Talk:Jesus Army/Archive 2

message: Here are some other quotes I've not presented before. I apologise for the length of the Hunt one, but I think his comments are so significant that they need to be seen. They put some of the matters we have consider already in context.
Wright, Nigel in Charismatic Christianity p.66
… the community’s evangelistic wing, the Jesus Army, has engaged in aggressive and effective street evangelism among the marginalized sections of society.
… In recent years Noel Stanton has been working hard to re-establish fraternal relationships wherever possible, but the style and aggressiveness of the community clearly pose problems for some. The Jesus Army is highly active in evangelism amongst the poor and styles itself in this regard upon the early Salvation Army, using for this purpose designer flak jackets and an annual conference in the Wembley Area which self-consciously celebrates being “over the top” in its worship style and intensity. The Jesus fellowship has a strategy for extension based upon the development of ‘community houses’ throughout the country. Not surprisingly, the Fellowship’s intense style and all-engulfing requirement of commitment lead to occasional allegations of abuse from disillusioned former members.
Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’ in Pneuma
This article considers the growth, dynamics and structure of one of the most noteworthy of the European charismatic communities: the New Creation Christian Community (NCCC), otherwise known as the Bugbrooke Community, a charismatic collective which has remained in existence in Britain for some thirty years [in 1998]. The NCCC is the communal element of the Jesus Fellowship which, in turn, is a distinctive “strand” of the “New Church” wing in Britain – matching, in scale of membership, those such as New Frontiers, the Pioneers, and the Ichthus Christian fellowship…
	There are two principal reasons why the broader Jesus Fellowship movement is significant. Firstly, the innovations associated with the fellowship in terms of the overlapping considerations of a distinct theology and its communal structure which has brought to the surface a number of paradoxes as the communitarian wing has expanded and developed. Secondly, it ranks as one of the largest communities in Europe, charismatic or otherwise. Controversial at times, it may be deemed successful in terms of sustaining community living, numerical growth and a unique evangelizing ministry to the poorer sections of society, or what is frequently designated as “the underclass.” For these reasons, the NCCC has been a source of inspiration and frequently attracts visitors from Europe and beyond who wish to observe, and sometimes imitate, a vibrant and enduring model of charismatic community life...
[p.23]
While the Jesus Fellowship had no direct links with the Californian Jesus People, it did provide a similar model in terms of communal living and the adoption of countercultural themes. … In Britain, the Jesus Fellowship has endured, in many ways in its original form – retaining a communal life of austerity and simplicity which is rather reminiscent of traditional anabaptist communities. At the same time, it has continued to develop a culture which is “up to date” in the sense that it carries aspects of the 1990s youth-culture and has adapted for the purpose of evangelizing the young, particularly those who are to be found living on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities.
[p.24]
… the Jesus Fellowship has its own distinct origins and has developed in its own right, both as a charismatic community and as a powerful force of evangelism…
The first stage was between 1968-73 and began in Bugbrooke… The revival saw the creation of the Jesus Fellowship as a distinct and separate movement from the Baptist roots from whence it came. However, it was not until the years from 1974 to 1978 that the fellowship entered a second stage of development when a community was officially established for its growing membership… By the end of the 1970s it was clear that the expanding membership was largely derived from two distinct social origins. For the first three years the core charismatic group that met at the Bugbrooke chapel was joined by new converts drawn principally from “bikers,” drug-abusers, “hippies” and other elements of the counter-culture to be found in Northampton and its outlying areas. … This membership profile again mirrored development in the Jesus Movement in the USA…
The third stage In the development of the Jesus Fellowship, between 1979-1986, was a difficult an unstable period. At one level, the economic and political climate of the times ran counter to the broader philosophy of the fellowship with its emphasis on communitarianism and the sharing of property. These were the years of consecutive New Right Conservative governments in Britain that preached the alleged virtues of the free market and materialism. In turn, this political agenda helped generate a wider culture of individualism, privatism and self-interest which was hardly the ideal climate for the thic of community living and self-sacrifice. There was however, considerably more to the story of these troubled years.
	Criticism from both the secular world and other Christians centered upon accusations that the Jesus Fellowship was cultist in nature. The chief charges focused upon the poor living conditions of communal members, the “shepherding” practices used for new converts and young members, the claimed forceful separation of members from their natural families, and the prevention of the community’s children from integrating with their peers in the outside world. At the same time, the rapid purchase of properties in the Northampton area, by the Jesus Fellowship, alienated local people fed on media rumors and the notoriety of unconventional Christian living. Such controversies and the apparent failure to integrate with other Christians, especially in and around Northampton, led to the fellowship being expelled from the Baptist Union and, in 1986, from the Evangelical Alliance. There were, however, more favorable responses and vehement defenses by sympathetic Christians. As it was put in one Christian magazine in 1986:
:The Bugbrooke community have faced accusations of breaking up families .. and aggressive authoritarianism … No evidence has been put forward to substantiate these claims… Theologically they seem as sound as a bell… No other group of Christians has been the brunt of so much criticism, lies, scandal, accusations and suspicion as the Jesus Fellowship. On the other hand, there are numerous Christians from house fellowships and other denominations who have gained a very favourable impression of the Jesus People.
	As a result of controversy and persecution, the Jesus Fellowship turned more defensive and introverted to the extent that it became, even if temporarily, sectarian in nature. Retreating from secular society and those who persecuted it, the fellowship increasingly designated the outside world as “Babylon” [overstated in my view]. This turning inward did unsettle many of the members who had to re-evaluate their commitment. A number left, but the community survived. In fact, although this period was marked by controversy and external persecution it was, paradoxically, also a period of sustained membership growth and increasing evangelizing activity into urban areas.
	The latest stage of the fellowship’s growth since 1987 [to 1998] has been marked by two key developments. In that year the Jesus Army was formed as the evangelical [should be “evangelistic”] wing of the Jesus Fellowship… The second development was the greater openness to other churches and the enty of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream… prominent leaders of practically all the strands of the British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have spoken at the large public meetings of the Jesus fellowship, and are frequent contributors to its major publications “Jesus Life-style” and the “Jesus Revolution Street Paper”. 
[p.40]
	The decision in the late 1980s to become more open and link with other New Churches has been of particular importance. So has the decision, over the last decade, to broaden the membership so that now community residences [residents] form only one-third of the church [true in 1998, now one-quarter]… If the fellowship survives, it will undoubtedly remain a distinctive element of neo-Pentecostalism. 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.
John Campbell (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks John, a lot of food for thought there. I'll look closely at it tomorrow. I think acknowledging the criticisms raised by some of those investigators should help this article's future stabilty. For the present, how are we doing so far? Bearing in mind it still has a way to go... any serious issues? Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm amazed we've got this far. Thanks for your persistence. John Campbell (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Got to wonder what proof for these allegations would have satisfied the authors. It seems that no matter how many people claim to have been pressured, it makes no difference. The presumption that without a signed confession from Noel Stanton, the JA must be innocent is incredible. Rumiton, you know about NRMs....what sort of evidence can prove anything which a cult or sect denies....especially when victims are considered unreliable witnesses, while cults/sects' own spokespeople are given the benefit of the doubt?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, this niggled reaction was to some of the quotes, not to anything you have written, incidentally.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the authors are less biased than you, Pete? Surely the quotes speak for themselves. I don't think the Jesus Army really fits the comparison with the Peoples' Temple at Jonestown that you expressed approval for in the past, for example. John Campbell (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty certain I have never approved of that comparison, John, though I have certainly shared the fear expressed by some that the spirallying isolationism which characterised the first twenty years or so of the fellowship could easily have ended in disaster of some sort, particularly as there have indeed been many casualties over the years. That said, I have mellowed over the years and I don't think I am the same man who left the JA. You must remember that I was only 21 when I left. The only anger I feel about it now has been provoked here. You should know from lurking on JAW and from reading my blog (which I am quite sure you will have perused - here you go, if not http://ja-1984.blogspot.com/ ) that my attitude in the last couple of years (as for instance when I supported DG's planning application) has been conciliatory. Perhaps if you hadn't been quite so anxious to deny policies which you have anyway moved away from, I wouldn't feel quite so irked; your implication being that I am lying - with the consequence that you compound the hurt that we felt by those policies. Sorry, stupidly long sentences - am tired - too late to go back and edit themBristol Sycamore (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one of the things I found when I looked through the file of your past comments. John Campbell (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Ah well, I guess what I said last night gives that some context.Didn't know I had a dossier!Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I should remind all again that the talk page is for discussing ways of improving the article, not engaging in polemics about the subject. Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But Pete, part of the problem, maybe all of it, is that an encyclopedia is not the place for such a subjective evaluation of the subject. When you use words like "pressured" and "victims" you must see how difficult it is to get anything concrete from them to add to the article. If someone says, "Joe Bloggs, who was an elder in the New Religious Church of God, was beastly to me in 1986," there isn't much that can be done or said about it. It seems to me from my readings over the past few weeks that the Jesus Army is comprised of people who have had an extreme experience of life, and as a result have developed extreme and uncompromising views and practices. I do think the article should acknowledge that more than it now does, and will try to work towards that, but your attempt to "prove" that people were "pressured" or "victimised," in the absense of legal material, will probably fail. With all due respect, these folk strike me as muscular Christians on steroids. I am sure they do truly great and worthwhile things, but when someone goes home with a gang of skinheads wearing combat uniforms they should not complain afterwards that things were not always done gently. Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but the JFC wasn't an army when I was there, and the character of the church was very different. Concerns about the authoritarianism, insensitivity and seemingly unloving nature of policies - and the way they were applied in the 1980s concerned the major activity of the church which was not "outreach" but building community. Community was about support for each other, nurture, brotherhood etc. It WAS evangelistic, of course, but evangelism brought people into the loving fold as we had created it for ourselves. Being submissive implied a great deal of trust in eldership who were ill-trained, insensitive and clumsy. Checks and balances did not work and serious damage was done.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I shall fail in a legal sense because at least at law witnesses would be heard and their experiences weighed in the balance. Here, the very people who know most about what goes on in the JFC are not allowed to be considered credible witnesses. I understand why that is so here, but it does mean that this article can never hope to adequately reflect the true nature of the JA. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Jossi said much the same when we started this collaboration, that Wikipedia articles can not describe the "true nature" of anything very much. We can only reflect the current state of understanding as expressed by reliable sources. Regarding the change in nature of the Fellowship over the years, perhaps that is why the JA evolved out of a disillusioning attempt at forming a Christian community? Obviously I have no idea, and should not be discussing it here.  Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, but do you think the reader understands that distinction? Most people are not "in on" Wiki. They just want to find out about something, so go to the online encyclopedia and it is all very well wiki saying it isn't like any other reference source, the fact is that people look things up in good faith, imagining they will get something approximating truth. Wouldn't you say? Here's something I will guarantee....just as the JFC point to their membership of the EA as proof of their bona fides, they will say, you see, wikipedia says we are just an orthodix church too and it wouldn't even listen to the people critical of us. JA people on the JAWtch forum are already doing it..saying, haha, that Peter Eveleigh  broke the rules of evidence, even wikipedia can see he isn't credible. That sort of thingBristol Sycamore (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this article will end up calling the JA "orthodox." The sources do not say that at all, though they don't go as far as you might wish in delineating that. Have a look at the last edits and come back on them. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, would you mind summarizing the main points of the JF Trust system? About 50-80 words would be about right. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, Wikipedia is still a mystery to most people. The myth is "you can write whatever you want on Wiki," and by some mysterious process ("the wisdom of crowds") it comes out right. As we are showing there is a lot more involved, and the result is something quite specific, but hopefully not far from the truth. It is a good thing. Or so I strongly believe. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can see what a ruddy nuisance I must have been to the JA, even as a new member. I am not easily persuaded of things, but I do think that you are bringing me round, Rumiton.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope no one (John?) takes offense at my "gang of skinheads wearing combat uniforms" remark. It was meant as a light-hearted interjection to make a point to Pete. The point was a serious one, the description was not. Rumiton (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some other quotes 

message: Reading over the article this morning, I see that my recent inclusion of criticism from given sources has pushed the article into negativity. When we get a summary of the Trust and how it operates, as well as some more on the charity side, I think we can get back to neutrality. Rumiton (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-critical style 

message: See also: Info from the JA
Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’ [p31]
Like many intentional communities, entrance into the community life of the NCCC is gradual and follows a period of mutual adaptation. Those committed Christians seeking a communal existence, in much the same way as new converts off the streets, are afforded a welcome, drawn into the community and offered membership, with a personal decision expected in six months. Before embarking on full community life, however, a member must be over the age of 21 years old and is expected to go through a probationary period of two years. During the probationary time. The prospective member’s income are placed in the Community trust Fund which may also pay off any debts incurred by new members. At the end of the probationary period, any assets an individual may have are contributed to the Trust Fund and entered into a legal register against their name and are refunded should a member wish to leave the Jesus Fellowship.
William Kay in Encyclopedia of New Religions [p89]
On commitment to the community (which takes place after a probationary period of between one and three years) members surrender their possessions for collective use but may reclaim them should they subsequently decide to leave. Those who do not wish to live within the community may remain covenant members while living in their own homes and earning money outside the community. In a sense they operate like Christians who attend a particularly close-knit Sunday congregation. There are also a variety of ways in which Christians may belong to the Jesus Fellowship with a looser commitment.
The community has founded a series of Christian businesses employing some 250 people. Profits from the businesses help fund the wider work of the Jesus Fellowship. Community houses are owned by a trust fund ultimately controlled by the members.
John Campbell (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Fellowship Community Trust - some quotes 

message: As i said before, we are short of academic reports on this, as the Jesus Centres are a recent development. They offer help and friendship to all, irrespective of their faith or lack of it.
From JACT website
The Jesus Army Charitable Trust, established 2002, is a charity set up by the Jesus Fellowship Church to develop and enhance its existing work with many disadvantaged groups and individuals. It has adopted the following aims to fulfil its charitable objects:
:Reducing the personal suffering associated with economic or social deprivation by meeting material, social and emotional needs on a 'holistic' basis without prejudice to any.
:Building capacity on a non-prejudiced 'holistic' basis to help individuals to make significant progress in their lives including reduction of addictions and rehabilitation of offenders.
:Promoting the advancement of the Christian religion by facilitating Jesus Fellowship activities and by provision of appropriate spiritual services.
:Increasing social skills and cohesion through the provision of recreational and community facilities.
:Operating as an effective and efficient charity, complementing and working constructively with other agencies and benefiting volunteers and staff by utilising and developing their skills and experience. 
The Jesus Army Charitable Trust currently supports the running of Jesus Centres in Coventry and Northampton and is working towards a Jesus Centre in the West End of London, which is to open during 2007. The aim is to meet the needs of a broad range of people by means of a one-stop shop offering help and friendship at a grass-roots level. The Jesus Army Charitable Trust hopes to develop further ways of promoting their objectives in the future both through the Jesus Centres and by other means.
Charity Registration No: 1091912
Charity Commission listing
Guidestar listing
Source : 26/06/2004 Northampton Chronicle and Echo
JESUS CENTRE IS BACK ON TARGET
… [John Campbell] added: 'We're not going to be imposing religion on people. We want the centre to be welcoming to people whatever their religious background.'
Source : 05/06/2002 Northampton Chronicle and Echo
JESUS ARMY INVITES PUBLIC IN TO NEW HQ
… Over the next year, the former Cannon cinema in Abington Square will become the biggest Jesus Army Centre in the country.
… Visitors were given a tour of the former cinema and were told how a £3 million overhaul will transform it into a massive worship and support centre for homeless, disadvantaged and lonely people.
… He said the centre would be staffed by Jesus Army volunteers offering help and support, particularly to the homeless.
'People can drop in and we will be able to help with the material provisions of food, drink and blankets,' he said.
'Long-term, the most important thing is to help people build relationships and friendships, especially with people who have been in their situation and understand what they are going through.'
The centre will also be used to hold worship, informal meetings and could be hired out to businesses, community groups and theatre companies.
Mr Campbell said: 'This centre will be open for anyone whatever their religious beliefs or lack of them.'
… The first landing will be home to a café, counselling rooms and information displays.
People will be able to train at the centre in literacy, where English is a second language, numeracy and IT.
'Back of house' will be turned into a practical area for homeless people including a medical room, wash and shower rooms, a laundry facility and a safe place for valuables.
report, 
Friday, 31st May, 2002 - 15:45 BST
Future of cinema unveiled
… The Jesus Army bought the 1930s cinema for £1 million in 2000 with the intention of converting it into a worship centre.…
Their plans include a 'one-stop shop for worship, friendship and care'. There will be facilities for homeless people, training rooms, conference space, a cafe and a worship centre.
…
John Campbell from the Jesus Army said: "The centre is going to be aimed at providing help for a wide range of people without any precondition. Anyone is welcome. The aim is not just to do things like showers and meals but to do the kind of training which people need: job applications, literacy, numeracy, money skills and so on." 
Coventry Evening Telegraph - 2 February 2002
ALL ARE WELCOME AT CHURCH'S NEW CENTRE
A cafe, public meeting hall and drop-in centre for the homeless are being incorporated into a new church centre taking shape in Coventry city centre.
Members of Coventry's Jesus Army are sponsoring the £800,000 project which they hope will actively help everyone — whether they are down on their luck or simply want to find a central location to run aerobics classes.
Piers Young, who will manage the multi-use centre, stresses it will be open to all, regardless of their beliefs.
He said: "The Bridge will be a drop-in centre where the homeless, or anyone in need, will find a friendly welcome and facilities for washing, laundry and subsidised wholesome food.
PARTIES
"But the church centre will also include the Upper Well cafe and what we are calling The Gateway community hall, which will be a resource available for hire for everything from aerobics to children's parties and business seminars." 
In addition members of the Jesus Army will use the church centre as a place of worship. At the moment they are meeting in hired halls.
Carole Rust, who will co-ordinate services at The Bridge, said: "We want to actively help people in need to improve their quality of life, not just provide a 'parking space' for them.
"We will be open six mornings a week, including weekends, and hope that, by means of training and advice, people of all faiths will be helped to enhance their skills and capacity to live fuller lives."
Coventry Evening Telegraph - 29 April 2002
DROP-IN CENTRE SET TO OPEN
£800,000 project helps homeless
A drop-in centre for the homeless will open in Coventry city centre tomorrow.
The Bridge, part of the new Coventry Jesus Centre, in Lamb Street, is being sponsored by members of Coventry's Jesus Army.
The £800,000 project will incorporate a public meeting hall, an IT centre and a chapel.
A public cafe is set to open in the building's foyer in June.
The Bridge will cater for anyone in need, especially the homeless and vulnerably housed.
FRIENDSHIP
Food, a shower, laundry facilities, advice and friendship will be available and the centre will be open to all, regardless of beliefs. 
Piers Young, who will manage the centre, said: 'The Bridge will be a place where the homeless or anyone in need, will find a friendly welcome and facilities for washing, laundry and subsidised food.
"It's meeting a need in the provision for these kind of services in the city— we're aiming to help people stand on their own feet and to develop their own capacity.
"We are calling it the Bridge because it is both a bridge to other resources and agencies and a bridge to a more complete life.
"People will be able to use the internet to access employment information and we want to encourage that.
'They will also have their own e-mail address and be able to use the Bridge as a postal address.
It will be open from 9am to 12pm from Tuesday to Saturday, between 9am and 10.30am on Sundays and between 7pm and 9pm on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Churches and individuals can buy food vouchers from the centre, to give to people in need.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Campbell (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Army Charitable Trust - some more quotes 

message: ::Would all involved care to look over the article and comment on neutrality and factuality? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, I have to say you have done a pretty amazing job, when I think how you came to this subject with no previous experience of it....and when I realise that I haven't made it at all easy for you. I do have a few niggles, which I hope can be addressed, but on the whole I hope John (and others)feel as I do that we are very nearly there.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running short of time, but I'll do that shortly. I want to do justice to the hard work you've done on this. In addition, I have a new book I've just received and a number of points I'd been looking at in response to earlier requests. John Campbell (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you Pete, and John, no hurry. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review article now 

message: This is about celibacy again - sorry I think it is in the wrong place but am doing my best !
"In fundamentalist christian NRMs such as the London Church of Christ, marriages are not usually formally arranged but often rely on the advice and consent of the pastor, and divorce is forbidden. The Jesus Army is more extreme, percieving marriage as the "lower way" to celibacy, which is promoted in Celibate Cutting Edge ,their "inspirational bulletin of celibacy". In this respect the movement may be percieved as a militant version of the men's movement in which the men give up being "feminised" and don combat gear as warriors for Jesus, also displaying misogynistic values" Puttick,E,p.153in New Religious Movements ed. Wilson,B and Cresswell,J(1999),Routledge, London. (The emphasis of the church may have changed - why and how and what was done for those who took a vow 20 years ago thinking they were following a higher way only to be told now that god had changed his mind ? I don't really expect this to be answered as I don't think it is the place for it, but it is human details like this that the church forgtes about as it "advances the Kingdom")--Moonwalkers (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celibacy again again 

message: This is not the article I would have written, but then neither is it the article Pete would have written! All in all, it is coming out surprisingly balanced and sane. I've attempted to comment as neutrally as possible, having full regard to the sources we are using.
::I agree with John, very largely, though I am rather alarmed by the number of suggested changes.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for fine tweaking 

message: Earlier Rumiton suggested that the sources did not support the view that the Jesus Army was "orthodox":  'I don't think this article will end up calling the JA "orthodox." The sources do not say that at all.'
OK, then this is what the sources do say, already quoted on this page:
Chryssides "The case of the Jesus Army is an interesting one, for it has never added to scripture or appeared to give undue veneration to its founder-leader, while its morality is very conservative and its theological position thoroughly orthodox. It is the sheer zeal of the movement that its critics find disturbing."
"... the group is thoroughly orthodox, professing allegiance to Christianity's historic creeds; it neither seeks to add to scripture nor claims new present-day prophets, although, in common with many mainstream Christians, it believes in continuing revelation through the Holy Spirit's inspiration."
Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’, quoting Buzz magazine, 1986
"'Theologically they seem as sound as a bell… No other group of Christians has been the brunt of so much criticism, lies, scandal, accusations and suspicion as the Jesus Fellowship. ... there are numerous Christians from house fellowships and other denominations who have gained a very favourable impression of the Jesus People.'"
Kay in Encyclopedia of New Religions
"It is now again a member of the Evangelical Alliance and has good relationships with a wide range of evangelical and charismatic groups and networks."
Unconventional maybe, unorthodox, no
John Campbell (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hoisted once more by the petard of my ecclesiastical ignorance. I meant unorthodox only as relates to their MO, in the exact sense of unconventional. All sources appear to agree that their spiritual beliefs are orthodox Christian. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking up the quoted passage, I find that Slee also applies the same strictures to university [evangelical] Christian Unions, and states that he sees no difference between the effects of Scientologists and those of members of Christian Unions. p.174,175 John Campbell (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is simply that Slee lumps evangelicals and NRMs together as those who do not use the bible correctly, as described in the quote above. In the terms we are discussing, evangelical Christians would be seen as "orthodox", even if Slee disagrees profoundly with their stance. I can also say that I well remember talking to him when he visited us, but I cannot recollect the conversation having the emphasis he describes. Ah well. John Campbell (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Orthodoxy" 

message: First illustration caption. This originally referred to the camouflage pattern, which I felt tied in helpfully with the “army” identity. It said “The multi-coloured camouflage jacket”...
No problem. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks -- Intro (agreed) 

message: John, you wrote: This is not the article I would have written, but then neither is it the article Pete would have written! (I can't resist this... BUT IS IT AN ARTICLE UP WITH WHICH YOU BOTH CAN PUT?) I'll look at the tweaklets later this evening. Rumiton (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am probably closer to putting up with it than John is, if the many tweaks are anything to go by, and I have to say that I rather resent the attempt to re-write so much at this late stage, which could tie us up in knots. With all these different issues vying for consideration, I hope that the sense of focus achieved so far will not be lost and concessions and agreements to date will not be forgotten.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not too. What we are looking at is fine tuning, the final stages of editing, which in my experience is quite normal. John Campbell (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to answer your question, which I took as a jest: Yes I could put up with it as it stands, though I think we can improve it significantly by this final run through. John Campbell (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks John. I agree. Stability has to be our goal. Will look again tonight. Rumiton (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Postpositions]] 

message: Can we please deal with each re-write issue separately - in its own section? I can't cope with this forest of issues thrown together! I am worried about clarity being lost and old concessions being forgotten. (will be back later. Pagan Festival shopping now!)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've done is divided the tweaks section up according to the sections on the main page. I hope that will help us make progress in these final stages. John Campbell (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, John. Let's really bring an end to this as soon as possible.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop- I am a bear with a very small brain - 

message: the following two books contain substantial chapters on the Jesus Army. Hunt is footnoted, but not in the list of references. We have used a short article by Kay as a source, but this is a new book. I think they should both be included in References.
: Hunt, Stephen J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’ in Pneuma, The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 20, Number 1, Spring 1998 (Hagerstown, Maryland, USA) Pp.21-41 
: Kay, William K., Apostolic Networks in Britain: New Ways of Being Church, Paternoster, Milton Keynes 2007
John Campbell (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks -- References (3) (agreed) 

message: I have no direct knowledge of the first Barker reference ("Of gods and men") but suspect it has no relevance to the article. Her contribution in the book is her famous paper about "The Ones who Got Away" and concerns people who leave the the Unification Church (Moonies), although she has also written a preface to the book. You can check the contents on page vii of Google books preview. John Campbell (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks -- References (agreed) 

message: I think that Keishin Inaba, Altruism in New Religious Movements may be too specialised abstruse and may be best dropped. I know the book and it's a rework of a postdoctoral thesis. For the avoidance of doubt, it is neutral-to-positive on the subject, so be assured that I am not burying bad news.
John Campbell (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks -- References (2) (agreed) 

message: The Jesus Fellowship claims to uphold the creeds of the Christian faith
We have already agreed that “claims” is not a Wiki word. I suggest:
The Jesus Fellowship subscribes to the  historic creeds… (also changing the link to a more informative one)
::I think that is fair enough. My problem is not with the foundational theology of the church, but with systems of belief which have been added on, like Two Kingdom Theology and the other matters we are not permitted to have mentioned, like the fear of judgement for covenant breakers etc, which I know not to be at all orthodox.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But does one "subscribe" to a creed? Forgive my ignorance, but it sounds like getting a magazine home delivered. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Subscribe' was a word I found on another web site when researching historic creeds just now. 'Accepts' is another possibility. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we are worried about the clumsiness os tautology, what's wrong with "believe"? After all creed comes from Credo (L), "I believe"? Alternatively, how about "attest to"?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Accepts' is the word used on ecumenical creeds. John Campbell (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an area for some good old-fashioned pedantry. As a creed is a statement that starts "I believe..." (or "we believe"), from the Latin Credo, it is not merely tautological but incorrect to say someone believes a creed. It is tantamount to saying (for example) "I believe I believe in God." "Subscribes to" in this sense means "adds one's name to", as in signing at the bottom, so it becomes "I believe in God, Signed John Campbell". Hence the use of the word. "Accepts" is self-conciously weaker and can be used to imply just a general acceptance. "Upholds" is the word we have always used. Which would you like to use? John Campbell (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice pedantry, John. Well done! Bearing in mind the way a tiro like me stumbled over "subscribe" maybe "upholds" is best. Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best Wikilink for this is to Ecumenical creeds rather than creeds, and I would prefer the link text to be "historic creeds", an alternative name for the ecumenical creeds. John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that one academic hasn't seen something does not mean either that the allegation wasn't made or that it is proved not to have been the case. It should be sufficient to say that current members deny that it is the case, especially if the academic is making a passing comment and celibacy policy in the JA was not the aspect of life in the community that he set out to investigate and looked into in depth.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably didn't make my point clear. Newell is the source for "Some critics have maintained that JF teaches celibacy as a better or higher way, and that single members have been pressurized into the vow". I believe he is the only source who uses the strong words "maintained" and "pressurized". My point was intended to be that he goes on to balance this by "I have not myself seen any evidence of this.", which has been transformed into "Current members deny this".  John Campbell (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I AgreeBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision ("feel pressured") may be adequate. John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks -- Beliefs (agreed) 

message: To be accurate, should the JA be changed to the JFC for the formation date of 1969, given that the JA didn't exist at all until 1980-something?
It just niggles me a bit
(but is not an issue, as such)
:Perhaps we ought to look at that. Some of that is fairly easy (just looking now) but we would have to introduce the launch of the JA. Also we should probably do a redirect from "Jesus Fellowship" to this article. John Campbell (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite with you here. Heart sank for a moment when I thought you meant there was a JF article on wiki which we would have to deal with next. Relieved to discover (on searching) that I had misunderstood you. What did you mean?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can create a Jesus Fellowship disambiguation page that will redirect enquiries to the JA page. Rumiton (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be helpful John Campbell (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An NCCC one too, perhaps?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: New Creation Christian Community (the community part of the fellowship)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jesus fellowship or Jesus fellowship Church are more significant names for an outsider to search  on than NCCC. John Campbell (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think so too. I doubt that anyone much would search for NCCC. The disambiguation page is in place. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That shows how out of date I am, I suppose, because it's what I'd have looked for first. But I am fine with your joint decision.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweak -1969 (agreed) 

message: I wonder if the "Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance" section would be better titled "Past controversy". My only concern there would be whether it would open up a whole new can of worms. John Campbell (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that, JohnBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. John Campbell (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s. I think the word "if" next to JFC may cause the problem. I know this will seem silly, but in his context I think my brain sometimes changes it to an "of"...because it is about membership. Sorry to seem a bit odd.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that might work. Let's try that. Thanks.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But has the sentence now got too far away from the last mention of EA so that I now neds to introduce EA at its start rather than the end. "A number of churches in the Evangelical Alliance threatened to leave if the Jesus Fellowship Church was allowed to remain a member." might be better for that reason. Read the whole paragraph. John Campbell (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that reads nicely.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Jiggled things around a bit. Does it read OK? Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. John Campbell (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: AgreedBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks (suggestions) (agreed) 

message: Will people be able to change the article, will they be able to add or remove parts, references, links etc? Is there any danger that all our good work could be undone by spoilers or others who simply don't agree with what we have written or agreed?
If someone goes to edit it, will they be stopped by some mechanism or message, or will changes then lead to some other process?
I am still quite an amateur here, you will appreciate.
I'd like to be able to walk away from this whole process, draw a line under the last twenty-five years and get back to my life. And I am sure you, Rumiton, and John would like to be able to get on with your lives too....happy that this will stay intact.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rumiton. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God!Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'd known, I probably wouldn't have bothered. John does this sort of thing as his job; he has the time, I shouldn't have. There will be endless attempts to deliberately spoil the site. It would be a novelty working WITH John...rather a nice thought....but it won't be long before he will have the reins, exclusively, and that is a tiny bit worrying, with respect, John. (I'm sure you'd feel the same about me) Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit scary, but we have no option. John Campbell (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will be the state of play once agreement is reached? 

message: ===JESUS ARMY ONLINE===
The Jesus Army hosts a very comprehensive http://www.jesus.org.uk/ja/index.shtml that explains their faith and their church structure. It also includes some very useful downloads of Christian books http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/ many written from a different perspective to their own church.
They also host a very active online forum http://www.jesus.org.uk/forum/index.php where anyone can contribute their thoughts under different headings.
Posts are initially moderated, but new posters are quickly given trusted status once they prove to be trustworthy. This does not mean they have to be sympathetic to the Jesus Army cause. Some posters who contribute to lively debate are quite critical of their stance. The online forum is regarded as an outreach and information tool, as is their periodical free hard-copy magazine, the Modern Jesus Army Streetpaper http://www.jesus.org.uk/ja/mag_splatest_index.shtml also available online and for download. This often contains thought provoking articles on Christian themes, and interesting testimonies of members.
::It seems to me that a review of the link is not required, as the user can just click on it and see it for themselves. The article is about the JA, not their media.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions we have to ask ourselves is what of this is significant (there's a Wikiword for that), what comes from Reliable Sources and is Verifiable. If it doesn't come from a RS, then is there an RS to provide the same information. John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, John. The Wiki expression is "relevant to their notability." Also, a Wikipedia article cannot be "promotional" in tone, and must not be  Original Research (which really means it can't be the personal opinion of the writer.) Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that the JA are regarded as a reliable source when they are talking about themselves (in an article about the JA), so surely the material which comes from the JA vault, as all the membership stuff (above) does is reliably sourced? My only objection is that it is wordy and adds nothing that cannot be found via the link. Only the last two paras could be said to be opinion/OR. I am sorry Tony doesn't have the heart to pursue the process because it is important that the article does not appear to be jealously guarded against the contributions of othersBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the key notable facts presented here are the different styles of membershipn, which expand on a cryptic sentence in the article. They would need boiling down into a pithy statement however. John Campbell (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additions 

message: The Jesus Army hosts a very comprehensive http://www.jesus.org.uk/ja/index.shtml that explains their faith and their church structure. It also includes some very useful downloads of Christian books http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/ many written from a different perspective to their own church.
They also host a very active online forum http://www.jesus.org.uk/forum/index.php where anyone can contribute their thoughts under different headings.
Posts are initially moderated, but new posters are quickly given trusted status once they prove to be trustworthy. This does not mean they have to be sympathetic to the Jesus Army cause. Some posters who contribute to lively debate are quite critical of their stance. The online forum is regarded as an outreach and information tool, as is their periodical free hard-copy magazine, the Modern Jesus Army Streetpaper http://www.jesus.org.uk/ja/mag_splatest_index.shtml also available online and for download. This often contains thought provoking articles on Christian themes, and interesting testimonies of members.
::It seems to me that a review of the link is not required, as the user can just click on it and see it for themselves. The article is about the JA, not their media.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JESUS ARMY ONLINE

message: The Jesus Fellowship Church has eight levels of 'membership'.
"New Friends"  There's always lots of them around. They go to meetings and their houses, find friendship among them and they claim, meet Jesus. They claim to love them! They look forward to meeting many more of them in these days when they claim the Jesus Movement is growing around the land.
"Cell-church Members"  They are regular attenders at a midweek Cell-church meeting, have found faith in Jesus, and been baptised. They truly belong to their 'family'!
"Congregational Members"  They are regular attenders at congregational meetings, have found faith in Jesus and been baptised. Like cell-church members, they are regarded as belonging to the family without officially becoming members of the whole church.
"Baptised Members"  They are members of the church, regularly involved in it's activities and supportive of it's vision and practice. They are not covenant committed but find their way amongst the church at their own pace. But they are very much part of the family!
"Style One Covenant Members"  These are members of their church family who are baptised and join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship. They are often those who are spiritually "young" in Jesus and cannot yet handle a stronger commitment. Others are "Style One" because of their circumstances. "Style One Members" normally attend the Tuesday evening Agape meal http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library_hottopics16.shtml and weekend meetings of the church household and congregation.
"Style Two Covenant Members" These are baptised members of their church family who feel that they can join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship with a stronger commitment. This includes a recognition of the radical nature of Kingdom of God culture, with time, financial and serving commitments. It is for those who feel unable to join Style Three community, preferring to retain their own house and lifestyle but who are keen to live in simplicity, discipleship and sharing.
"Style Three Covenant Members"  These are baptised members of their church family who have responded to the call to have "all things in common" like the first Christians. They join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship, desiring the fullest possible commitment. They see the Kingdom of God in the church and desire the church family to be a community over which Jesus is Lord. They share wealth, possessions and income (and pay debts!). They live in small or large houses owned by the church family.
"Style Four Covenant Members"  These are baptised members of their church family who desire to join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship, but live at a distance from any Jesus Fellowship congregation, so cannot regularly participate. Nevertheless they are loved and fellowship with them is maintained.
http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library_hottopics01.shtml
Although the Jesus Army has been criticised for some of its more unacceptable practices by mainstream Christianity in the past, they are becoming more and more tolerant of beliefs that don't quite match their own. Some ex-members have expressed online the hurt caused to them through membership. This is usually based on complaints of too much personal control, forbidding of certain clothing and jewelry etc., encouraging celibacy and the subjection of women members. However, times change, and the Jesus Army has more recently modified many of these attitudes.
Many seekers have found refuge within the Jesus Fellowship Church when they felt rejected by other Christian denominations, particularly those who are vulnerable or lonely. Younger people are attracted by their worship style that includes modern music, dance and light shows.
An independant Jesus Army Watch website exists, that monitors their activities. www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk/
Tony Haynes Clerk to Hampshire and Surrey Quaker Area Meeting Not a Jesus Army member, but a contributer to the Jesus Army online Forum as 'Drifter'.
[moved from article page for the purposes of discussion] John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions we have to ask ourselves is what of this is significant (there's a Wikiword for that), what comes from Reliable Sources and is Verifiable. If it doesn't come from a RS, then is there an RS to provide the same information. John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, John. The Wiki expression is "relevant to their notability." Also, a Wikipedia article cannot be "promotional" in tone, and must not be  Original Research (which really means it can't be the personal opinion of the writer.) Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that the JA are regarded as a reliable source when they are talking about themselves (in an article about the JA), so surely the material which comes from the JA vault, as all the membership stuff (above) does is reliably sourced? My only objection is that it is wordy and adds nothing that cannot be found via the link. Only the last two paras could be said to be opinion/OR. I am sorry Tony doesn't have the heart to pursue the process because it is important that the article does not appear to be jealously guarded against the contributions of othersBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the key notable facts presented here are the different styles of membershipn, which expand on a cryptic sentence in the article. They would need boiling down into a pithy statement however. John Campbell (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MEMBERSHIP

message: I have again removed the link John Aldrich reinstated to his own website and forum. In my opinion as a neutral editor and that of a neutral Wikipedia administrator (Jossi) they do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's  external linking policy. This decision can be appealed by any editor by filing a  request for comment. If the link is reinstated without doing this, the editor who does so risks a charge of disruptive editing.  Rumiton (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see I haven't missed much and that you two have kept things stable. Thanks. The chap's name is Mike, incidentally, and I noticed when I went to JAW just now that all postings have to be approved by the webmaster there before being posted. I believe this ought to go some way to satisfying the objection about his forum. I wonder if Mike put his forum up after making this change, assuming that wiki would honour the change. Also, if there is no tag on the article page, could someone be forgiven for not knowing that he needs approval from Jossi first; in other words, having complied with Jossi's initial objection, does he need to appeal?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for "forgiving," it's OK. But that is the situation now. Further reinstatement of the link would constitute "edit warring." Rumiton (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, I am en route and therefore can't contact Mike via email, and don't feel totally au fait with what has happened here, but can I ask you to explain here why the JAW link is not allowed, now that Mike's site previews and approves postings in precisely the way that he told it must if it was to be considered an acceptable link? It seems to me that Mike has met the conditions and is not being disruptive, as you seem to imply. I posted a message on the JAW forum this afternoon, which had to be approved before it was put up, so the system seems to work.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I purposely kept out of this part of the debate until Jossi had commented, as I did not want my personal experience to interfere with the process. John Campbell (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Good move, John. Sorry for getting Mike's name wrong. I am learning about this area, which I have not much encountered before. Wikipedia cannot direct readers to a biased site, which to me this seems to be, exemplified by the newspaper sources quoted. But I will wait to hear more from the admins and other editors. There may well be other problematic areas for WP:EL. Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello ... I am not a judge or an enforcer or rules. You will need to navigate this dispute by applying existing policies, and by seeking help from non-involved editors when you get stuck. Happy editing! Rumiton is doing a good job here as an informal mediator, so take advantage from his offer to help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Jossi. Well, I will be away for a few days and not sure if I can log on, but as soon as I can I'll take another look. Rumiton (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rumiton, I think the ball is in your court. The objection that Mike was given previously was that people could post anything on his site, even if potentially libellous. He has overcome that objection, it seems to me, and it would be wrong to appear to move the goalposts now that he has done so. I think you should assume his good faith and not treat the placing of his site on the article as an act of vandalism, when he had met your objection before doing so.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about vandalism? That is a serious charge, and one I did not make. Reinstating the link after an admin told us it did not comply with guidelines was a simple error on Mike's behalf. No problem, I think he is pretty new here. But I said that if he put it back again after being told this, it might be classed as "disruptive editing," which is really just bad manners, though if repeated could be serious. If the site and forum have altered in their nature and practice and are no longer what they were when rejected then we can take another look. After I have my little holiday. I am frankly getting quite sick of some of this sh*t. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, are you still assuming my good faith - or Mike's? Maybe you should do what I have done, and get right away from this, rather than letting it get you to the point of being offensive.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, I suggest you give Rumiton a few days to have his break, and then for him to come back to reflect on the JAW site. I guess that at the same time anyone interested ought to read Wikipedia's  external linking policy, if they haven't done so already. The next step would be (as already suggested) for you to file a  request for comment if the disagreement over whether JAW should be linked continues. John Campbell (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, re-Rumiton. On the request for comment, I misunderstood, I thought that was down to Mike. If anyone can do it, would it be possible for you to do it, as I have a huge load on my plate just now and this is low priority for me just now? Thanks John. PeterBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, break done. I just spent 90 minutes looking over the Jesus Army Watch site and forum, including the mildly witty posts in which I recognised (barely) myself. I still feel pretty much the same way about the site, that it is not neutral enough to be a Wikipedia link, which must be to the same encyclopedic standard as Wiki itself. The information section, to me, particularly adopts a jeering tone, and many (not all) of the newspaper articles quoted are written in a lurid, sensationalist style. The forum, while now commendably moderated, now has the problem that it contains very little hard information about the Jesus Army. Just about everything else, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding the allegation that I wrote "offensively," I was responding to demands like "...specify the real (and truthful) reason why the link has been removed" and to ominous references to "...other suggestions as to why it was removed already being put forward." These were clear allegations that I have a  conflict of interest, a more serious thing for a neutral editor to be accused of than you may know. I understand that Mike is new to the culture of Wikipedia, and I also understand that when one holds strong views on a subject, disagreement can be seen as bias. I have personal subjects like that myself. But the alarming thing is that Pete and John did not defend me or the article as it now stands. It does not look good for the stability of the article or the prevention of future unpleasantness. Anyway, if the subject of JAW linking is not considered settled, the next thing that must be done is to raise a  request for comment. Try to phrase the request as clearly and accurately as you can so as to get replies you can really use. You are garnering opinions on whether the JAW site and forum are acceptable under the Wikipedia  external links policy. Rumiton (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sorry that you didn't feel supported, Rumiton. I have nothing but esteem for the way you have steered this process. John Campbell (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Clearly emotions have run high recently and maybe that is largely because we are all pretty tired of this. I am sorry you feel unsupported, Rumiton, but I honestly hadn't picked up on any sense that you were under attack; my feelings, on the contrary, were sympathetic to Mike's position. I have known him for donkeys' years and have always known him to be very cool and level-headed, so for him to have got as incensed as clearly he has done, he has to have felt very seriously insulted by value judgements made about his site. I think wikipedia has a rather deluded sense of its own importance and in upholding its rules legalistically we run the risk of deluding ourselves about the quality of its content (generally. Our own article is good), while excluding large amounts of credible, valid information for academically pompous reasons. Together, we have written something really worthwhile, and I am grateful for that, I really am, but I am concerned that we should not stifle attempts by others to contribute. I don't think John or I defended the article because it didn't need defending - it is intact; and we didn't defend you, Rumiton, because we didn't think you were being attacked; Mike was. I did however think your language was rather strong - and seemed directed at me.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: With no disrespect towards John, I think he has not get involved with the JAW argument because your position, Rumiton, defends his desire to exclude access to articles which could show the JA in a bad light. He will not wish to challenge that position.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry I have failed to give you a better opinion of the way Wikipedia does things. I think John's side in all this has probably lost more ground through these negotiations than has the ex-members' side, mostly through previous content being rejected as promotional or unsupported by neutral expert sources. He has been remarkably philosophical and good graced throughout the process. Anyway, that's as far as I go. I think you have a fairly good, neutral article now, that has every chance of being stable if the reasons for its current shape are understood. It's up to you guys to make that happen. Bye. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, I wouldn't want you to go without knowing how grateful I am for everything you have done for everyone involved in this article. You mustn't go away thinking that my own disdain for the pompousness of wiki reflects badly on you or that I don't respect the fact that you are upholding wiki values consistently. I just believe that ALL writing is socially constructed, academic writing no less so. Neutrality is a myth and claims to it are intellectually dishonest. It is far better if writers declare their interests so that readers can decide for themselves about the truth of something they are reading. Please don't go away taking the heat of the argument as a personal slight. I am sorry you don't think better of me, by the way, but there you go. John and I will, I hope, keep the article stable. Thanks again. All the best, Peter  Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you Peter. I have only good wishes for you all. But I can't resist saying something about Wikipedia's "rather deluded sense of its own importance" and the "pompousness of Wiki". Think of any subject of significance and Google it (go ahead and do this.) You will probably see a Wikipedia entry in the top 5 lines. When you check it, you will almost certainly find a good, factual and surprisingly neutral (within your caveat about neutrality) article, made so by ordinary people following the Wiki Rules and Guidelines. That's why millions of people are using Wikipedia every day. No one can predict the future, but right now Wiki is the most significant general source of information in use in the world, and growing. Its importance could scarcely BE over estimated. All the best. Rumiton (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, I doubt that anyone could have negotiated a better article on the JA on wiki than you have, but it is, as we have all said, a compromise, and as jossi has said quite candidly, its job is not to seek to reflect the truth. Yes, wikipedia is a massively significant resource, but that is not because it presents factual accuracy, per se, but because of the way it is placed on Google search lists (I know, a friend of mine runs a company to guarantee his clients a place in the top 5). Ordinary readers have expectations of wiki as a conventional encyclopedia, so may put great store by it. But the process has shown that readers will only get a very partial and negotiated impression of the truth. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am impressed by the way the discussions result in a fact-based article that excludes wilder claims. It hardly stands against Wikipedia that unsubstantiated statements are not allowed! John Campbell (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree about the quality of the article we have had a part in, John, but just because some claims are, as you call them, "wilder" does not make them untrue. My problem is with the notion that if an academic says something is true, wiki accept it as substantiated, as if academics are neutral, which anyone who has been one or has mixed with them must know to be a myth. We have seen in our discussions of Hadden for instance, that there is a very definite bias in sociological research about the "cult phenomenon". I happen to have a lot of respect for Eileen Barker, as another example, but it is easy to anticipate her stand on anything she is asked about at interview. What we have is a very partial view of the JA, not because what has been excluded cannot be proved but because it can't be substantiated using wiki rules.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed link 

message: could we add at end of first paragraph of beliefs section
"Some of the mor controversial beliefs of the Jesus Army are contained in the document "Kingdom Manifesto" available on its website".
http://www.jesus.org.uk/kingdommanifesto.pdf Moonwalkers (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that is phrased in a NPOV manner. But in any case, the link to "We Believe" in the external links section at the end of the article is more appropriate and in the correct place. the link in the body of the article to the Jesus Army website was removed during editing for NPOV reasons. John Campbell (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take John's point about the use of the term "controversial" being apparently NPOV (is that right, John?), but I infer from your comment, Moonwalker, that the doctrines contained in the link are not entirely orthodox ones and that this point might be lost if nothing more than a link is provided to indicate this in the text. Please could you highlight the points of concern, so that we know what we are discussing here and can consider whether an edit needs to be made. I hope you feel that is fair, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Moonwalker, do you feel there is anything distinct or unorthodox about the "Kingdom Manifesto", which would mark it out as different in emphasis or even belief from other members of the E.A. (you used the word "controversial") ? And, if not, can you explain why you feel it is necessary to provide greater detail, given that a link already exists to the JA's "We Believe" site? If the claim is that the doctrine is controversial, it would be necessary to cite some sources which speak of this from a neutral point of view.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  beliefs amendment 

message: Just noticed that the Betacommand bot just did an edit. Does anyone understand what it has done, and why?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been assessed as of low importance and start quality in the Christianity Project. The Command Bot automatically added that assessment to the start of this discussion page. It's called beta because it needs to get better :-) John Campbell (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief: beta = better! Thanks John. How can a bot make what appears to me to be such a subjective assessment, I wonder? But then I am not up on what the Christianity Project is all about.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that the bot just transfers the editors' judgments on the Christianity Page to the subject pages. These various projects seem incredibly ambitious, involving an assessment of all the major threads of Wikipedia. John Campbell (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetacommandBot - who gets what it's about? 

message: Hi John. I just noticed that bit of vandalism, but see it has been reverted; great stuff. Incidentally, I noticed the edit you did on the 7th January, which I hadn't seen before - I suppose because I wasn't expecting there to be any further changes without prior agreement here. I don't object to the edit you made; you are right that it is something we did discuss some time back, but can we just agree that just as everyone else is required to come here and seek agreement before making edits, we will do the same. If it is something we think we agreed to in the past and just haven't had time to do since, could we give others a reminder, as I think I felt the article was stable when Rumiton bowed out?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your comments -- but I pointed out the remaining undecided areas again on 17 December, made a proposal and tried to get a response on 22 December, before making the changes and flagging it on 7 January. Feel free to comment on them!! John Campbell (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a major bone of contention, John, particularly as I am not botherd about the content of the edit, but all this came at a time when I was going on holiday and Rumiton also seems to have been otherwise engaged. For future reference, I think we ought to agree that silence does not indicate consent. And if all else fails, you can always email to nudge me if a suggestion does not elicit a response. We can hardly insist that others consult on edits if we go ahead without agreement ourselves. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not trying to pull a fast one, anyway. :-) John Campbell (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) That's ok, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: When we looked at this before, the expansion of the cited reference (using similar references such as Chryssides: "it was so intoxicating, so exhilarating, and so intense that I felt I was not going to live any more! I became filled with the intensity of God. This went on for hours and hours and I moved into speaking in tongues and praising the Lord. It was a tremendous experience of life and fullness from which I didn't come down for a long time - and this was the changing point in my life.") quoted Noel Stanton's account of his "charismatic experience", which was felt to be too subjective. "Charismatic experience" was considered a suitably neutral form of words, based on the words directly used by a reliable source. I toyed with the idea of something like "a charismatic experience described by Stanton as 'devastating, powerful, releasing and full of worship. It was, and has continued to be, a Baptism of love, faith, vision and courage....' " which gets round some of the difficulty, but also reads considerably less neutrally John Campbell (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaking 

message: John has suggested that Gramby and I would not accept "Becoming a clean and new person" as a source because it would not suit our agendas, but I think the main reason it is unacceptable as a source is that it is not a reported article but one written by a JA member with by-line. Clearly it is entirely biased.
I can understand you saying I have an agenda, John, but you can hardly accuse Gramby of being biased. He hadn't heard of the JA until a few days ago.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Heck, but I don't think John was serious. His article was clearly partisan, where at least yours was written by someone without a vested interest. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just add that Heck's article did not appear in "top-line" media (like the New York Times, The Times, the BBC), the journalist came undercover and did not reveal herself, and the final quote is totally spurious as she never talked to me. John Campbell (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am right in saying that Jossi clarified the point, saying that any published source where they were under a professional obligation to check their facts and were legally liable for what they said (had something to lose by publishing lies) was a verifiable source. When you say she was undercover and did not reveal herself to you, what do you mean exactly? Whenever a journalist is a woman, Mhairi always seems to be your spokesperson...presenting the solid, mature, serene image of a woman who has "some" leadership roles in community. It seems odd that it was her of all people who talked to the reporter. The rather dramatic word "undercover" suggests that there is a cover or even a cover-up to get under but are your meetings not open to anyone anyway?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are well aware that our meetings are open to all. The Wikipedia issue with sources is their "reliability" and I don't think this one can qualify as reliable. What was undercover is that this journalist did not reveal herself as a reporter at any stage. What was totally unprofessional is that she "quoted" me without having talked to me at all. There is another issue in that the web link is in breach of copyright and is not acceptable under Wiki rules. John Campbell (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know your meetings are open to all. I wanted you to confirm it here because I think that if the reporter wanted to report her impressions, as her recount shows she did, it is only reasonable that she should not have introduced herself first. But that does not make her "undercover". She would only have been undercover if she had come to live amongst you without telling you she was a reporter. But even if that had been the case, going undercover is NOT considered unprofessional. There has been quite a lot in the media recently about the necessity of journalists being able to go undercover in order to get information their stories, unsanitised. Take Zimbabwe, for instance. Western media are banned from Zimbabwe. Do we call it unprofessional if the BBC are able to get a report out or are able to contact a voice-disguised reporter on the ground? Should we listen to Mugabe if he protests that the BBC report is "unreliable" because the reporter didn't introduce himself to the dictator or his spokesman in person? Also, it is quite clear to anyone reading the article carefully, that the Mercury reporter is not saying that the quote was to her in person. I am sure we could find countless sources of the same quote.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I stated above, was that it was unprofessionalism to quote me falsely. Those are not my words at all. And it is extremely offensive to compare me to Mugabe. John Campbell (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be ridiculous, John. I am not comparing you to Mugabe. You are incredibly touchy for a PR man. I am making a point, which will not be lost on others. You were not quoted falsely. She didn't say you had said that to her (she referred to direct conversations elsewhere). You are getting defensive over nothing at all - did the quote (taken from another source, presumably) misrepresent your position?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my comment above. John Campbell (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look for offense everywhere, you will find it. But I'd have thought it was quite a handicap for someone fronting a controversial sect. I was making a point in very clear terms. It was about media professionalism, not about the JA (or you personally).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that acknowledgement and clarification. John Campbell (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text:    I think the comparison with mugabe inappropriate, it could even be considered offensive. I've read the report in question and notice the reporter is also saying that things like the internet is 'banned',that is incorrect. If that's incorrect I'd have to ask myself what else is incorrect in that report.Manicpixie (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Manic makes a good point about factual inaccuracies in the article. That is a far more creditable way to consider the article. That said, having talked to the young man who came to live with me after leaving the JA, it does have to be made clear that while the JA has the internet, its use by members is not without scrutiny, not available to all equally and what members may look at is limited. My observations of visiting DG's household seem to bear that out.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely enough, we are here to discuss improvements in the article, which includes considering whether the Sources are Reliable while avoiding personal attacks and original research. John Campbell (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IS that what you are doing, John, because all I can see is you reaching for any means possible to disallow an article which might show you in a bad light, while proffering one written entirely by a JA member as if it was reliable and NPOV.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Becoming a clean and new person , etc 

message: Here is a very useful guide to consensus in wikipedia[]. In it you can see that "Consensus emerges during the editing process" -"Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Included in each of the courses is the option to discuss the action before or after the action. Typically, each article goes through many iterations of the consensus process to achieve a neutral and readable product." But what it also says is that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable."Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi John, I see that you and Will Beback have been editing the article. Does this mean that you now accept that edits can be made without concensus being arrived at first here?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly would be counterproductive for substantial or controversial edits to be made without discussion, but as I indicated above, I agree that the tag that required all edits to be discussed has been removed. John Campbell (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that concession, John. Can we agree not to revert things we don't like, automatically, but to allow a cooling-off period, time to think and time to invite discussion?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something very disappointing about the fact you've seen fit to publish the fact the tag has been removed on a know anti-JA site as well as your blog. It seems almost like you're encouraging unsuitable edits.Manicpixie (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was removed months ago. What I am advertising is the concession John has made that everyone is entitled to be a wikipedian and edit the article. Your wording is unfortunate because it implies a prejudice that people will make unsuitable edits. There is a rule here which applies to all of us, which is to assume good faith.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is permissible to comment on the content and effect of posts on & off Wikipedia. That doesn't contravene WP:AGF. I sure it would be helpful if you could point out to posters that the aim of all editors should be to part of  producing a neutral article, and not to push any particular point of view. And, by the way, I'm not aware of "conceding" anything. Sounds like a WP:weasel word to me. John Campbell (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Next we'll be arguing about the number of fairies or angels on a pin head. It seemed like a concession to me - I thought it was a positive thing, but if it is important for you not to appear like you are giving me any ground, that is fine too. Does it matter what we call it? Either way, having argued that people must reach consensus before editing, you now acknowledge that this is not the case, for which I was grateful. What are your feelings on allowing edits you disagree with to stand for a short while, as is customary, to allow the editor to justify the edit - so as to avoid an edit war or the perception that either of us are acting as censorsBristol Sycamore (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Apologies for wording my comment badly. However I do think that the posting I'm commenting on could encourage bad edits.Manicpixie (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Manicpixie. That IS a danger, but don't you think that if I can be tamed, anyone else can? Everyone has to learn how this thing works the hard way. The article as it stands does not reflect the JA as many people have experienced it and the article has been described, even by someone who does not know the JA at all, as an obviously sanitised fluff piece. The JA has the advantage of a PR man with an archive of sources and has hundreds of people willing to speak for it (and dig out useful stuff). To balance that up, all you have is me, and I am frankly tired and bored. There are loads of more learned and experienced people out there who could add salt and light to all this. And at the risk of them saying things that may be controversial, I think they need to be encouuraged to get up in their lofts and find sources.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears that this is covered by a Wiki Rule WP:MEAT: "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." John Campbell (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for bringing that rule to our attention John.Manicpixie (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not inviting people to join a debate but inviting BACK people who were deterred from contributing during the rewrite because every effort to contribute (like Mike Aldrich's and John Everett's were spurned, despite the considerable effort they put in). I don't want people to debate anything. I want people to contribute to the article. Interestingly, the only people who have contributed since you accepted that they could, John, have been people on "your side". I am happy to see there here, even if I do wonder what brought them here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must allow others to reflect on the validity of your distinction and whether WP:MEAT applies, but for the record, here are links to the pages where you invited contributions, and suggested the lines on which the contributions might be made  . The procedure we went through was the legitimate Wikpedia process for dealing with controversial subjects, with the help of a neutral editor and/or administrator as in WP:DR. No-one was frozen out or rejected, but the key Wikipedia rules were applied fairly and at times firmly. At the time we both agreed that it was a constructive, if painful, process and that it produced an reasonable attempt at a balanced article, as seen by an outsider. All the discussions are on record and archived for other editors to review. John Campbell (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pleased you have included the links, John. I had thought to do so myself, but given your jumpiness about Jesus Army Watch and my blog (Surviving the Jesus Army) appearing on here, I thought better of it. People will see that I have cautioned people not to use the word cult, to find verifiable sources and to speak for themselves. That is not MEAT or sock-puppetry, which implies me putting words in other people's mouths. Lots of people are concerned about the JA and are perfectly capable of formulating their own arguments. They are a disparate bunch over whom I have very little (if any) influence. It really isn't at all like life in the JA where you can be pretty confident of at least apparent unanimity.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: We did indeed arrive at the compromise article together (and as you say, the process is on the record), but what we arrived at was a concensus of only three people (and only two of us who are actually privy to what actually goes on in the JA). Others were frankly deterred by the process, but had clearly tried to contribute. The fact is that the mediated re-write is not how the editing process normally works, but is what happens when there has been an editing war. The normal course of events frees everyone to make sensible edits and not engage in convoluted and drawn-out arguments. It strikes me that the principle I read in the guidelines, that even children can contribute wouldn't work on the JA article, where even well-educated adults despair of being heard.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is anything further to add to this section of the discussion. OK? John Campbell (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am probably done, but others may want a say.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: As an anonymous editor has inserted the word "lifetime" into the phrase "pledge of loyalty to the Fellowship" I have supplied the other missing phrase "intention of" as in the Source. I am sure this is non-controversial. John Campbell (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair to me. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word in the source is "lifelong", which I guess is what we should use. John Campbell (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fine with meBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Practices - Covenant 

message: what does this mean? I don't think I have seen it before.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical problem. Usually goes away if you try again. John Campbell (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks JohnBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database locked 

message: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/chaplaincy/movements/index.html
I am trying to craft an edit which makes the point that university chaplaincies warn students to be cautious of the JA as a "New Religious Movement" using a strong recruiting style. I think this belongs in the section concerning the JA's practices or belongs with statements about how the JA is to be compared to other mainstream house churches. What do other editors think? 
The Cardiff Chaplaincy site, which is an academic one and surely above reproach, refers to such NRMs as "controversial" and includes Moonies, JWs, Scientology, etc- . I think this relates to the issue of whether the JA/JFC is regarded in the same terms as other house churches, as suggested in the article.
The site refers readers to INFORM, which I think most editors would feel was a very reputable site set up by Eileen Barker, who is not a critic of the JA, and to Hadden's site, which I know John will be happy about.
I believe that numerous university chaplaincies list the JA as a controversial NRM which is cause for concern where vulnerable students are concerned, but I won't say it unless I have reliable references.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an academic source which is subject to peer review, merely a notice to students. The Jesus Army has never been active in Cardiff, so the reliability of this source must be questioned. The rest of the posting looks very much like WP:OR or WP:SYN and hardly seems to be pursuing WP:NPOV. John Campbell (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: This is clearly not a neutral comment and I am surprised that John has not removed it as "original research".Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the only grounds for removing other editors' contributions to talk pages lie within Biography of Living Persons, which you are encouraged to deal with swiftly. The contribution above couldn't make it to the article page, and in fact I removed it from there yesterday. John Campbell (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misunderstood that rule, if it was the basis on which you removed something I said about myself a day or so ago in this section. The rule is designed to protect living people from libel. It is not designed to give people grounds for censoring AUTO-biographical material, epecially on a talk page. In an article it could be said to be "original research" and could be removed for that, but not from here, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it was your reference to a living person which ran foul of the rule. See my edit summary. I'm taking a short wiki break now. John campbell 193.35.132.148 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I am the living person, apart from a reference to Noel. But as the article is about him, in part, I hardly think you can remove reference to him in the discussion, can you? Enjoy your AgapeBristol Sycamore (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry John, I must have overlooked that editing Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: so I pop along and post some stuff and you two fight over wether I can or not, then accuse each other of who out of either of you I know.or maybe even the church itself. How very odd you are adults aren't you? coz i'm not convinced!!!! Darthsuma (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to avoid personal attacks, Darthsuma. WP:NPA     Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The article only refers to the Jesus Army as "aggressively proselytising". The rest of your comments are therefore  synthesis, taking material from elsewhere in the article and applying it directly in a way that the author did not. An equally-valid obstacle is that the article is an opinion piece, as flagged by the heading "I think...", and falls short in various ways of being a  reliable source. In terms of other Chaplaincies, 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 []. John Campbell (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Uni Chaplaincies 

message: As the third Jesus Centre has now opened in London, the final sentence in the section needs amending to "Other Jesus Centres opened in Northampton (2004) and Central London (2008), with others to follow." OK? John Campbell (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of the 2008 opening is fine with me, though I wonder if "others to follow" can be regarded as NPOV?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that NPOV is the corect tag, but I agree it might be suspect. The question is whether the future is Reliably Sourced and Verifiable; probably not. How about "others planned"? John Campbell (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that would be fine. Does everyone else agree?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow or planned, both mean the same and seem ok to meManicpixie (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Speculating on the future would not be appropriate as per WP:SOAP - the whole Jesus Centres' paragraph also appears to be an advert for services provided at the centres, rather un-encyclopedic. At most it should say that there are 3 centres, and where they are located. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, Mike Aldrich does have a point. It does just read like an advert for the services they provide. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence was based on quotes from reliable sources, as referenced. Perhaps the quotes should also be given directly in the references section to avoid argument. I am almost certain that it is given in full in the archives of these talk pages, and I will look it out tomorrow. I think that more than Mike proposes is needed, and global citizens would expect that the article should explain here what the Jesus Centres are, where they are, and what they do. John Campbell (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the quotes (or links to them) that I provided previously:  and  John Campbell (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it reasonable to include in the artical where the jesus centers are and what they doManicpixie (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Manicpixie, please could you just add one colon, so as to avoid exaggerated indents which make threads very narrow and long.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Practices - Jesus Centres 

message: Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment