It is worthy of note, I think, that Mike Aldrich does not have an axe to grind. In particlar I think the Jesus Army Watch link is a very solid source. Ben Cruachan 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Reply I agree Ben. I think some of the External Links which meet Wikpedia standards probably ought to be listed as Sources themselves, which would help restore the balance. Bristol Sycamore 13:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Reply It is not quite in the spirit of Wikipedia to quote it as backup to a POV. Ultimately, it is a source written by two leading lights in the JA, presenting a very partial view of the history of the JA I know, because I was party to some of the events. Would you be happier if the Source was quoted as the first edition, published by Kingsway? Shouldn't the only reference source in the article be disallowed on the grounds that it was published by Multiply Publications, the Jesus Army's own publisher and therefore breaks the Wikipedia rules on "self-serving" sources? Bristol Sycamore 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Reply 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the Jesus Army POV, including a reference to an article that doesn't even appear to be published anywhere (the link is no longer valid). 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. Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 13:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Reply Neutrality of this pageĪfter reading through this page, I'd say the Jesus Army POV definitely has the upper hand. John, in your absence, numerous other members of or friends of the JA have contributed, and while the church is one in which members submit to Elders, clealy their COI is also in doubt. John Campbell 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Reply Thanks John seems we crossed in the ether. Since I became more aware of some of the aspects of WP:COI I have drawn back from editing here. My involvement with the Jesus Army has always been made clear on my user page, and I have not attempted to suppress any pertinant information. Nonetheless, I dispute many of Pete's other comments above. I agree on the need for neutral editing, and indeed proposed it earlier. Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Reply Please see my RfA lower down: Talk:Jesus_Army#Request_for_Assistance, which I composed while Pete was posting the above. I have received no reply, but I believe he takes my point. I have written to John Campbell suggesting that he re-write the Criticism section himself and then runs it past me to see if we can agree a compromise with which we might all then be happy -(typo edit by Peter). What is called for is someone who is neither a member or associate of the church, nor an ex-member to read all the available material and write a neutral article. I would also ask that members of the JA, John Campbell etc also declare their own conflict of interest(COI), as their need to defend the church makes their own neutrality questionable. Though I have endeavoured to give a fair picture of the opposition the church has sustained over the years, I willingly admit that I am not a dispassionate contributor, so have asked that this section be rewritten by someone disinterested, using the research material I have found (or their own). So I have attempted to contribute to the section, adding pertinent information. When I noticed the article a month or two ago it was apparent, as David Rattigan's comment bears out, that the Criticism section had been severely weeded, leaving the impression of respectability which the church now hopes to project. Over the years numerous contributions have highlighted the fact that the church has been regarded as a cult, with some justification.but these have been removed. It is a point of contention whether the article can be regarded as having a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) when this is the case, and when all the stops are pulled out to counter efforts to present a more balanced point of view (POV)of this controversial church's history.
The interests of the JA in this article are protected by their Public Relations man and webmaster, John Campbell, and by numerous members and associates of the JA. This article exists to promote the Jesus Army, which is a church with a heavy PR/outreach emphasis. 36 Businesses and finances - more quotes.32 EA and the re-write about labelling/ Baptist Union / Isolationism.23 Social profile of Jesus Army and its offences.14 Clarification of Corporal Punishment policy needed.11 Likening non-community life of JA members to the Anglican church!.7 FuchsiaShockz, Editor Fuchsiashockz and The Jesus Army.
0 kommentar(er)
