4 Stroke Internal Combustion Engine

How is the extent of a group's entry into the "mainstream" to be measured?

How is the extent of a group's entry into the "mainstream" to be measured? John, you have sought to balance the fact that cult groups are concerned about the JA against what is only really an unsubstantiated claim that you have entered the charismatic mainstream. Even if others have claimed as much, how is acceptance into the mainstream measured? Allusion has been made to membership of the Evangelical Alliance, but my understanding is that membership of the alliance does not imply acceptability, but merely that members ascribe to basic tenets of faith accepted by evangelical Christians. My understanding is that the EA make clear that they do not police people's belief systems or practices, but just act as an umbrella group for members; that if it ever implied respectability for members in the past, that certainly is not its role now. Should membership, in itself, be used as a measure, then? And what proportion of evangelicals are charismatic or regard charismaticism with the mainstream; and more widely, what proportion of Christians in the UK generally would regard evangelicalism as a measure of respectability?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

John, if you want to set your mainstreamness against your being thought of as a cult by some, how are we to measure the extent to which you are in the mainstream at all? And beyond the limits of christendom, couldn't it be argued that your being thought a cult is a secular opinion (except in the case of Reachout) which must be set against the views of other non-Christians? How will their approval be measured?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited a WP:RS and quoted what the author had to say. See the footnote: 'Hunt in Pneuma, p. 24: "marked by ... the entry of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream"'. That is what Wikipedia is about after all, not my or your WP:OR John Campbell (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Hunt, what measures did he use for determining whether or not you are mainstream; what authority does he have, and did he interview elders of the church and take it from you that you are mainstream? I mean, take an example we both know: Stanley Jebb's article had lots of phrases which he presumably thought were his own, but which were actually in Jesus Fellowship vernacular already, like the thing about churches not wanting to be judged by the attitudes of its ex-members, etc. It was undoubtedly a sincere article, but it could have been written by a fellowship member.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my answer above deals with the key point and says all that needed to be said. The article by Stephen J. Hunt has already been accepted as a Reliable Source. John Campbell (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hunt was accepted as a reliable source for another point being made. He was not accepted as an authority on whether you are a mainstream church or not. Did Hunt's book/article cite references to back his claim that you were part of the mainstream, or was he just expressing his personal opinion? (I see you couldn't resist reminding me what a reliable source is. Pity)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also linked to Stephen J. Hunt's article on Wikipedia in response to your request. You are not the only person reading these Talk pages now or in the future, and the links exist for the sake of us all. John Campbell (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was very useful. I have written to him asking if I could possibly have a copy of his article and asking if he wouldn't mind telling us what objective basis he had for determining the extent of your mainstreamness. I have also been talking to Ian Haworth who is having a think about how best to reference the CIC's listing of the JA as a cult. He suggested that a different way to approach the matter might be for a group which now speaks of having left its cultic image far behind to explain to the wider world the reforms it felt it necessary to make in order to find greater acceptance. I suppose it demonstrates a group's willingness to be open if it is willing to admit its past mistakes. That is something that was touched upon in the article when you said that you no longer practice corporal punishment, for instance. Would the JA be willing to detail its reforms in order to demonstrate its greater openness and put to rest any suggestion that it is a cult? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can here within the contraints of Wikipedia, nor indeed can you do a great deal with whatever Stephen Hunt sends to you, for reasons which you would rather I didn't spell out. We have to rely on what others have already published. John Campbell (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a bit ominous. Why wouldn't I want it spelt out? If you mean that Hunt's impressions of you were favourable, is that a problem? My impressions of you have been favourable too in the past, the JA is a radical people and bound to impress people. As Hunt is your source, though, why do we need to seek another one? If his comments to me favour you and support your claim to mainstreamness, I will accept him as a source, as long as it is clear that he has some objective way of measuring your respectability within the church, which as an academic interested in pentecostalism, I presume he does?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that in the context of the article, where you say that since your earlier history of being regarded as a cult you have reformed, you could very easily show the extent of the change to being a respected church, by briefly detailing the reforms. I can't see what wiki constraints would stand in your way of being open as a church; and I am confident that whatever openness there has been to others has been accompanied by an article in the Christian press about how your respectability has come about?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep coming back in my mind to you saying that we need another source other than the one you suggested, Stephen Hunt; that nothing he sends me is likely to be useful. He was YOUR reference. but the trouble is that his article is not publically available. Unless he sends me a copy, there is no way of verifying it. Why, when he has been your source for so long, do you now seem to feel he is no longer sufficient for the purpose? What is he going to send me?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to avoid saying, for your sake, is that what you are attempting to engage in is WP:OR. We are limited to working with WP:RS, such as already-published scholarly articles and books. Hunt's article is fine; the article that I said wouldn't make the point you wanted was the BBC one, due to its date being before the Jesus Army rejoined the EA. I was as even-handed as I know how with the sources, and the text we agreed previously was virtually at the limits of what has already be published in that area. I can't write just what I want to say in this article any more than you can. John Campbell (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying, John, but I am not looking to express my views as original research on this. I have asked Stephen Hunt to give me a copy of the article you cited because it is not otherwise available and I want to read it and see what he said, so that, like you, I can use it, if relevant, to support the idea of your church now being more mainstream. According to his Wiki article he is an authority on pentecostalism, so presumably knows the best measures of what makes a church part of the mainstream of charismaticism in this country. The irony is that while whatever he has written is doubtless Original Research, it is allowed. If the article you cited does not serve the purpose, I have asked if he can suggest anything else he has had published which might serve the purpose. Hard to see how you could object to that. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly sound. John Campbell (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, then I think we can work together on this. I will let you know what Stephen Hunt says/sends.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please could you stop preaching at me

John, I wonder if you could possibly talk to me without quoting wikipedia rules at me. It strikes me as deliberately provocative. And quite honestly it is also rather rude and unnecessary. If I get lost, I will ask the way or read up on the rules myself. But the way you do it is not designed to help me, but rather to win arguments...and to do so by bringing your dad with you. That is not the way to win with me. I respond to civility. For someone who would doubtless rather I just went away, and who knows I would dearly like to, your tactics strike me as counter-productive. If you needle me, which I am quite certain quoting wiki is all about, I am bound to stick around; it is in my bloody-minded nature. Others may read civility in your words, but your tone is frankly insolent. You will say that I am no better, of course. But at least I do not preach at you with every posting. And you are not in an insecure position because the consensus here is made up of pro-JA people.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wish I would go away, stop giving me so much reason to stay. I don't go away when I am bullied, I become more determined to stand my ground.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that's how you see it. You asked a perfectly reasonable question above and I gave a perfectly reasonable answer. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.193.195.197 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to give me perfectly reasonable answers that don't include links to guidelines which both of us are perfectly well aware of? Now that you are aware that it strikes me as provocative, can I assume you will do your best to avoid it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the answer I gave above hinged on the need to utilise Reliable Sources and avoid Original Research. Personally, I find your approach both rude and bullying. John Campbell (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions are a funny thing. How can I bully you, John, when I am clearly in the minority here and when I know that no edit I make to the article will be allowed to stand? I don't think I do badly when it comes to being pleasant to everyone here, considering that whatever the claims to fairness, you not only over-rule every suggestion I make but also change things I write in the discussion and accuse me of vandalism or tendentious editing when I just happen to disagree with you.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And not to mention manipulative. Aren't we are all here to see this article improved to the best it can be? We can only do that within the rules of wiki so what does it matter if someone is quoting them, after all 'assuming good faith' seems to be quoted often enough. Lets keep focused on the balance of things in line with the rules.Manicpixie (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I manipulate you, Manic? What possible influence do I have when I am a minority here, beyond the fact that I know rather more about the JA than some of you would wish? What you have to decide between you is whether you really want to deal with me as amicably as possible or whether you want me to feel provoked. I am pointing out that repeatedly quoting the same rules as if you think of me as a law-breaker who must be repeatedly rebuked, is just plain rude and unlikely to make the discussion a smooth one. I have more than proved that I can work with others to improve the article, as when we negotiated the now largely stable article (you may find it useful to read the archived negotiations before you judge me too easily, ManicPixie). It was only when largely pro-JA editors started undoing the work or suggesting/making edits which unbalanced the article in the JA's favour that I felt the need to consider edits which would redress the balance (or at least anticipate some edits which might later be used if the article becomes too pro-JA). I am not going away, so you decide whether you want war or a respectful exchange.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have a respectful exchange you will stop accusing me of being a bully, manipulative, of tendentious editing, vandalism, mischief etc. I am just as committed as anyone else here to making the article fair. I have never added anything to it without raising it here first, though I would be within my rights to do so. Nothing will be gained by painting me as a bad guy who wants to break the rules. I do not always agree with them, but I have always been constrained by them and I am quite sure I would have been censured by admin if that had not been the case. You are right that I have repeatedly referred to the need to assume good faith, but the simple fact is that your accusations, all of which are quite unfounded, seem designed to either blacken my image on here or to bully me into not coming back here. Above all, they are not about treating me with the respect wikipedia says is due to us all. What you will find, however, is that I have used plain English when asking for respect, rather than providing links; the latter always strikes me as rude because I know you already know the rules and don't need me to tell you where they are.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Centre (Creative Workshop Drama)

Creative workshop (Drama) is one of the groups running at the Northampton Jesus Centre. Since going I have found confidance and developed many friends. It's also helped with my speech as I have tended not to be clear in talking. Drama is not the only group running there is prayer support in the healing rays group, friend ship in the scrabble group expressive art does not matter if your not too good at drawing and so many more groups. Northampton is just one of many Jesus Centres helping people. There are centres such as these in London and Coventry.

X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.196.90 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

range of views - citation needed

Which part of the edit that you wrote, John, do you feel is unsourced? Are you referring to the inclusion of the JA in the list of NRMs and cults which are of concern to the Cult Information Centre? If so, why cannot the online list itself be provided as a primary source? It seems perverse to look for a secondary source which confirms the existence of a primary source, when we have the primary source readily available. Providing the source does not give it intrinsic worth. You are saying that there is a range of views; it is a subjective matter whether one agrees with one or the other. We are not saying that CIC's list is a good one, only that it exists and represents one POV.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard back from Stephen Hunt who is looking out a copy of his Pneuma article and we have corresponded a bit about your mainstreamness. I am more in the picture now, but until the article comes, I will not feel on an equal footing with you - to fairly assess its content...unless you are willing or able to provide a PDF link to the entire article, so that we can all see it? It is unfortunate that the citation you provide is not readily availableBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of secondary sources is a key part of Wikipedia. The stance of Wikipedia, which springs from academe, is that reputation counts. A researcher with a history of published articles on a subject is more likely to be careful with their statements than will someone with no reputation to lose, as well as having a greater background knowledge of the subject and an understanding of the proper techniques of research. The worth of the article stems from the reputation of the author. Like any other academic article, the Hunt article is available in academic libraries, or from the publisher. However, here is a link to a transcript of Hunt's article. Personally, I'm inclined to take out that sentence in its entirety. John Campbell (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will look at the transcripts. I understand the need for the Pneuma citation, of course, but I can't see why we need a secondary source to confirm the existence of a primary source for the CIC list. It seems perverse. The implication seems to be that without someone academic saying that the primary source exists, you can say that it doesn't. I do not think that you are saying that the CIC list does not exist, are you, and that being the case, surely it is not in dispute? Naturally, you would rather it didn't exist, but that isn't the same thing, is it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't keep saying the same thing over and over again. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources as they a viewed as reliable indicators of notability and balance. For example, without a secondary assessment of CIC's view you cannot tell if others consider it an extreme minority viewpoint. In other fields, primary sources have primacy, but Wikipedia has decided that as its editors are of unknown qualification we must depend on the assessment of others via secondary sources. It's not an issue of what I am saying, but of Wikipedia's basis. John Campbell (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very convenient way of suppressing the existence of evidence which shows you in a bad light. By analogy, if the Law worked that way, the existence of a dead body with a knife in its back could be suppressed if there was no academic paper which claimed that a body with a knife in its back had been found. It is an absurd application of the Wiki rule, which is about the credibility of a source. We are not saying that the CIC is a credible or even a balanced or impartial group. We are only saying that it exists and that it lists the JA as a group about which it is concerned. It seems weasly to try to suggest otherwise, or indeed to suggest that wikipedia rules make it impossible to say it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And while you and I am others here are of unknown qualification, the existence of the list can be proved unequivocally by simply linking to it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Existence of that list doesn't make it academically acceptable according to the ethos of what wiki is about, it is wiki that says we need a secondary source for it to be acceptable not anyone that is showing an interest in this article. What I don't get Peter is that just today I've seen you going on about 'keeping to the rules' elsewhere so what is the problem about keeping the rules here? If that list was to be allowed without a secondary source how much more could be allowed that you'd object to?Manicpixie (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather too convenient, it just seems to me. Ah well, I am close to giving up with this particular citation. I can always link to the archive here on my blog and let others decide about your position. I think they may well feel as I do that wiki rules are less what you are concerned about than the reputation of the JA and a desire to exclude any reference in the article to the fact that anti-cult groups regard yours as one. After all, if we let the edits stand and used the link to the primary source stand as the citation, I wonder how many mods would come and tell us to get rid of it. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me if you think of me as someone who believes in obeying rules religiously, manicpixie. I have never been a sheepish type. I believe that rules need to make sense, or else they should be challenged and, if you are willing to accept the consequences, even disobeyed or ignored. It would be impolitic for me to ignore wiki rules, because I wish to continue to have a voice here, but I do think that if you are right that they can be used to suppress evidence which can plainly be seen by anyone who knows where to look, they are as idiotic as the emperor's new clothes. In this particular case, the emperor is quite plainly naked as the day he was born, but if you and John are right in your interpretation of wiki rules, they will allow you to pretend that he is beautifully clothed. Ah well, there is more than one way to skin a cat.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of secondary sources is fundamental to Wikipedia. In this case, the issue is one of notability and the reliability and balance of academic (secondary) sources. John Campbell (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if others who lurk or who find their way here from my blog or other sources will feel that academic imperatives were your driving motivation in this John. I think most decent people will feel as I do that this is just you grasping at a way to suppress the truth that you are "regarded by some organisations" as a cult. Meanwhile, I am not sure Hunt imagined you would use his article to inply that you were now respectable and not cultic in style and outlook. I am not sure he regards charismatic christianity as a mark of mainstreamness, more generally. Anything I put on this and the cult thing, you will just revert and you clearly have far more time than me for this stuff, so I will let this one go. Let others be the judge of what has really just happened here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bristol, that is an offensive personal attack on my integrity. As you insist that you know the Wikipedia rules, but don't believe in obeying them, I can only assume it is intentional. John Campbell (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiply Christian Network

During the edit process we lost all reference to the Multiply Christian Network without discussion. I think it was intended to move it to elsewhere in the article but that didn't happen. There are Wikilinks from elsewhere to this article that reference Multiply, so we ought to mention it somehow. William Kay states that it is notable: "The Army is noted for ... its linkage with more than 40 other independent Christian churches in the Multiply Network." (William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004).) Another reference to Multiply is idea (Evangelical Alliance magazine), May 1999: "... Multiply Christian Network, which links more than 30 churches in England and Wales with others abroad. Multiply was initiated in 1992 by the Jesus Fellowship Church." Since the date of those two articles the number of groups has grown to around 250[1]. The article used to say: "The Jesus Fellowship is also linked to other churches and groups in the UK and elsewhere through the Multiply Christian Network." which is probably the minimum that is usable. John Campbell (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

CIC and FAIR SECONDARY SOURCES found

I need to ask everyone to hold their horses. No sooner have I given up than Mike Aldrich pops up with two very useful sources, one from a newspaper last year and the other from George D. Chryssides, who I think you approve of as a source, John? Haven't checked because I should be packing my saddlebags to go flying tomorrow, but before I go, I just wanted to put these up because they amply support the CIC and FAIR references.

CIC (Cult Information Centre)

Sunday Mercury (Birmingham) March 4th 2007 (newspaper) (quote)The UK Cult Information Centre says that the mJA is on a list of religious groups it has concerns about. Spokesman Ian Howarth said: "We're very concerned about the Jesus Army. Over the years we have had many concerns expressed about it. "There have been no major changes that merit removing it from our list." (end of quote) http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/tm_method=full&objectid=18708735&siteid=50002-name_page.html

FAIR

Exploring New Religions By George D. Chryssides Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999 ISBN 0826459595, 9780826459596

page 161 (quote) FAIR carefully and consistently monitored the Jesus Fellowship Church's development, even from its early Bugbrooke days, giving it adverse publicity in its quarterly magazine FAIR News. Not only did FAIR give prominence to the fact that many members handed over all their possessions to the Church, and to its disputes with the Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance, unjusty portraying Stanton as an authoritarian leader who claimed an exclusive 'hotline to God', ...'(end of quote) I think these two secondary sources make it quite clear that these two organisations do indeed exist and have concerns about the JA.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The original question was whether Reliable Sources referred to these organisations' concerns in the time after the Jesus Army rejoined the Evangelical Alliance -- we have already dealt with the earlier period -- as we need a check on whether their concerns are Notable and are other than an extreme minority view. The particular questions to answer will be if the Sunday Mercury article fits within WP:Reliable_sources#News_organizations. The Chryssides quote relates to the pre-EA period, and although it is Reliable is irrelevant to the point we are considering. However, his comment that this was "unjust" may need bringing out. We may need to seek others' opinions on this. John Campbell (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)