Talk:JC's Girls

Length
As with Tara Teng, this article is ridiculously long and seems intent on pushing a Christian message. Can we not trim it? Knock off about 30 per cent and it would probably be more in keeping with the notability of the subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One specific issue is that an awful lot of the claims made in this thing are quite obviously source-able only to JC's Girls, albeit via media interviews etc. We don't do press releases, slavish interviews and the like: they are not truly neutral. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly that the article is too long or that it is pushing a message; the information is presented in an encyclopedic manner and fairly from reliable, secondary sources. Are there particular sources to which you object? If so, I would recommend that you bring them up in the current FAC for this article. Neelix (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Like Neelix creepy stalker version of Tara Teng this article needs a good cleanup. Way to detailed, so I'm going to trim it and others should too. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Repetition
On analysis, there's some of that, but mostly I think I was remembering the version on the front page. --Thnidu (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

on the front page, really?
Just curious as what method dictates an article appearing on the front page. I wonder if it was not chosen by someone with a religious agenda and if you ask me such articles should be limited in appearing as front page article. I just find it a bit offensive not the fact on the subject (pornography) but someone who used to work in the industry is trying to demonize it while still wearing tight attractive (and low cut) outfits doing so. Im amazed the adult awards let her and her group even enter. Ok sorry personal thoughts aside but just wondering what Icriteria was made to make this a featured article.......I just personally think shes full of ...well ill try to keep it civil...


 * Well, (you're supposed to sign your comments, you know, with four tildes), if you had read the article (not the front page abridgement) you would have seen answers to many of your challenges, as issued by many critics of the group, notably including many church folk. And if you paid attention to the first section of this page,  you'd have a better idea of "what method dictates an article appearing on the front page". Certainly you'd understand that it's not somebody with a religious purpose deciding to put it there.
 * It's stated several times that they dress like the women they're trying to reach out to in order to be more acceptable to them. What, do you think they should dress like nuns or Victorian ladies?
 * They are not "demonizing" the industry either. And did you notice that they've had a number of successes in encouraging women to leave the industry and develop healthy lines and self-respect? Think that just might have something to do with the fact that they're not preaching sin and damnation at them like all the other evangelists?
 * I'm Jewish, and I strongly dislike evangelism, but I found myself pleasantly surprised by what JC's Girls are doing with and for these women, many of whom are stuck in sex-related industries because they feel that nobody outside the industry will have any respect for them. I wonder how they would feel about your attitude, as expressed here? I have a hunch it would sound to them like the same old same old, and that they wouldn't listen to you any more than I listen to street-corner preachers. --Thnidu (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well said, Thnidu. Congrats again, to, it looks great on the front page today! Prhartcom (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I tranlate this wonderful article to Chinese wikipedia, and just promoted to featured article at August 1st, and I haven't seem any comment like this, or any complain against to the subject, so I guess... truth just speak for themselves. --Jarodalien (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism from non-evangelicals?
This is an interesting article, but has the group really only received criticism from other, more conservative evangelicals? I think it would make the article more balanced if more information on how the group has been received by non-evangelicals (other than those they have converted) were added. Given how unusual this group is, surely there has been discussion of it in mainstream media? JC's Girls seems to endorse the view that the sex industry is always bad for women, and that a better option would be for them to leave it, and to adopt a more 'traditionally Christian' lifestyle, even if they do it in a way that preaches 'acceptance' over fire and brimstone. I would find it odd if the group had not been criticized by non-evangelicals for this reason, given evangelical Christianity's general views on gender roles and the fact that not all women who work in the sex industry are victimized or want 'a way out'. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Thanks for your interest in the article, Susie! I have done as thorough a search as I can for criticism of the organization in reliable, published sources, and all that I have found is already included in the article. You may notice that the "Reception" section includes criticism of the organization by Raëlians, who are non-evangelicals who make the kinds of arguments you have indicated. If you know of or find reliable, published sources that provide additional criticism of JC's Girls, please feel free to add them to the article! Neelix (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting word?
Can the word "Actor" be changed to "Actress" in the description of the second pic? RadPig94 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "actor" appears six times in this article. Is there any reason you would like this particular instance of the word to be changed? "Actor" is a gender-neutral profession term, and Wikipedia's guidelines on gender-neutral language state that we should "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Please see Actor for additional discussion of the gender neutrality of the word "actor" and the history of its use. Neelix (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sioux Falls chapter? Really?
Of all the places that come to mind for a chapter of this group, this is not one that readily comes to mind. I'm guessing that it is because Sophia Lynn works there, but, still. I would be interested in seeing maybe some content regarding that "chapter" in this article (like, maybe, is it just one person?) and maybe any other "chapters" which might exist. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Heather Veitch


as suggested at the afd close--no independent notability  DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As no comments have been made in 6 months, can we assume this proposal is now dead and remove the merge templates from both pages. --John B123 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

