Talk:Jesus Army

References - JA books by the JA themselves

Much as I love Trevor, should his book be in the references, considering he is an elder in the JA and is a very long standing member (there since long before I was)? He is clearly not neutral. His book was written as a PhD thesis, I believe I am right in saying, during the 1980s. He was my elder in the Oxford household when writing the doctorate, and at the time it was spoken of as a book which would give us some kudos, as a community rooted in a historical context. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It has some value I think. John Campbell (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it has intrinsic value as a piece of writing, but what is its value here?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The only directly relevant part is the short Appendix about the New Creation Christian Community. If I were doing a serious study it would be of some value to that, I guess. John Campbell (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While we are about it, I don't understand why "Cooper, Simon & Farrant, Mike (1997). Fire In Our Hearts" is in the references, either, as it is a gushingly JA/self-promoting book written by two very long-standing elders. It is very definitely not neutralBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a self-referencing reference is allowed in an article because it says what the subject says about itself. At least it is now clear that that is what it is. Rumiton? John Campbell (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as long as there are no other serious issues it's OK. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that Hadden's objection to the JAW site has been overturned, I take it that the JAW link will be allowed to remain? It is not an "apostate" site and the only referenced objection to it had been Hadden's and whether because he is no longer a stable referee or because he is accepted to have changed his mind about the site, is there any reason why it may not now remain, Rumiton?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What are the Wiki rules here? John Campbell (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem would be that it appears to be an unmoderated site which might be perceived as an "attack site," which would violate WP:BLP. I think I should ask Jossi about this one. I'll get back to you. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if you look at the forum there it is more often frequented by current members who put up quite a fierce defense of the JA against only moderate criticism, to be fair. I think most people just go there to reminisce about things they miss about community etc. Inevitably there is criticism, but it is by no means a concerted attack. In fact, they/we are a very disparate bunch....and then there are the trolls (on both sides of the divide). It would be a shame if access to the extensive archive was lost to serious researchers because of a really quite innocuous forum.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen of that forum I would agree, but I have seen links to unmoderated forums removed on the grounds of their unpredictability. I would like to wait to hear what Jossi says. How do you feel about JAW, John? Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi was unequivocal: "Not appropriate as per WP:EL. See the section Links to avoid" ≈ jossi ≈ I think he meant that blogs and forums where the content is not rigorously sourced (by editorial moderation) are unacceptable in Wiki. Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's true that in the past the JAW forum has carried libellous claims of the most scurrilous kind that I have had to get Voyforums (the host) to intervene in order to have removed. John Campbell (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

John's comment is entirely untrue. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I'd have to agree with John that some pretty outrageous stuff has been said; I get it said of me (and ironically by the same character! You gotta smile!)....but that's what you get when you give people freedom of speech, as here. As I don't think Voyforums have ever intervened to remove anything I've said (didn't know they DID intervene), I hope that means I am not guilty of the same? If Mike was to separate off his Watch site from teh forum, would it be allowed, Rumiton?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Voy have not, and do not intervene. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part of my statement are you saying is untrue? Pete agreed with me about the content, and if you check your emails for Nov/Dec 2004 and Jan 2003 you may find details which may have escaped your memory. It's certainly true that I asked you to intervene and remove highly libellous material, which you were extremely reluctant to do. After I contacted voy forums, the posts disappeared. "Furthermore, Voyager reserves the right, but has no obligation, to remove any material it wishes at any point in time, specifically but not limited to material that violates, or is alleged to violate, the law or this agreement. Notwithstanding this right of Voyager, you and other users of VoyForums remain solely responsible for the content of the material you post on VoyForums, information you make available through VoyForums, or your private e-mail messages." See the terms of use and this form. John Campbell (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part ? The statement as a whole ! You know full well Voy did not intervened to remove those contributions to the board, and it's deceitful of you to claim otherwise. As you've highlighted our email exchange at the time, here's one i sent to you. 18/01/2003 John, Once you had originally alerted me to your concerns, and following my initial response to you, the message within the VoyForums message board system, which you are accusing of containing libellous information had been removed by virtue of moderated blocking of the message. I did not allow it to stand in any way following receipt of the original contact from yourself, and it was blocked at the earliest opportunity, mid afternoon 17th Jan 2003. I take note that you are not willing to state that the supposed allegation within the message posting is untrue. Therefore, I will reinstate the message, should information come into my possession that the statement within the message is in fact true. Until that time the message you have shown concern over, will remain permanently moderated. Kindest regards, mike

By the logic you express here, it would be right to assume that a number of messages on your forum one week earlier where removed as a result of Police intervention, after they where alerted to messages containing 'incitement to violence against Homosexuals'. As such, shouldn't the link to jesus.org.uk be removed from the article also, as it contains an equally 'unmoderated forum' ? --Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton. The content of jesusarmywatch.org.uk is rigorously sourced and editorially controlled, as described in depth earlier within this discussion page. The Voy hosted forum linked to by the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website is moderated, as described in the Rules link on the main forum page. Both John Campbell and Bristol Sycamore have had their own contributions removed from the Voy message board in the past, other contributions have been removed following both of their requests also, i'm surprised both omitted to mention that within this discussion. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I didn't mention having had messages removed because John was referring to edits made by VoyForums, not by you. I have also been grateful when you have removed stuff which was quite clearly gratuitously libellous.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not something I was aware of, nor something to which, to my knowledge, have you notified me of. Certainly you resisted strongly my requests to remove blatantly libellous material. John Campbell (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As you brought up Nov/Dec 2004 earlier (the only other time you've complained about contributions other than your spat with Brian) The first of your contributions moderated was post number 239 dated 25/10/2004 - in response to a contribution by 'The Scholar' - moderated after you emailed me complaining about the thread over a month later on 29/11/2004. As described in the board rules all responses to removed messaged are also removed by the system, which obviously included your contributions to the discussion. Having been removed at your own request, you now say you expected me to inform you of the success of your self-moderation request ? Huh ? --Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith – I'm struggling with this one, when it's evident in this section of the discussion that both of the main contributors have been so liberal with the truth that they have knowingly let Rumiton to make an edit based on a false assumption. Both have requested moderation, both have had posts moderated, one has even been banned from posting for a period of time. Neither have corrected Rumiton !

I don't expect the link to be restored, but i should at least be provided with a truthful reason for it's removal, rather than the bullshit we see here!--Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I deeply resent your suggestion that I misrepresented the situation to Rumiton, Mike; I think I deserve better. I know you are angry, but you are letting rip without thinking this through, and I think you have a misconception of the control either John or I have over anything Rumiton does. I can't speak for John's comments, but you have said to me that you don't want to edit the content of your site any more, and while I have certainly been very grateful when you have removed some pretty nasty stuff on the forum, it has often remained there for several weeks, while you have been very reluctant to intervene. It has been a characteristic of the forum that it is essentially unmoderated, except in extremis. JAW is often positively compared for this reason with the JA's own forum, which is heavily controlled. I really value your site and would like it to be able to be included here and for that reason, please, can I urge you to make your case without resorting to acrimony.Please, we have to assume good faith. It is a fundamental principle here.

The truthful reason for the edit, I believe, is Rumiton's & Jossi's perception and it is for you now to disabuse them of thisBristol Sycamore (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really just a perception, Pete, though you are very welcome to request a comment from another editor or administrator. Please read carefully the current discussion on the bottom of my talk page for more, especially the definition of "moderated." Rumiton (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, Rumiton. I don't need a second opinion, though Mike may want one. I am in an invidious position here. Mike is a friend and feels I have let him down. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit, due to reason given for it being inaccurate in referring to aspects of the message board associated with (and linked from) the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website, rather thatn the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website itself, which the link is to. If the link within the page was directly to www.voy.com/110322/ then the reasons given at the time would have been acceptable. (BTW the forum at www.voy.com/110322/ is now set to only show contributions from unregistered users once they have been reviewed and approved) --Mike Aldrich (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

State of play now

I think the only sections in this talk page that currently need finalising are:

• Pictures (active)
• Tweaks -- Current_practices about "1800" size and "emphasis"
• Tweak-1969 about disambiguation/forwarding
• Tweaks (suggestions) about "pull out if"
• References - JA_books by the JA themselves about Pilgrims of a Common Life and the JAW site

In addition the references and citations need a bit of stylistic tidy up.

John Campbell (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the pictures look a bit distant for this thumb sized reproduction, but the one of the Jesus Centre by day looks like it could work. I'll leave it to you to think about.

OK. I'll upload that picture John Campbell (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Army baptism

Northampton Jesus Centre

John Campbell (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the other issues have been covered, except for the formation of the existing and forthcoming centres. You can put them in also. I don't think they are promotional, just factual. I am still waiting for Jossi (who is the busiest person in the universe) to get back to me on the JAW link. Can we take off the "Disputed Neutrality" tag? Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy for that. Outstanding points above. John Campbell (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so tooBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is a statement of intention; I take it it is not taken to be final agreement? I'd need to dwell on the final cut before that....but I feel very positive about it all. Thanks to you both for that.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is carved in granite. As long as all involved parties are reasonably accepting of the current state of the article we can proceed normally with the fine-tuning. I definitely think we should leave the tag on top of this page though, that requires editors to discuss any suggested changes here first. Something I have seen work on another spiritual/religious group page, once an agreed-to version was reached, was that the contending parties agreed to talk to their own, so to speak. So, for example, if a young JA person shows up and wants to write about his personal beliefs, John would quietly direct him to a more appropriate venue. And if an ex-member were to arrive wishing to grumble, then Pete would be the one to say politely "Not here, Mate." Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly attempt the tactful comment, but it is only fair to say that out here in the world, as opposed to within the church, I am just another voice. I have no influence, really....and I do fear that there are spoilers on both sides waiting to pounce. I think if I can assure you, John, now, that I will be cooperative, and if you have more time to monitor things than I do, you might give me a nudge (by email)if you spot anything you think inappropriate from my "side" and I will do what I can.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go along with that. John Campbell (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK John. You can most easily contact me through the address on my blog. I really don't use any older ones Tschaka may still have.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I feel you will both need is a bit more readiness to draw the Wikipedia gun. The Wiki rules and guidelines are our only defense against being drawn into an agonising edit war. And they are good, and getting better. Try them! Rumiton (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Rumiton, I shall have a good look after the holiday. John, as you are not into Xmas, I trust you will be around? I shall be away for a fortnight.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like saying, "You can't say that because of WP:V". John Campbell (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, John! It is a whole lot more likely to work than saying "You can't say that because I don't like it" or "...because I know it isn't true" or "...because I was there and I remember things differently." Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards the tag, would editors necessarily read this page (and see the notice)before changing the article? Is there a subtle way to direct people here when they are about to edit?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall look for an article tag that does that. Rumiton (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find an article tag that says that, but I beefed up the Discussion Page tag a bit. If someone vandalises the article you are within your rights to revert their edit and politely draw their attention to this tag. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rumiton. I shall be away from tomorrow night. I don't know if I shall "see you" after the holiday; I hope you will still be about? In the meantime, you have done a wonderful job in difficult circumstances. Thank you very much indeed. It isn't the article I'd have written, perhaps, but it really isn't at all far off it. I hope it won't change much. I will look in during the day tomorrow, in case things change, but Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you (and your kin).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall keep the article on my watchlist and say hello now and then. It's been a pleasure working with such heartfelt people. Rumiton (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Without it we would have been nowhere! John Campbell (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a couple of pictures to the main page, as outlined above. OK?

How do you guys feel about

• (a) "Pilgrims of a Common Life" reference. I'm not too fussed, to be honest.
• (b) Number correction (again), as outlined above, to delete "including children", or possible, changing to "plus children", in line with the Sources.
• (c) My suggestion of "though a major aspect of these activities is evangelistic", as above.

John Campbell (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes (b) and (c) in light of the lack of comments. John Campbell (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced new additions

Woooooo! Whatcha gonna do, guys? Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wooooooo is right! I'll be honest, I don't know, Rumiton. I don't have time to do much, so I may wait for John. (the coward's way out)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have welcomed Canaldrifter/Tony on his Talk page and invited him to discuss possible edits here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, good start! In the meantime you need to undo the whole edit, using the word "revert" in your edit summary, and start thinking about how you are going to explain this to him/her. You might plan to mention reliable sources, NPOV, No Original Research, words to avoid...pardon me! Getting carried away. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Trouble is, I am not too hot on the rules myself...and I'll be honest, I am not very comfortable being authoritarianBristol Sycamore (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is understandable and commendable, but this is like a new player at cricket or football. If they are going to participate enjoyably they need to have the rules explained to them, in a kind and sympathetic but definite way. Rumiton (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Rumiton, I have done the revert and left Tony another message. I might ask John if he would take it from here. I am under pressure, time-wise. But inevitably I will look in when possible.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great start! Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Rumiton. That was my first ever bit of assertive editing. Cheers for now. -Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch (the bad guy already!)http://www.voy.com/110322/6285.html

Well done, Pete. Been out of circulation today due to power cables being down. John Campbell (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. Wondered where you were when I needed you most ;) Don't much enjoy being the wicked censor though. I think it would smooth things a bit if you could explain to Tony. I think he is a bit put out about this, as he says you asked him to add to the article.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might explain to user:Canaldrifter that this is not Jesus Army's "own" site. Nobody owns a Wikipedia site, all sites are equal parts of Wikipedia which, to prevent falsehood, libel and endless acrimony, has to ensure that all the rules are respected. Rumiton (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Canaldrifter was not suggesting that this was Jesus Army's site. He seemed to think it was just as much Pete's site as anyone else's. Anyway, the matter is resolved. John Campbell (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be resolved. I was referring to a comment he made on the JAW forum: "Are you telling me that Wiki have that much control over you even on your own website?" He was clearly talking about this article. Not an uncommon misconception. Rumiton (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the detailed exegesis of that passage depends on the question, 'who is "you"'? :-) John Campbell (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He also added that "they will remove anything from their Wikipedia site that they don't agree with" so that gives us another pronoun to be perplexed about. (About which to be perplexed. Sorry, Pete.)  :-) Rumiton (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Moved this new post to below old posts for clarity...Rumiton.) When you say it is resolved, John, do you mean that you have actually had a chance to talk it over with Tony and explain why a revert was necessary? I don't think we should assume that letting off steam on JAW will have made Tony much happier (neither you nor I appreciate feeling silenced or misrepresented either). He did say that you asked him to write the piece, so I imagine he would appreciate your support in bringing the edits to the table.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to Tony privately. I don't think he has the energy/heart to go through the Wikipedia process. For the sake of completeness, I will post his suggested additions below, for discussion. John Campbell (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additions

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)

MEMBERSHIP

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)