Talk:Jesus Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus Army article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Disputed link

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Tweaking

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)

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)
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)
Certainly not trying to pull a fst one, anyway. :-) John Campbell (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 :-) That's ok, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Return of Capital

I added a minor edit that i believe to be neutral and hopefully in no way inflammatory to anyone! I do believe though that it was necessary in the interest of accuracy. I added that the trust was under no obligation to return funds to leaving members as that is the very clearly stated conditions of the trust as set out in it's documents. It is clearly nothing other than a 'fact' i have stated so i doubt any party should have a problem with it's inclusion.

With it's prior version the trust sounded like a building society into which covenant members could posit their money and collect again at will on the way out again with the church looking after it for them in the interim.

That doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the trust conditions legally or of the commitment individuals make - i don't know of any members who see that money as their own and being 'looked after' for them and many might see it as a downplay of the sacrifice they made and the real renouncement of personal property they have undertaken. It would ignore the position of those who argue that it is very difficult to leave such a commitment. Whatever side you're coming from it denies the reality that it is a total commitment of those funds with the documents making it absolutely clear there is no legal right to refund.

If this is to be re-edited please discuss

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your edit here first, and arrive at an agreed form of words. The article as it stands was agreed as balanced NPOV, and we need to keep that balance. In addition, you need to be specific about your sources. John Campbell (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The source is the trust conditions document which members agree to upon signing over their capital. It could be linked here however that might be considered an invasion of privacy.
If you have any issue with the accuracy of the edit or the reasoning, given above, for it's being made please do so otherwise the matter seems straightforward enough.
Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 10:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You would need to provide a suitable Reliable Source that you can quote for this. The sentence you want to change was based on such sources (see the references) and reflects the practice of the community. Legally, return of capital has to be at the discretion of the Trustees, but the Trustees' policy and practice is that the capital of members who chose to leave is always returned on request. I think the sentence as it stands is a good brief summary. John Campbell (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My source is clearly the same as your own then and we need not duplicate - though i cannot see a reference beside your comments on the trust conditions i will take your word on it that you have reliably sourced these.

Hopefully, in light of the edit now being a matter of only 6 words that in no way effects the 'balance' of the article and agrees entirely with your own admission of practice, you can have no need to censor it's inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John, if the statement in the text refers to a legal document, as clearly it does, then Freetospeak does seem to have a point. Perhaps we need to arrive at a compromise. My own experience confirms Freetospeak's opinion that members of the community do not regard the money given to the trust as still being theirs, kept in trust. They think of themselves as committed for life and of their possessions /capital as permanently renounced. Perhaps this fact could be reflected in the text, together with assurance that despite the legalities, the trust policy is to return all capital donations.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Freetospeak, hi. Please could I ask you to sign your contributions by putting four tildes (these~) at the end.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that you and John are clearly talking about the same document. As you are being invited to cite specifics, I am sure that he does not feel you will be breaching any privacy considerations. Could you quote the specific sentences, please? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is essential that edits are fully discussed here first. Bristol & I managed that, so please follow the Wikipedia rules on a controversial subject (see the top of this page). The first step is to find an acceptable source, then quote it and propose your change. Otherwise edits just bat back and forth. John Campbell (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John,

The key word in the wiki guidelines in the box above that you referred me to is 'substantial'. This is not a substantial edit - it is six words clarifying something that you have chosen to write about and have stated yourself to be true. Wiki does not expect every single word used to be referenced - hence it says 'edits of this nature', following the above bullet point on any 'substantial' editing. You cannot expect to prevent an article on wiki to never be edited based on a semantic loophole that doesn't hold. Surely you agree my edit is not biased or leading or unbalancing in any way. You have stated it is fact. Perhaps you could explain what your issue with it being included is?

Please explain what source you have on your bibliography that supports your original statement that members may claim back their original capital upon leaving. As it stands that directly contradicts the legal reality and the ideological reality that members live by and i am keen to know what source of evidence you have for this. My edit is gentle and non-disparaging. I recommend accepting it graciously rather than having to produce legal documents evidencing your own comments on the trust - particularly as they don't exist as we both know they are drawn up to make it explicitly clear that there is no guarantee of returned funds.

My intent is far from malicious, the edit utterly harmless and you have never explained why you have an issue with this fact being represented.

Regards

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but the tilde key on my computer does not work - FTS, 1846 20/3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll find a clickable link on the edit page, with four tildes following the words "Sign your user name" not far below the edit box. Click on that and your contributions will be signed. John Campbell (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, Freetospeak, and I don't disagree with you in principle, but the stability that we achieved - and which has been maintained without change for two months, has only been possible because of a willingness to compromise. If you insist on your change and John (or someone else) reacts and changes it back, we will return to the bad old days of wiki ping-pong where truth is lost in the scramble for the dominance of one vested interest over another. We have to accept that none of us will ever be perfectly happy with the article....but that it as closely represents the truth as is possible when those involved in it have diametrically opposed views on the subject. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
However, you have as much right to edit as any of us, so please could you do what we have all had to do so far and actually quote the document that you are referring to so that, if necessary, we can hash something out which everyone can live with. Any change needs to be justified with a neutral source.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly as Bristol, please quote a Reliable Source WP:RS here and allow us to thrash out a form of words that expresses a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. Those principles are non-negotiable, as Bristol will confirm. In response to your comment above, I do not find your edit neutral, as it seems designed to hide the fact that capital is always returned on request. The phrasing you object to is not my own, by the way, but crafted by a neutral editor. To help, here are two neutral academic sources together with the Jesus Fellowship's own take on the matter (with the key sentences emboldened).
The section on Community Membership on About the New Creation Christian Community webpage says: "Before embarking on full community membership there is a probationary period of two years (which must extend at least up to the age of 21). During this time, income is pooled with other members of the community house, and capital assets (if any) are loaned to the Trust. In many cases new members have no assets, or even have debts which the Trust pays off.
"At the end of probationary membership, the member may either withdraw from community living, or confirm their status as full 'Contributing Members' of the Trust. Any assets they have are contributed to the Trust fund and entered in a legal register against their name.
"If they should later wish to withdraw from community membership, they would be eligible for a refund of this capital contribution. Many of those who do decide to withdraw continue to take a full part in church activities; others may join another church. Almost all remain in warm contact with friends in the Jesus Fellowship. " John Campbell (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
David V. Barrett, The New Believers, Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions (London: Continuum 2001): "The Jesus Army is careful with both members and money. New members have to live in a community for a probationary period for two years, and must be over 21, before being allowed to commit themselves to full community membership. Community members donate all their money to the Community Trust Fund; if they later leave the Community, their capital is paid back, sometimes with interest. The Community keeps its running expenses and its capital completely separate, and has its accounts audited by the international firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers."
Hunt, Steven 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: "During the probationary time the prospective member's income and any capital assets placed in the Community Trust Fund which may also pay off debts previously 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."
I agree that the sentence as it stands is not the full story. It doesn't include any reference to payment of debts, nor of financial help on leaving to those with no assets in the register. Can you suggest a form of words here that covers the points that these sources bring home? John Campbell (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated the source - Legal contract signed upon donating capital as drawn up on behalf of the Trustees. In addition we can source this page and your own written statement above that it is at the 'discretion of the trustees'. Though i would again refer you to the fact this is a 'minor' edit. The points you make above would qualify as 'substantial' and would indeed require you to produce the legal contracts and deeds of the lease to substantiate what you are claiming where it is indeed made very clear that the trust is under no obligation to return capital or provide funds of any kind to leaving members except at their own discretion.

With all due respect this is pedantry over 6 words you have used yourself and have no dispute with factually. freetospeak 21/3 09:17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is vandalism as you persist in ignoring the discussion on this talk page and you will find undoubtedly find yourself blocked if you continue in this manner. I have explained the situation and provided two neutral Reliable Sources, and you are welcome to suggest a form of words which takes on board what they have to say. In the meantime I propose the following amendment, which is supported by a Reliable Source which I have quoted: "They then surrender their possessions for collective use, which are always returned on request should they subsequently decide to leave." John Campbell (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Freetospeak. You and John each have good points. John agrees that the statement as it stands does not cover everything and I think if you insist on your change, it would only be right to accept John's too, which would mean the inclusion of considerably more than 6 words. I disagree that the number of words has anything really to do with how substantial an edit is, though. In 6 words you could say "The Jesus Army is a sect"; just six words can have a very substantial impact....and be objectionable to members of the JA. John's objection to the inclusion is understandable, as it implies that the JA may not pay people back, when he insists that their policy, regardless of trust law, is always to do so. That is why Rumiton's (I think) choice of words seemed appropriate.

I agree with you that the article, as it stands, implies that people feel that their money is kept in trust, when the truth is that they never expect or intend to have it back, and I agree that the probationary periods are largely for appearances' sake, but they still exist; proving what people feel or think would be nigh on impossible using NPOV sources. Unless you want the inclusion of the JA's repayment of people's debts etc cluttering up rthe article, I think I'd be inclined to keep things as they are.

Please can I urge you not to go ahead and make the edit without first hashing out the wording with all here. I appreciate that it is infuriating...and goodness knows, it was a heck of a learning curve for me, but it is a process which works. John is not being threatening, by the way. He is not the one who would do you for vandalism; reverting edits repeatedly gets you thrown off and that can't be good for free speech. As always, freedom (to speak) comes with responsibilities, often onerous ones. It is important for you to still be able to contribute, but for that you have to play by wiki rulesBristol Sycamore (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I amended the article along the lines I suggested, but I am more than willing to return it to Rumiton's phrasing, possibly with the additional reference to source material which I suggest. John Campbell (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you? I can't seem to see how you changed it...will look more carefully. But shouldn't you have agreed the change before doing it? Otherwise it makes a nonsense of reverting Freetospeak's edits. Please could you put it back for now...pending discussionBristol Sycamore (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes he has changed it - it now states funds are 'always returned' if someone leaves. Changed without discussion and without detailing change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did actually detail the change (see above).John Campbell (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am afraid this was inevitable, Freetospeak. It is why I felt it best to leave the article as it was, albeit less than ideal in terms of tone and content. John, as a professional PR man, has an enormous archive of useful sources which he can draw upon, which means that he is more easily able to exploit wiki rules than you and I. Proving the counter arguments to ones which JA people will be happy with is jolly hard. So you have to try and see the bigger picture and settle for a compromise. The thing is that using NPOV sources he has been able to strengthen the article in the JA's favour. Your edit did not say anything which could not be inferred when reading between other lines anyway. You have to try to accept that John has made considerable concessions. Insisting on pedantic changes designed to show the JA in a poor light may make them less willing to settle for compromises. Sometimes it is like the UN round here (with all due respect to you, John).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry John, you know how reluctant I am to revert edits (it feels crass), but I have reverted your edit to Rumiton's original wording until this can be properly discussed and a wording agreed between the three of us. I think that is for the best, particularly as I imagine you will be busy for the next few days and therefore unavailable to do the revert yourself, as I know you would have been willing to do. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I am happy to revert to Rumiton's wording for the time being. But any change would have to say much what I said in it, and be properly referenced. I am not "exploiting wiki rules", by the way - that kind of comment is out of order! John Campbell (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise if you took offense. It wasn't intended, John. Perhaps you feel a little over-sensive after being reverted - a less than pleasant, but necessary experience. I just meant that you are well-versed in wiki rules and make best use of them in defense of the JA position....and that, by extension, Freetospeak should try to get abreast of wiki rules of evidence if there is a point he wants to make...as I have had to do.
As I said above, I knew you would be happy to revert to Rumiton's wording and only did it on your behalf because I know that you can be very busy at the weekend - with church matters etc. I didn't expect to see you again for a day or two. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 :-) That's OK John Campbell (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It might be helpful to read WP:PSTS to understand what sources are usable, and which are not. Primary documents need to be interpreted by reputable sources before they become acceptable in Wikipedia (which is why I proposed the sources I did for my proposed edit above). John Campbell (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] beliefs amendment

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)

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)

the phrasing could be changed to "the Jesus Army also believes..." and add it at the end as a pdf file? Moonwalkers (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I would be happy for it to be included simply as a pdf file. I don't have time for all the ins and outs of the theology. It is important that it is included however, as it gives a much more rounded view of the churches beliefs. Moonwalkers (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] BetacommandBot - who gets what it's about?

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)

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)
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)
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)