Talk:Jesus Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Barmy Army 2 Neutrality of this page 3 Seen by some as a cult 4 Proselytism v. Evangelism 5 Edits made by Jesus Army

[edit] Barmy Army

..."but with none of the daft beliefs". It sounds like a personal reference (and non-POV), especially considering the use of "we".

[edit] Neutrality of this page

After reading through this page, I'd say the Jesus Army POV definitely has the upper hand. No one reading the article would get the impression it's particularly controversial - there is only one negative sentence in the whole article, and no details are given. It is quickly "rebutted" by the Jesus Army POV, including a reference to an article that doesn't even appear to be published anywhere (the link is no longer valid). David L Rattigan 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seen by some as a cult

Please don't write vague statements like this. Who are the "some"? Do you have sources for people who say this? If so, include the sources, not the vague statement. The import of the statement you made is "I think they're a cult, so I'm saying some think it, because I think others will agree". But we write articles about others' stated views, not what we think their views would be. James James 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll include sources. I think its misleading that wikipedia has a page on this group that is mostly written by John Cambell; the spokesman for the organisation.

Actually, not mainly written by me at all. I've respected the NPOV principle. --John Campbell 10:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange, that just doesn't tally with the history page at all. You currently have 17 of the 50 most recent edits, meaning that you have made a third of the most recent changes. You, for example, added both of the images on this page, and several other edits that have shaped important parts of this page. Saying that you've not written much of this is an obvious lie. --CalPaterson 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Even on the basis of your argument, that doesn't make the page "mostly" written by me. That is, unless 17 is most of 50. But more to the point, my edits do not form a major part of the page, (with the possible exception of the two photographs). I don't think calling me a liar is fully within the ethos of Wikipedia, either. --John Campbell 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

News clippings from Northamptonshire local newspapers referring to the Jesus army group as a cult/sect:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesus_army/jesus_army6.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesus_army/jesus_army9.html

A clipping reporting a sex offence prior to involvement with the Jesus Army is not the most balanced way to show that one of the local newspapers referred to the Jesus Army as a cult in 1992.--John Campbell 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesus_army/jesus_army1.html

For now, I feel I have justification to put the statement back. --CalPaterson 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry no. You simply cannot say "Some say it is a cult". What you can say is that your local paper says so. That is hardly introductory material. It would belong in a section on criticisms. James James 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just added a criticism section to appease you. I would rather that you adjust edits in future, rather than wiping them. Please make an effort to *adjust* and then post on the talk page. I'm hoping you like it; I'll probably be back early tomorrow morning to view your response. --CalPaterson 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like your tone. I adjusted the article by removing a completely unsourced piece of POV pushing. I put it on the talk page and asked you for sources. You are appeasing Wikipedia's policies, not me. I refer you to this. I've rewritten your criticism section to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Please try to avoid commentary and stick to saying what people's views are.James James 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proselytism v. Evangelism

The word proselytism has been substituted for evangelism in a couple of places in this article. It seems to me that "proselytism" ought to be regarded as a word to avoid, as the Wikipedia article on proselytism states: "the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative." Selecting this word over evangelism seems to be advancing a particular point of view and hence against NPOV.--John Campbell 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That the connotation of the word is negative changes nothing to the fact that it is the correct technical word to describe the activities of the group. Similarly, "reactionnary", "racist" and some other words have a technical meaning which can be appropriately used according to the context. "Proselytism" would be pejorative in a general context, but not in the context of a religious group which aggressively advocates its beliefs. Rama 11:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As Words to Avoid states: "Some terms are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint ... Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint -- that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". Most pejorative terms work this way, and many can cite wide usage." In any case, I'm not convinced that "proselytism" is more technically correct than "evangelism". Can you justify this? Does the use of the word "proselytism" reflect your view, or does it come from a quotable source? Equally, what is your source for "aggressively"?--John Campbell 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Although you seem to suggest that "racist" would be an acceptable description of, say the Ku Klax Klan, it is a word specifically listed to avoid as being "technically accurate but carrying an implied viewpoint"--John Campbell 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, if your reading of the policy is that "racist" should not be applied to the Ku Klux Klan, you should reconsider. Rama 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, that is what Words to Avoid specifically says. Words to Avoid disapproves of stating "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization" and approves "The KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism", as found in the KKK article. But the use of the word racism is of course not the main point under discussion, and I would welcome your response to my previous questions. --John Campbell 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "proselytism" in its current wikipedia page would suggest that this word would be a reasonable one to descibe this organisation.

"The English language word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). It generally describes attempts to convert a person from one point of view to another, usually in a religious context."

As it is currently, both words are used on the page. This seems fine, I think both are applicable. --CalPaterson 20:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would refer you again to the portion of the article I quoted at the start of this section: "the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative." Or, read the article further and see how "illicit proselytism" is contrasted with "legitimate evangelisation". However, I am really just canvassing views. --John Campbell 22:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have much knowledge of Jesus Army that I wish to contribute (But cannot due to it being personal research). I would agree that while proselytism is most certainly technically correct, it's implications (Regardless of whether they are true) are not based on a NPOV. Although rephrasing it is hard, it is absolutely neccessary. They use openly aggressive tactics, however. I have seen the Jesus Army try to convert my bus driver, use love bombing in a mosh pit and target my now deceased 80-year old grandfather who was at the time senile.

I would contribute to the article, but my negative feelings would come across. 782 Naumova 11:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits made by Jesus Army

The IP address 195.157.239.65 [1] belongs to Jesus Fellowship Church (Jesus Army) and has edited this page - on occasions removing links and information that is critical of them.

Or possibly untrue misinformation. Certainly unsourced. --John Campbell 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I've re-added the information with sources. I trust the Church will allow this article to be NPOV by giving both sides of what it is a controversial organisation (that I'm sure still does a lot of good for vulnerable people).

I hope my edit of this is balanced and appropriate --John Campbell 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)