Talk:Jesus Christians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Affiliations

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

Anarchist? Yes, I think so!

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

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

Did the person who posted the comments to the xJCs.JCs link (since changed) that accused it of being a website devoted to the destruction of the JCs and claiming that Dave's son was the leader of that forum sign their post? I think not, pretty gutless of someone who obviously supports the JCs. Speaks volumes of their pride in their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.49.34 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(untitled)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Anarchist?

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

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

POV Tag

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

Comments from Jesus Christian co-founder

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

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

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

Minor tweakage

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

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

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

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

Tag removed

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

Temporary protection

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

Jon Ronson

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

Recent edits

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

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

Final Version Up

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

Biased edits

Two editors (Sue Gianstefani and Jinnythesquinny) are biased editors. Sue is a former Jesus Christian with an axe to grind, and Jinny is a former host of the Jesus Christian website, and friend of Sue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.61 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• The issue is not who we are - I previously declared my interest on this very Talk page some time ago. The question should be - are any of our edits showing bias, or aren't referenced, or unreadable? Having an interest in a topic does not preclude people from writing on a topic, far from it! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It does seem that we need to get the tense used in the lede agreed on though! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the tense in the opening statement being either "are" ore "were" the article itself states that the official Jesus Christians website is still being run by the founders, there is another website using the same name running in the UK, and there are three other known websites (with different names) publishing copies of the exact same material that is available on the official Jesus Christians website. Perhaps a compromise would be to state something along those lines, such as that there have been apparent claims that the group has officially disbanded, but that the movement still seems to be continuing in smaller groups under the same and different names. Sue Gianstefani (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that the Jesus Christians, as the group people would have heard of, the "kidney cult" that openly evangelical, liked attention and sought publicity has officially disbanded and no longer exists. For that reason I think the tense should be past. But the clarification that as a movement, Dave McKay and the rump of the official JCs are still operating as a different thing, as well as the former JCs promoting similar messages independently like you are Sue, stops that being misleading. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to propose something like this as the lede text:

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

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

Vandalism

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

Adding Images

There are four images available in Wikimedia Commons under the category path of Topic/Belief/Religion/Religious organizations/Christian organizations/Jesus Christians if other editors feel any of these would make appropriate and beneficial additions to the article. Because I am associated with the topic due to being a member of the organisation for 25 years my recent addition of these images was undone. I question how someone who can have access to relevant images that are their own property relating to a particular Wikipedia subject yet not be allowed to add them to an article due to the Wikipedia guideline that the anonymous editor 101.170.255.251 referred to? (See the View History page) When I read the specific Wikipedia guidelines it states there are circumstances when it IS appropriate and encouraged to edit or even add images to an article you have an association with. Any further clarification would be appreciated. Sue Gianstefani (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Sue GianstefaniSue Gianstefani (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Alterations to external links

Hello, Quite a number of external links have been removed without explanation. Please explain. I tried to update the links because new sites have appeared in recent years, instead, the administrator has removed almost everything that was there

Ross777au (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Updating the lead

I appreciate that it was a significant step to attempt to improve the existing lead to this article and I have failed to seek consensus from other editors before doing so. Hence I would like to initiate a talk dicussion on updating and improving this article's lead.

I have recently put in many hours of work and personal research to improve the lead of this article, only to discover that my edits were reverted within 2 hours of my uploading them by Just4truth22 with the explanation given being: "Removed assumptive speculation about development of Jesus Christian community". From my point of view, this "assumptive development" I had researched was reliably cited from a academic paper that was presented that same day at a highly respected conference of the Australian Association for the Study of Religion. I don't think there could be a more respectable source for my information that the Jesus Christians (which were classified at the conference as a "New Religious Movement" are now called The End Time Survivors and are still led by David and Cherry McKay. I could have included other references to cite this information, but I judged that this one should have been sufficiently reputable. Perhaps Just4truth22 did not bother to check my citations? I realise that I should have expanded on this new development in the article before including it in the lead first.

According to Wikipedia style, "the lead is meant to explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I endeavoured to do this with my new and (IMO) improved lead to the article. The previous lead seemed bland, seemingly written to be devoid and neutered of any reference to any of the many controversies which makes this group notable and possibly written with an agenda to promote the group ignoring the controversies in the body of the article. To me this appears to be censorship as many readers will only read the lead.

Wikipedia Lead advice states: "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." All of my statements had reliable sources (such as The Guardian and The Age

Regarding NPOV in the lead, Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section states: "All significant POV must be documented, and all types of reliable sources (RS), including biased ones, should be used. The mainstream view should get the most weight, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view. We must present that balance, because that is the balance found in RS. That should be the impression received by readers." In response to the many RS that have used the word "cult" in their reports on the group, I included a reference to this word in the lead, as many people reading about the group would have already heard that word used in reference to the Jesus Christians/ End Time Survivors. Once again I think this needs to be expanded upon in the body of the article before bringing it up in the lead. I did this in the Kidney section, along with the comment about media manipulation that was found in Jon Ronson's two part magazine article in The Guardian, yet this also was removed by Just4Truth with the explanation "Edited sensationalized description of historical events. Have left the facts related to the kidney donation aspect of the Jesus Christian history, minus the excess exaggeration." So was the attempted media manipulation that was reported by Jon Ronson an historical event? Or was it excess exaggeration? The fact that it is coming from a reliable source who devoted a number of paragraphs to the event in my mind means it was relevant and historical and should be included. This issue has also been recited by other reliable sources reporting on the group. Perhaps Just4Truth is more concerned with censoring negative points of view regarding the article?

Are there any other issues other editors would like to discuss regarding improving the current bland lead to this article?

Wikipeggar (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think 1-It's too long

2-The names of the people who "disappeared" don't belong in the lede

3-A blog should not be used as a reference

4-Far too much focus on the End Time Survivors. I wouldn't include any of that.

Just MHO. I'd hope some compromise can be reached. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doctorhawkes for your comments and suggestions:

1. I agree that the lead is too long and

2. The names of the people who "disappeared" should be in a separate section in the body of the article rather than in the lead. The reason I included this subject in the lead was because the accusations of the Jesus Christians "disappearing" new members is a major controversial issue surrounding the group and these stories have either been the focus of or have at least been covered in almost every media article in the last 17 years of the group's history, which is why the issue is a notable and should be a significant inclusion in the lead (even if it is just a one sentence in summary in the lead}.

3. As far as I'm aware the blog is the only source cited for the claimed disbanding of the group, which has been disputed, so unless there is a RS that someone can produce I suggest we drop the inclusion of the group's disputed disbanding altogether from the article.

4. If the group has not disbanded and has simply changed it's name as per the evidence cited from the Australian Association for the Study of Religion, (a respectable academic and therefore reliable source) I think it is very important to include this in the article body at the very least.

Really I think the article title needs to be updated to the group's new name. As with the Children of God changing their name to the Family International, this Wikipedia article needs to reflect that change of name rather than what it is at the moment. If there is reliable evidence that the group did in fact disband, and that the End Time Survivors is a completely new group that is not a break away or replacement of the Jesus Christians then fine, leave it out and make a new article based on the End Time Survivors. However, there needs to be some very significant proof that refutes the evidence coming from the AASR and other sources indicating that they are the same group.

Wikipeggar (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's enough credible sourcing for a new article or a name change. I must admit, I was hoping for more contribution to this discussion. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don´t think there needs to be a name change, but if you read my new information thread, I do believe it is relevant to make some references to the new web sites, such as: www.EndTimeSurvivors.com, and the you tube channels I mentioned. How much evidence is needed to make these connections credible enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholetruth (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar vs Synonymous

I hesitate to assume that two groups are the same just because they teach similar things. For example, there is a web site in the UK, called Making it Real, which claimed at one stage that it was the Jesus Christians. Someone even linked it to the Jesus Christian entry here on Wikipedia. All such references have, as far as I can detect, been deleted now; but it’s a good illustration of how there are other bodies out there which also seem so similar to the Jesus Christians, that one might claim that they are one and the same. Even the possibility that McKay is connected to all of them does not prove anything organically. Discretion might be to wait until there is stronger evidence that any of these other entities is, in fact, the Jesus Christians. What if we just said something like, “The Jesus Christians appear to have some connection with other ministries,” and we include Making It Real, as well as any other web sites or video channels which seem to be using their teachings?

Just4truth22 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22

Non-neutral editing

It is apparent that Wikipeggar is sharing new, non-verified information which clearly reveals a bias, and a diversion from Wikipedia's neutral editing policy. Wikipeggar is definitely showing to be a problematic user, and something needs to be done about her contributions to this page for it to retain its credibility. Just4truth22 (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22

Wikipeggar has cited verifiable references.Your comments show that you are not neutral but are biased in favor of positive spin, "Just4truth22". Wholetruth (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

My identity seems to be something others wish to discuss on this talk page, which I don't believe is the purpose of this talk space. Just4truth22 has previously stated they believe I am the same person as Ross777au (and possibly GBreedwell) and Frog Manz has recently speculated I am "apparently" a former member of the Jesus Christians. May I suggest that we focus on improving the content of the page and resolving any disputes about the editing rather than on making presumptious guesses at the identities of other editors and who may or may not be using multiple accounts? Unless Frog Manz and Just4truth22 are advocating all editors to this page are expected to reveal their identies to ascertain if they are biased or not in order to be permitted by them to edit Wikipedia? Please clarify if that is what you are suggesting or is there something else more constructive you have in mind? Wikipeggar (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Due to similarities in their edits it appears that Wikipeggar is the same person as Ross777au (and possibly GBreedwell). I don't know if that is against Wiki policy or not (using multiple identities) but I believe that Ross777au is the same ex-member referred to in the Jesus Christians article." from Frog Manz

Multiple usernames and "bad faith" edits

Redacted section due to WP:OUTING, WP:ABF, and irrelevant WP:SOCK discussion. Please contact me privately if necessary. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Posting identifiable personal information

I would like to ask the editor Frog Manz who and any other editors who are posting personal information in an effort to identify and belittle other editors that they remove their posts immediately. This is prohibitive and harmful behaviour. Thank you. Wikipeggar (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To "DoctorHawkes", the photo of Joseph Johnson was removed previously because it was taken in a private (not public) place, and has been made public without permission from the subject. Just4truth22 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22

No. The photo was removed because it didn't originally have the permission of the author, which has since been supplied. See Permission on [2].

I can understand why you would like to see the picture removed, but can not see any valid reason to do so.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Californian Whipping Trial photo

As @doctorhawkes stated regarding Joseph Johnson's image : "discuss on talk if you think there is a valid reason this shouldn't be here"

An anonymous editor removed the photo of Joseph Johnson (again!) with the reason stated:

:photo of Joseph Johnson removed, as he has not given permission, and his whereabouts has been kept secret since his family hired two men to kidnap him in Kenya years ago. This is an offence to Joe's privacy and safety.

It has been previusly stated that Joseph's permission is not required.

The 12 year old photo does not disclose Joseph's whereabouts.

It seems rather odd that Joseph's claimed hostile family would be advantaged by a 12 year old photo of their son so they can locate him and kidnap him. (I didn't realise parents could be charged with kidnapping their own child) I believe that Joseph, in the years since the photo has been taken, has appeared in several Jesus Christian documentaries that have been publicly released such as The Mark documentary and Beyond Justice and various other published End Time Survivors videos, which would suggest he is not trying to hide his image.

Consequently I have replaced the photo.

Wikipeggar (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Alterations

Unfortunately, the continuing problem with alterations that have not been discussed in any form on the talk page, but posted to the article needs to be addressed.

The controversy surrounding the post 2010 history of the group is set to continue I believe due to the following problem. The group itself wants to keep itself hidden from the public, therefore it, or editors associated with them is editing the page according to that principle. Any connection with emerging groups with similar content has been resisted continually by these editors in the form of deletions and alterations hiding associations and connections, and photographs.

Other editors are committed to writing a more honest account of events whether they be positive or negative. For the purpose of honest history, whatever is hidden will come to light eventually, and with more verifiable sources. I state this here for the public record, so that observers or contributors may recognise for themselves the dynamics behind various edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholetruth (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)