Talk:Jesus Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Mid-importance).


I don't understand why the page says that it doesn't cite any references or sources. Numerous links to the official website of the group has been made. There are many situations in which a link to a website would not be reliable. However, since the page is refering to what the Jesus Christains TEACH, it is logical to use their official website as the source and reference. I would like to ask that the tag be removed unless there is any other issue in dispute.

Furthermore, the claim that McKay and company have been "excommunicated" as the poster below states is false. According to my investigation, Dave McKay's wife is a member of the Religious Society of Friends and various other members of the Jesus Christian participate regularly in matters relating to Quakers. Hopeful pilgrim (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree excommunicated is just a nonsense term in this context. YOu can only be excommunicated from something if you have belonged to it and it means a very specific judgement for eternity. to align the meaning of membership of the roman catholic church and quaker membership in this instance is just plain ridiculous. The quakers allow non-members to attend never mind the whole issue of membership. Baptism and ex-communication is a whole other kettle of fish (pun intended:)Davdevalle (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

I have included the ISBN numbers of some Dave McKay's books. I have also included the titles of others. This is merely to improve the references. Also, the denial of the Trinity is based upon Dave's own claiming that it was invented by the church in the 4th century and that is no reference to it in the Bible. I also added the link to the JCxJC forum. I admit that I am a little in admitting to these additions, but I agree that the article needs cleaning up. Also, let it be noted that McKay and company have been, for lack of a better term, excommunicated for the Religious Society of Friends.K9builder (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could people please refrain from using loaded words. Wiki articles are supposed to be written from a NPOV, if you don't know what that means, LOOK IT UP!

For example, is "cult" ever an Neutral word? (I am not the above poster) Tar7arus 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist? Yes, I think so![edit]

The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities. [1]

Perhaps the black butterfly should replace the references to Anarchy? Robin Dunn (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the person who posted the comments to the xJCs.JCs link (since changed) that accused it of being a website devoted to the destruction of the JCs and claiming that Dave's son was the leader of that forum sign their post? I think not, pretty gutless of someone who obviously supports the JCs. Speaks volumes of their pride in their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Have removed the link to Christian Anarchism as nothing about this group appears to be anarchistic. --Black Butterfly 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

agreed, how can they be 'without reference to an order/origin' - anarchy when they are totally dedicated to 'Jesus' and have all sorts of rules?These things are not helping anyone understand and gain information about this group Davdevalle (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


I deleted the 'Affiliations' section of the article because the page incorrectly implied an affiliation between Jesus Christians and Religous Society of Friends. Though some individuals may belong to both organisations, this does not constitute an affiliations between the organisations (just as an individual may belong to the Police Force and the Catholic Church, but this does not create any organisational link). --Pinehill (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag[edit]

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I edited out some of the interpretive stuff. How McKay walked off Kyle show, and his comments. It was biased and said twice. I don't agree with JC's at all but no need to over-interpret and over-emphasise stuff just because you don't like it.Davdevalle (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jesus Christian co-founder[edit]

By my name you can see that I'm not exactly neutral. However, I would like to GET a neutral entry in Wiki on the Jesus Christians, which does not seem to be happening. A glance at the history of the entry will show that someone has been coming back almost daily and vandalising the site with such things as random video clips, loaded words like "cult", and numerous distortions of the facts, some of them quite libelous. Many thanks to the Wiki angels (e.g. Davdevalle) who have cleaned some of it up. But when there is the actual username of someone who has been doing it (e.g. Timerdancer) isn't there some way that action can be taken against that person, e.g. blocking them, reporting them, or even taking legal action?

As for some of the other issues being discussed here, (e.g. whether or not the JCs are anarchists, whether or not I have been excommunicated from the Quakers, what we believe about the Trinity, etc. I don't think we JCs have strong feelings one way or the other. We are not easily put into a box, which must frustrate a lot of people.

I am amazed that there are complete strangers (presumably) who have taken such an interest in keeping our entry accurate. It has been more than three years since the box saying that there are not ANY references at all, has been put up on our site. I don't know why that is there (And I think one entry on this discussion thread actually said that it was going to be taken down.) Can someone give a little guidance as to what we can do to improve the credibility of the entry and get that box removed? (I understand that when the entry passes a certain test, it is a lot harder to vandalise. We are hanging out for that day!) Dave McKay DavidMckayJC (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor tweakage[edit]

I have removed the word "cult" from the opening statement and replaced it with "group" as I don't think "cult" is at all neutral.

Also I have snipped the bit about Dave McKay being charged, as it had no source and having googled a bit all I can find is speculation on forums, I am quite sure that if there was a quotable source then the ever-vigilant Rick Ross would have had it in his list of reports.

(Declaration: I know some of the JC people and am a known associate, so to speak.) --Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. We seem to have been getting quite a bit of vandalism on this article from an unregistered editor making a number of unsupported allegations, and the article had been protected against anonymous editing. As soon as the protection expired, they struck again by changing it to "cult" and adding that latest attack - thanks for reverting it. I've reprotected the article, for 3 months this time, and will still be watching it after that expires -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed[edit]

I've removed the {{External links}} tag, which was commented "refs are raw links only", as the refs all look to be nicely formatted now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Temporary protection[edit]

I've temporarily protected this page, as it was repeatedly being used by an anonymous vandal to post personal attacks. It's really not ideal to have to do this, because it prevents IP editors from adding comments here. However, as there haven't been any legitimate IP comments here since October 2009, I suspect it's not actually too much of a problem in practice. If any anonymous editor does want to post a comment here during the time the page is protected, please post it on my Talk page and I'll be happy to copy it across here for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jon Ronson[edit]

I have reverted back the text "In January 2003, Jon Ronson's documentary called Kidneys for Jesus aired on Channel 4. After an invite from Dave McKay, Jon Ronson exclusively followed the group over a year as they attempted to donate their kidneys to strangers in the UK and the US. The film documents the tension arising between Ronson and McKay during filming, as McKay becomes increasingly concerned that Ronson is portraying the Jesus Christians poorly." It appears that it keeps being deleted (see 8 May 2010 version). Not sure why. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Hi there, fellow JC page watchers and editors. My recent edits were all undone. I spent a long time making sure everything was factual, referenced and clearly written. I referenced a lot of stuff that didn't previously have references and clarified sections which were a jumble of referenced and non-referenced stuff. I see no problem with any of it, please advise me if that's not the case. Thank you. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It has just been reverted again, with no explanation. So, once again: If there's a problem with my edits, kindly explain what they are. Everything I have stated is factual, referenced and clearly written. The reversion also loses some general tidying up I did to point out when stuff still needed references. I'm not looking to get involved in some sort of reversion war here, but I feel the onus is on the person who has a problem with my work to point out why they feel it doesn't meet Wiki standards and thus needs to reverted to a version of the page that contains unreferenced information. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Final Version Up[edit]

Hi all, we have now finished the latest version of this page and it is up. Please let me know if there are any problems. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased edits[edit]

Two editors (Sue Gianstefani and Jinnythesquinny) are biased editors. Sue is a former Jesus Christian with an axe to grind, and Jinny is a former host of the Jesus Christian website, and friend of Sue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The issue is not who we are - I previously declared my interest on this very Talk page some time ago. The question should be - are any of our edits showing bias, or aren't referenced, or unreadable? Having an interest in a topic does not preclude people from writing on a topic, far from it! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It does seem that we need to get the tense used in the lede agreed on though! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the tense in the opening statement being either "are" ore "were" the article itself states that the official Jesus Christians website is still being run by the founders, there is another website using the same name running in the UK, and there are three other known websites (with different names) publishing copies of the exact same material that is available on the official Jesus Christians website. Perhaps a compromise would be to state something along those lines, such as that there have been apparent claims that the group has officially disbanded, but that the movement still seems to be continuing in smaller groups under the same and different names. Sue Gianstefani (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that the Jesus Christians, as the group people would have heard of, the "kidney cult" that openly evangelical, liked attention and sought publicity has officially disbanded and no longer exists. For that reason I think the tense should be past. But the clarification that as a movement, Dave McKay and the rump of the official JCs are still operating as a different thing, as well as the former JCs promoting similar messages independently like you are Sue, stops that being misleading. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to propose something like this as the lede text:

Jesus Christians were a small radical Christian group that practiced communal living, did voluntary work and activism, and distributed Christian comics and books. The group has officially disbanded,[1] but the founders and several members and former members are continuing together and seperately to pursue the goals of the movement, as different groups.[2] [3][4][5][6] For example, a website called "Jesus Christians UK" is operated by former Jesus Christians based in the United Kingdom.[7]

Any thoughts? I remain convinced that the tense should be past as the noteworthy group here is the Jesus Christians as a single entity, which no longer officially exists. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


It would be helpful if the person who feels the recent edits by Sue and I are unsuitable for a Wiki entry pointed out the errors in the page rather than making snarky remarks at the top of it, thus rendering the page *completely* unsuitable for a Wiki entry. All we've really done, if you compare the versions, is edit, expand and reference the history of the Jesus Christians, bring it up to date, and pondered here which tense is the best for the lede. What's the problem? Jinnythesquinny (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding Images[edit]

There are four images available in Wikimedia Commons under the category path of Topic/Belief/Religion/Religious organizations/Christian organizations/Jesus Christians if other editors feel any of these would make appropriate and beneficial additions to the article. Because I am associated with the topic due to being a member of the organisation for 25 years my recent addition of these images was undone. I question how someone who can have access to relevant images that are their own property relating to a particular Wikipedia subject yet not be allowed to add them to an article due to the Wikipedia guideline that the anonymous editor referred to? (See the View History page) When I read the specific Wikipedia guidelines it states there are circumstances when it IS appropriate and encouraged to edit or even add images to an article you have an association with. Any further clarification would be appreciated. Sue Gianstefani (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Sue GianstefaniSue Gianstefani (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Communities Directory". Retrieved 18 May 2013. 
  2. ^ "Jesus Christians". Dave and Cherry Mckay. Retrieved 26 June 2013. 
  3. ^ "Jesus Christians UK". Jesus Christians UK. Retrieved 26 June 2013. 
  4. ^ "Simba-Judah". Retrieved 18 May 2013. 
  5. ^ "Truth Believers". Retrieved 18 May 2013. 
  6. ^ "Ecclesians". 
  7. ^ "Jesus Christians UK". Jesus Chrisians UK. Retrieved 3 July 2013.