence in its entirety. John Campbell (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will look at the transcripts. I understand the need for the Pneuma citation, of course, but I can't see why we need a secondary source to confirm the existence of a primary source for the CIC list. It seems perverse. The implication seems to be that without someone academic saying that the primary source exists, you can say that it doesn't. I do not think that you are saying that the CIC list does not exist, are you, and that being the case, surely it is not in dispute? Naturally, you would rather it didn't exist, but that isn't the same thing, is it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't keep saying the same thing over and over again. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources as they a viewed as reliable indicators of notability and balance. For example, without a secondary assessment of CIC's view you cannot tell if others consider it an extreme minority viewpoint. In other fields, primary sources have primacy, but Wikipedia has decided that as its editors are of unknown qualification we must depend on the assessment of others via secondary sources. It's not an issue of what I am saying, but of Wikipedia's basis. John Campbell (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very convenient way of suppressing the existence of evidence which shows you in a bad light. By analogy, if the Law worked that way, the existence of a dead body with a knife in its back could be suppressed if there was no academic paper which claimed that a body with a knife in its back had been found. It is an absurd application of the Wiki rule, which is about the credibility of a source. We are not saying that the CIC is a credible or even a balanced or impartial group. We are only saying that it exists and that it lists the JA as a group about which it is concerned. It seems weasly to try to suggest otherwise, or indeed to suggest that wikipedia rules make it impossible to say it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And while you and I am others here are of unknown qualification, the existence of the list can be proved unequivocally by simply linking to it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Existence of that list doesn't make it academically acceptable according to the ethos of what wiki is about, it is wiki that says we need a secondary source for it to be acceptable not anyone that is showing an interest in this article. What I don't get Peter is that just today I've seen you going on about 'keeping to the rules' elsewhere so what is the problem about keeping the rules here? If that list was to be allowed without a secondary source how much more could be allowed that you'd object to?Manicpixie (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather too convenient, it just seems to me. Ah well, I am close to giving up with this particular citation. I can always link to the archive here on my blog and let others decide about your position. I think they may well feel as I do that wiki rules are less what you are concerned about than the reputation of the JA and a desire to exclude any reference in the article to the fact that anti-cult groups regard yours as one. After all, if we let the edits stand and used the link to the primary source stand as the citation, I wonder how many mods would come and tell us to get rid of it. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me if you think of me as someone who believes in obeying rules religiously, manicpixie. I have never been a sheepish type. I believe that rules need to make sense, or else they should be challenged and, if you are willing to accept the consequences, even disobeyed or ignored. It would be impolitic for me to ignore wiki rules, because I wish to continue to have a voice here, but I do think that if you are right that they can be used to suppress evidence which can plainly be seen by anyone who knows where to look, they are as idiotic as the emperor's new clothes. In this particular case, the emperor is quite plainly naked as the day he was born, but if you and John are right in your interpretation of wiki rules, they will allow you to pretend that he is beautifully clothed. Ah well, there is more than one way to skin a cat.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of secondary sources is fundamental to Wikipedia. In this case, the issue is one of notability and the reliability and balance of academic (secondary) sources. John Campbell (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if others who lurk or who find their way here from my blog or other sources will feel that academic imperatives were your driving motivation in this John. I think most decent people will feel as I do that this is just you grasping at a way to suppress the truth that you are "regarded by some organisations" as a cult. Meanwhile, I am not sure Hunt imagined you would use his article to inply that you were now respectable and not cultic in style and outlook. I am not sure he regards charismatic christianity as a mark of mainstreamness, more generally. Anything I put on this and the cult thing, you will just revert and you clearly have far more time than me for this stuff, so I will let this one go. Let others be the judge of what has really just happened here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bristol, that is an offensive personal attack on my integrity. As you insist that you know the Wikipedia rules, but don't believe in obeying them, I can only assume it is intentional. John Campbell (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be persuaded to edit it, John, but it struck me as fair comment when I wrote it, and your comments on Chryssides and the Sunday Mercury seem to bear out my fears. You insisted that a primary source is unacceptable, so I provided two secondary sources, and still you want them disallowed.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Birmingham Sunday Mercury source for CIC's view on the Jesus Army is not really a Reliable Source in Wikipedia terms (not a newspaper with a known reputation for fact-checking), but it is better than nothing. Equally we have no source at all quoting the views of FAIR or Reachout, nor any indication of whether a Reliable Source would consider them relevant. My (balanced) view would be that FAIR and Reachout ought not to be quoted here, but that CIC should be. I've made a generous edit, though and left them in, and cited the paper, although it really isn't up to the standard required, IMHO. John Campbell (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this more carefully, I can't find any indication anywhere that FAIR "lists" the Jesus Army, nor that Reachout does. Also FAIR specifically says it is not an "anti-cult" group. I don't think this sentence can really stand. John Campbell (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiply Christian Network

During the edit process we lost all reference to the Multiply Christian Network without discussion. I think it was intended to move it to elsewhere in the article but that didn't happen. There are Wikilinks from elsewhere to this article that reference Multiply, so we ought to mention it somehow. William Kay states that it is notable: "The Army is noted for ... its linkage with more than 40 other independent Christian churches in the Multiply Network." (William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004).) Another reference to Multiply is idea (Evangelical Alliance magazine), May 1999: "... Multiply Christian Network, which links more than 30 churches in England and Wales with others abroad. Multiply was initiated in 1992 by the Jesus Fellowship Church." Since the date of those two articles the number of groups has grown to around 250[8]. The article used to say: "The Jesus Fellowship is also linked to other churches and groups in the UK and elsewhere through the Multiply Christian Network." which is probably the minimum that is usable. John Campbell (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the multiply info being reinstated seeing as it was accidently lost during the earlier edit process and have already agreed to this anywayManicpixie (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CIC and FAIR SECONDARY SOURCES found

I need to ask everyone to hold their horses. No sooner have I given up than Mike Aldrich pops up with two very useful sources, one from a newspaper last year and the other from George D. Chryssides, who I think you approve of as a source, John? Haven't checked because I should be packing my saddlebags to go flying tomorrow, but before I go, I just wanted to put these up because they amply support the CIC and FAIR references.

CIC (Cult Information Centre)

Sunday Mercury (Birmingham) March 4th 2007 (newspaper) (quote)The UK Cult Information Centre says that the mJA is on a list of religious groups it has concerns about. Spokesman Ian Howarth said: "We're very concerned about the Jesus Army. Over the years we have had many concerns expressed about it. "There have been no major changes that merit removing it from our list." (end of quote) http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/tm_method=full&objectid=18708735&siteid=50002-name_page.html

FAIR

Exploring New Religions By George D. Chryssides Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999 ISBN 0826459595, 9780826459596

page 161 (quote) FAIR carefully and consistently monitored the Jesus Fellowship Church's development, even from its early Bugbrooke days, giving it adverse publicity in its quarterly magazine FAIR News. Not only did FAIR give prominence to the fact that many members handed over all their possessions to the Church, and to its disputes with the Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance, unjusty portraying Stanton as an authoritarian leader who claimed an exclusive 'hotline to God', ...'(end of quote) I think these two secondary sources make it quite clear that these two organisations do indeed exist and have concerns about the JA.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The original question was whether Reliable Sources referred to these organisations' concerns in the time after the Jesus Army rejoined the Evangelical Alliance -- we have already dealt with the earlier period -- as we need a check on whether their concerns are Notable and are other than an extreme minority view. The particular questions to answer will be if the Sunday Mercury article fits within WP:Reliable_sources#News_organizations. The Chryssides quote relates to the pre-EA period, and although it is Reliable is irrelevant to the point we are considering. However, his comment that this was "unjust" may need bringing out. We may need to seek others' opinions on this. John Campbell (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sunday Mercury is a legitimate secondary source. Hard to see how you can dismiss it as anything else. The Chryssides quote is sufficient to confirm the existence and concerns of FAIR about the JA. I can't see why the EA is relevant to FAIR, a secular cult-concern group unlikely to be impressed by your membership of the alliance. FAIR was concerned about you, after all, when you were in the alliance the first time around. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In case clarification is needed, I have never questioned the existence of CIC or FAIR, nor of their so-called 'concerns'. What I do question is whether the 'concerns' are notable and are now any more than an extreme minority view (see WP:UNDUE). The question over the Sunday Mercury would be whether that free local paper has a reputation for fact-checking and balance (see WP:Reliable_sources#News_organizations), particularly in view of the fact that the reporter came "undercover" and appears to be claiming to quote me although she never spoke to me.

The background is that the Jesus Army is well-spoken of generally and is in membership not only of the Evangelical Alliance, but also of Fusion and the Faithworks Movement, and of local groupings such as Faithworks Northampton and Churches Together in Northampton. It has played its part in Hope 08, ACUTE (Evangelical Alliance consultations on theology and doctrine), Challenge 2000, DAWN UK, and March for Jesus. Members of the UK and European Parliaments have visited the Jesus Centre projects, as have local mayors and councillors. The Jesus Army has been shortlisted for national awards by Premier Christian Media and by Faithworks. Members of the Councils of Reference for Jesus Centres include Anglican and Baptist clergymen, Salvation Army officers and New Church leaders as well as other professional men and women. When against that we have only a single somewhat shaky source this century, and one could readily argue that the claim is indeed exceptional. John Campbell (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"The background is that the Jesus Army is well-spoken of generally". This is an extraordinary claim which would need some qualifying. You refer to numerous christian alliances, some of which I know for a fact do not self-police - the EA, for instance, which is a membership based on attestation and nothing more; membership does not imply approval, respectability or anything else....and could be seen as a mutually self-interested. Only if the country was generally Christian (and essentially evangelical, at that) could you make some claim to be generally well-spoken of, and even that I suspect would be a rather questionable claim requiring measurable evidenceBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The pre/post EA thing is a red herring. I am not aware that when I raised the CIC list originally, I was interested in the EA at all. You introduced that dimension by mentioning your affiliation as evidence that despite the CIC and FAIR concerns you are now considered mainstream, but to secular organisations, which both CIC and FAIR are, your EA link is irrelevant. The two sources I have provided simply confirm the existence of concern organistions and the fact that they are worried about you. I'd have thought that if there is a time dimension to this, the onus is on you to provide secondary evidence that FAIR and CIC are no longer interested in you, not vice versa.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really contentious at all, and we have discussed the point already. I think you may have forgotten the original train of thought. The article already refers to events and attitudes before the Jesus Army rejoined the EA, including anti-cult groups' opposition. You wanted to add extra material to show that the concern was a continuing one. You may recall that Manicpixie wanted to delete the new material on the basis that it duplicated what was already said, but you pointed out that you wanted to show that the concern continued. Either you want to show continuing concern, and need recent references, or you don't and the point is already covered. Which is it to be? I note by the way that you have not picked up on my comment on "unjustly". How should we deal with this aspect? John Campbell (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point, but the EA reference is one related to time-frames, not to the EA per se. You were thrown out in the 1980s and the earlier cult references refer to that time. The Chryssides' one refers to 1999, which is a good time later, and even if you insist that it is not up-to-date, it at least suggests a ten year period during which scrutiny by FAIR and CIC continued. The "unjustly" comment is his POV, clearly, but I am sure you will make some use of it. It is irrelevant for the point I am making, which has to do with whether or not there is verifiable evidence of the two groups having a continued concern about the JA. Manic pixie would have been wrong to claim that the material had already been included because he was referring to circa 1986, while the Mercury article was as recent as last year.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote then Peter. My point was and still is about balance here. My comments earlier where about the fact that it is already included in the article that there was at one time a 'cultic' concern about the church. That issue was addressed and the church rejoined the EA., it doesn't need mentioning again in the form of outdated lists for the balance of the article. The newspaper report has already been discussed here and deemed an unsuitable source, 1 because is was 'uncover' and 2 because that reporter was quoting someone they'd not even talked to so the integrity of that report is questionable to say the leastManicpixie (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Manicpixie, I did not misunderstand you. I know that you think that the cult concern is historical and that re-joining the EA in your mind is evidence that you are not considered cultic anymore. However, the cult concern continues to this day....as far as the both the CIC and FAIR are concerned. Howarth is quoted in the last few years as saying that he doesn't know of any changes to justify softening the CIC's position. What I think you do not take into account is that neither FAIR nor CIC are christian organisations - they are areligious (FAIR says it respects freedom or religion, for instance, but that it is itself non-partisan). Neither organisation are swayed by the idea that a christian church is, by dint of being christian, incapable of cultic tendencies. The EA is not a policing organisation. Membership does not imply approval or respectability. What the quotes establish is that concern about your alleged cultism continues right up until last year - that your EA membership is entirely irrelevant.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say, EA membership provides the timeframe for the discussion, not the determining factor. We have already listed the key factors in the article. As far as my point that the Jesus Army is well-spoken of generally, if you look at my list again, you will see that this is far from just the evangelical arena. I didn't mention invitations to Downing Street or the Houses of Parliament, either, which I could have done. John Campbell (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you feel has changed in the way you do things because I haven't mentioned having been asked to contribute to a parliamentary committee concerned about cults in the late 1980s, which listed yours. If needs be, I have letters from MPs too...expressing the concern of their constituents about the JA, not least of all (as he was your local man) Michael Morris MP (Northampton), who was a very active campaigner against the JA. I remember particularly being contacted by Jack Ashley, Baron Ashley of Stoke and enjoying that correspondence enormously. This was back in the days when you were less concerned in having the approval of the World. I am sure we can all wheel out our supporters, our MPs et al, but at the end of the day it does not make either of us "generally well spoken of", per se Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article expansion

I have expanded the article adding extra details with referencing to external sources, and sprucing up the order of the material, in an attept to move the article higher than "Start class".Smileypirate (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it's been upgraded to B class. Smileypirate (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done, you have done a remarkable job of entirely re-writing the article without any attempt at consensus. Indeed, I don't think it would look out of place on your own website. It is a great piece of pro-JA marketing.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have flagged up sources here and there in order to maintain a NPOV, as well as a few minor edits for clarity etc. Normaljames (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence about 'anti-cult groups' which I have edited. FAIR is now called TFST and does not have the Jesus Fellowship on their list; the same is true of the Reachout Trust – the Jesus Fellowship is not on their lists. The phrase‘Groups like’ has been left to allow for a breadth of criticism at that time, but the sentence has been clarified as past tense in order not to be misleading.Whitestonecapn (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The section of the article which you have edited relates to historic information and shouldn't be edited to reflect recent content changes to currently existing websites. I shall be reverting your edit, and adding citations for the inclusion of both FAIR and The Reachout Trust. Please don't let that deter you from editing the tense of the section if you feel it is misleading in any way. btw, FAIR is not now called TFST, the publication arm of FAIR continues as 'FAIR News Publishing Limited' although on their new website the online archive which used to include the Jesus Fellowship in their yearly top 10/15 'number of concerned enquiries recieved' list (mainly within publications with the '90s) is currently unavailable. It is only the FAIR advisory service which has been handed over to TFST. Whilst I also acknowledge that sometime within the last year, The Reachout Trust has removed articles concerning the JA from their website, and have withdraw their 'NF010 - Jesus Fellowship' pamphlet from the 'Cult factfile' section of their online shopping store, their recent change of stance shouldn't affect a paragraph which focuses on opinions in the 1990's . Oh, and if you have a potential WP:COI when editing this article, please could you mention your involvement on your User page, thanks ... --Mike Aldrich (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that we've been over some of this ground before, further up this talk page. When the Chryssides quote was suggested, I wrote "The Chryssides quote relates to the pre-EA period, and although it is Reliable is irrelevant to the point we are considering." As you say, the period this section refers to is presumably immediately following re-entry into the EA. However, I agree that the source serves to indicate the Notability of FAIR's views. Strictly, we haven't found an acceptable quote for Reachout: it can't act as a source for itself, according to fundamental Wikipedia principles. We obviously don't need to repeat material from earlier in the article here and so I'm at a bit of a loss as what to suggest. Personally, I think it attempts to say too much here. Maybe a recasting of the tenses is the best we can do. John Campbell (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Celibacy and marriage

This needs fixing. A large portion of it is a direct quote from a citation but not made clear that it's a citation.Muleattack (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)