Talk:Jesus Christians

New Information
Rather than simply add a new edit, I am attempting here to present new Information which I believe is relevant to the Page and ought to be considered factual, despite denials by the groups founder otherwise. I don't claim to be an expert in protocols yet, but appeal to moderators to advise how to proceed before posting it.. Two Youtube pages have appeared and are active for about a year. The first one is called "End Time Survivors", and many of the posts are by a "brother Dave". Not only does the obscured video image look and sound like David McKay, the channel features David McKay´s book  "Survivors". Many of the Uploads are simply audio visual versions of content in printed form from the Jesus Christians teaching website. A second channel appeared called " Voice in the Desert", claiming to be anonymous, and calls himself "Voice" however the voice is that of David McKay to anyone who knows the man despite mild audio doctoring. Further evidence that David McKay is running that channel can be shown in which another channel has recently appeared called "Voice in the Desert- Exposed". In this channel a defender of the "Voice"(aka David McKay) cites numerous controversial actions that the "Voice" has been involved with in the past and has been unfairly accused of. These include: forcing group members to donate kidneys, kidnap underage youth, Voices former membership of the Children of God, whether or not Voice is a cult leader, and explanations about the Whipping Trial. These are all subjects which appear on the Jesus Christians wikipaedia page already and on the Jesus Christians website. There is plenty of evidence for any neutral person to arrive at this conclusion, whether or not one agrees or disagrees which various actions of the group. All that remains is to cite the evidence in an acceptable form for the wikipaedia entry. It appears that the founder of the JC´s (David McKay) is desperate to keep any links from the Jesus Christians to the new public channels, and claim anonymity for himself. There is mounting evidence that the group still exists despite former claims of disbanding, and has simply changed names and operates in different forms. However, most obvious for now is simply that David McKay continues to teach the same doctrines on these Youtube channels as he does on the Jesus Christians web site. That he tries to hide that from the public in my opinion is a form of deception. I am not interested in simply writing negative stuff about the group or its founder, but that factual information be put on the public record, be it positive or negative so it the public itself can decide what to believe about this group. Wholetruth (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wholetruth wrote: "It appears that the founder of the JC´s (David McKay) is desperate to keep any links from the Jesus Christians to the new public channels, and claim anonymity for himself."

This sounds like a tabloid conspiracy theory, Wholetruth, which I don't see verified by an independent reliable source. Wouldn't a non-verifiable, biased 'biographical' statement about a living person (David McKay) represent a violation of Wikipedia policy? (I also note that Wholetruth has not attributed their theory to any objective reliable source, but rather seems to be using this Talk page to promote unverified theories.) Just4truth22 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22

another web site www.endtimesurvivors.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholetruth (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I have not posted official edits is because I am awaiting advice from more experienced editors. Because this information is new and in the early stages of research, it has not yet been picked up by verifiable sources, apart from anyone who wishes to go to those sites for themselves and draw their own conclusions, which I invite anyone reading this to do. I do believe verifiable sources are likely to comment in the near future because the evidence is there. And I am sure this often happen whenever new sources of information first appear. After all isnt that what a talk page is for, to avoid posting before being sure that the matter is handed appropriately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholetruth (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC) --

I fully agree with what you have shared above, Wholetruth. I am all in favor of pointing out links, but only after there is reliable evidence... just to be safe. Just4truth22 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22

It appears that an official statement has been made by David McKay on the Jesus Christians forum, with regard to his involvement in Endtime Survivors. It may be worth checking out. You can see it here: http://www.jesuschristians.com/forum/24-introduce-yourself/43233-not-many-here#44325 Peggerwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4506:E700:387F:8D5:609:3C4C (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Why don´t you quote him here? You have to register with their forum to see it.Wholetruth (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

- Some quotes that were asked for:

"Anyway, what is really funny about it all is that they are arguing back and forth over whether the YouTube channel Endtime Survivors is actually the Jesus Christians. In a way it's understandable, but what amazes me is that apparently no one over there has ever thought to just ask me. Okay, I could lie and not tell them the truth, or I could just choose not to answer. But for any researcher, that is the first place you start in researching. Not so Wikipedia. I am apparently considered the absolute most unreliable source for anything.

Here's something particularly amazing: She edited the Jesus Christian entry on Wikipedia to say that Make It Real are the Jesus Christians now, and then forgot to delete it when she reversed strategies and decided to "out" all the other former Jesus Christians, stating that they never disbanded, and that Endtime Survivors is the real name for the same organisation now.

What is rather obvious to anyone who knows us, is that a lot of ex-Jcs contribute to that YouTube channel, including myself. I'm not sure who actually owns the channel, as I don't moderate it, and haven't contributed to it for many months. I do, however, contribute to the Endtime Survivors website forum from time to time... And so the "truth"becomes more and more complicated as they continue to trust Wikipegger.

Anyway, for the record, membership in the real Jcs continues to stand at two: Cherry and me. Not that former JCs are dead. Just that they are operating independently. And yes, a lot of them have (along with quite a few others who have no connection with the Jcs) contributed to Endtime Survivors.

So let's see what Wikipedia does with this official statement. Since I'm not allowed to talk to them or any of their editors anywhere else!" Frog Manz (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism to photo captions
Is there any reason why Frog Manz continues to remove the names of the Jesus Christians from the photograph captions? Wikipeggar (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason I think it is important to include names of the people pictured in the photo captions is because people who read the article with references to other news articles specifically quoting individuals in the group and their activities can see the photos of the people they are reading about. Anonymous people in photos that just talk about "Jesus Christians" doing x, y and z, aren't very interesting in my opinion.  What do other editors think? What are the reasons for keeping photographs anonymous? Wikipeggar (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To start with, I don't think that simply removing the names of individuals from photo captions constitutes vandalism, considering that the 'important' reason for including the names in the first place is based on personal opinion, as Wikipeggar expressed above. One good reason for removing names from the photos is that members, and ex-members of this group have received direct persecution. Posting photos with their names, against their wishes, seems irresponsible and disrespectful. It is unnecessarily putting people in jeopardy and at risk of vilification. Perhaps if Wikipeggar wants to take the most ethical approach they can try seeking consent from the people in the photos since it appears that they know exactly who those people are. If those people give consent, it shouldn't be a problem.

Another good reason for removing some of the photos entirely, and not just the names, is that at least one of the published photos was obtained in an unethical way; Sue Gianstefani essentially stalked the subject, filming him covertly initially but continued to film him even after he expressly asked her to stop filming him. A photo from this footage now appears on this wiki page and is claimed by Wikipeggar as their own work. In the name of common decency and courtesy, it would seem the least thing to do on Wikipeggars part would be to permanently remove this photo (not just the caption), and perhaps question their inclusion of certain other photos, and what they are hoping to achieve by using them (against the express wishes of some of the subjects). Or at the very least questioning the reasoning that names must be included. If, Wikipeggar, you didn't know before how this photo was obtained, you know now. I'll take it down myself soon if you choose not to take it down yourself. You are right - it would be good to get the opinion of other editors on this issue.Frog Manz (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement to seek permission of people who are photographed in a public place to use their image for Wikipedia. And so far no one has identified themself, and asked that their photo be deleted for whatever reason. Even then it would be a matter of courtesy and not obligation. Newspapers all over the world photograph people all the time. At present we have some editors presuming to delete images as though they represent the people concerned. That´s insufficient reason or excuse to take it upon themselves to remove images relevant to the page. Wholetruth (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My name is Susan Gianstefani. Frog Manz (above Wholetruth) has stated that


 * 1. I obtained a photo that is posted on this article by stalking Paul Henry (Bruce, as he prefers to be called now)
 * 2. I was filming him covertly and then overtly outside Kings hospital
 * 3. that I continued to film him after he expressly asked me to stop.
 * 4. that I used this footage to take a photo from it which is the photo on this article.


 * My response:
 * I do not stalk people and I have never stalked Paul Henry.
 * I did not film and I have never filmed Paul Henry covertly or overtly outside Kings College Hospital (KCH).
 * I did not speak with Paul Henry outside KCH where this photo was taken and thus Paul (or anyone else) did not speak to me asking me to stop filming him.
 * The photo of Paul Henry posted on this article by Wikipeggar was not taken from any footage that I filmed.


 * These false allegations defame my character and reputation, especially since I am an identifiable subject discussed in this article. If you, Frog Manz, are basing your allegations on a third party source I suggest you seek to verify this information and when you realise that it is in fact false, could you please, in the name of common decency and courtesy, apologise here on this talk page? Thank you.


 * Merry Christmas to all editors of this page and here's to a happy New Year.


 * Susan Gianstefani.94.197.121.140 (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It’a amazing how quickly Susan Gianstefani learned about what Frog Manz posted yesterday. Does she have some links with this page? Wikipegger, did you notify her? Just4truth22 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22


 * I'm not sure how Susan Gianstefani becoming aware of this discussion is pertinent. It would be entirely appropriate for her to be notified. However, if you are in fact suggesting that she is a sock-puppet, there are avenues to take that further.


 * Personally, I think this page has become a schmozzle of people furthering their vested interests to the detriment of the article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To further this point,, Wikipedia is visible to the public, as is this talk page, and given that she has apparently edited here in the past I'm not at all surprised she's staying abreast of the situation.
 * I am posting here to give a general and final warning - any attempting OUTING will be met with blocks. If you think Person A is using account B, keep those thoughts to yourself - we don't care. If you think accounts C and D are being edited by the same person, file an SPI.
 * We've had enough garbage posting here, and as Doctorhawkes has stated almost none of it is actually relevant towards improving the article. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The question here is whether drawing a connection between the Jesus Christians and the Endtime Survivors YouTube channel will contribute toward improving the Wikipedia article on the Jesus Christians. As I understand it, the Jesus Christians were identifiable as an organisation, with designated leaders, universal agreement on doctrine, and face to face meetings and communication. Endtime Survivors may actually include former members of the Jesus Christians, and McKay himself, as some have claimed. But is it an organisation as such? And can it seriously be described as being the Jesus Christians?

Endtime Survviors, for example, has a very specific emphasis on Bible prophecy, whereas the Jesus Christians taught far more than that. Perhaps we should discuss exactly what a YouTube channel is. For example, would a Wikipedia entry specifically about Endtime Survivors or any similar religious video channel necessarily assume that it is a church or religion?

As evidence that contributors to Endtime Survivors are not all part of the same organisation, and not all in agreement on doctrine, I suggest people watch this three-minute plus video from that channel... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsEopNKyjDc&t=16s Just4truth22 (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Just4truth22

That seems like a spurious argument to me. The End Time Survivors channel is posting from a variety of sources, so what. Whoever is actually running the channel is the real organisation whether or not it is open or hidden from the public. Its simply a change of tacticsWholetruth (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Bobby Kelly section
A recent anonymous editor removed a paragraph from the Bobby Kelly section on the grounds that there was not enough corroborating evidence to suggest that David Whitehouse informed Graham Baldwin after his suspicions were raised during a visit from Bobby and the Jesus Christians.

Evidence of Whitehouse's suspicion: The quote from Whitehouse cited from the Express article "The group has a veneer of respectability but there is something very disturbing about them. When I saw Bobby a week ago he was with three of them and he seemed very scared, which was unlike him."

The evidence that it was "possible" that David was the person who raised the alarm is from Baldwin's quote from the same article: "someone close to the family who suspected that something was wrong and did something to try to save him"

The person was not a family member but was close to the family. The person was suspicious that something was wrong. Considering Bobby is reported in the article as meeting with Whitehouse as well as Bobby's grandmother, I propose it is reasonable to state from the evidence that there is a possibility that Whitehouse is the person who contacted Graham Baldwin in the short time afterwards. I think the whole story adds the detail of how and why the strange scandal unfolded.

Here is the section that was removed, that I would like to return to the article with approval or suggested alterations from other editors:


 * It is possible it had been David Whitehouse who "suspected that something was wrong and did something to try to save him" by contacting the anti cult expert, Graham Baldwin, sometime before July 14. Baldwin, who was working with a charity, Catalyst, which helps families of people caught up in cults, was reportedly contacted by "someone close to the family who suspected that something was wrong and did something to try to save him".  A solicitor who "specialises in cases against cults" was hired after legal aid was acquired and the solicitor succeeded in getting an emergency High Court action to try to "rescue the schoolboy". The front page newspaper report in The Express was published two weeks after Bobby first met the Jesus Christians with the story that Bobby had "disappeared" after he met the group: "Within hours Bobby had forsaken his possessions and moved in with the group.  The police were called and the airports and docks were put on the highest alert." After The Express broke the story, instead of handing the boy over to the police, the Jesus Christians with Bobby "in tow" panicked went "on the run".  The UK Jesus Christians became fugitives for two weeks.<!

Thank you.

Wikipeggar (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * PS. Another reason I think the detail is important to include is that the long story highlights the two week gap between Bobby meeting the Jesus Christians and then the police getting involved AFTER the newspaper story first broke. The details of what was happening behind the scenes and who was (both possibly and evidently) involved show that Bobby did not vanish as soon as he met the Jesus Christians (as the newspapers implied) but evidently visited both his grandmother and Whitehouse all before Baldwin, the courts and then the police got involved.


 * Wikipeggar (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The material you are talking about, Wikipegger, was not just removed. It was restated in a way as to make it more creditable. Yes, it's not only possible that David Whitehouse is the person who contacted Graham Baldwin, but very probable. However, creditable journalism does not pose such theories on behalf of the author. It must be left to the reader to reach that conclusion. What I have done is to bring the two pieces of evidence closer together. You might be able to remove or rewrite the line that says there is no evidence that Whitehouse contacted Baldwin so as to still put the thought into the reader's mind that it MAY be that Whitehouse is the culprit, but which does not leave you vulnerable to an accusation that you are pointing a finger without evidence. Saying that something is "possible" amounts to saying nothing in the world of journalism, and especially in the world of academic research. Peggerwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4506:E700:A405:3E41:6510:A163 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Updated Reference
Due to previous controversy around the issue, I thought I should just make a brief comment that I changed the first reference link in the introduction. Link 1 now directs to 'Voices In The Wilderness: An Ethnography of the End Time Survivors', a thesis by Geraldine Smith, as it appears on the Jesus Christians website. It is a comprehensive overview of the Jesus Christians movement, from its inception to the current day, making particular reference to the current Youtube ministry. Frog Manz (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)