The UK Jesus Christians have added another article.
]Dave Mckay's Attempted Censorship
Dave Mckay teaches "In fact, as a general rule, the worst leaders are usually the ones whose so called authority needs to be most protected from criticism. And the best leaders are the ones who are most tolerant of criticism." From Divine Authority, 1998, Strong Meat page 81.
We have tried to express our criticisms of Dave's decisions, actions and accusations towards us privately as well as publically. Below are two examples of the attempts Dave has made to censor our criticisms that we are aware of. He has tried to censor us is by trying to ban our edits to the Jesus Christians Wikipedia page. Another way was when Sue criticised him on a forum where he had Sue's post promptly deleted by the administrators. There are probably other ways Dave has tried to censor us (like not allowing us to have any contact with other members of his community here in the UK) and teaching his followers to have nothing to do with us because he knows we have criticisms of what he has said and done to us.
At any time he can communicate directly with us via email, but he chooses not to. In fact, he refused to answer our last two emails to him.Wikipedia
While we were members of the Jesus Christians led by Dave Mckay, we would often hear from Dave about "vandals" attacking the Jesus Christians wikipedia page and changing it from what Dave had written. Dave Mckay and Robin Dunn would monitor the page.
It wasn't until after we left Dave's community that we decided to do something about how ethnocentric the wikipedia page was.
Dave wrote the original wikipedia entry. You can read it for yourself here in the history section on March 9th...
On Dave's version the names:
Dave Mckay, Cherry Mckay and
(their daughter) were the only Jesus Christians who were mentioned in the entire article. Dave's name was mentioned 15 times and Christine's only once.
Anytime Dave described a significant event in the history of the Jesus Christians he would refer to anyone involved (other than himself or his wife) as "Jesus Christian members" rather than mentioning names.
So Sue and another friend (Jinny the Squinny) started improving the article. They included historical accounts of more significant events in the history of the movement that Dave had not mentioned, as well as attributing the names of other members of the community who had been correctly reported in such events usually by the mainstream media. All of their edits were verifiable and referenced by reliable authoritative sources, such as reputable newspapers and documentary reports, with the exception of a few references coming from Dave's writings on his own webpage.
Dave complained on the wikipedia page that Sue was a "self professed disgruntled ex member", a "biased editor", "leading an attack on the original Jesus Christians" in an "attempt to claim leadership of the organisation that they were once members of."
This last accusation in particular is completely over the top and illustrates how threatened Dave is by anyone else altering the Jesus Christians Wikipedia page who isn't under his authority. Dave said "Wikipedia really does need to clean up this entire page, purging out the information added by these biased opponents..."
The principles of openess and non biased accuracy that Wikipedia are built on are good ones. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit entries, provided that their edits are not expressing a biased point of view and are verifiable with good references.
Dave claimed that our Jesus Christians UK website is "arguing that they are the true Jesus Christians now despite the fact that much of what they do is aimed at slandering Mckay and anyone loyal to him".
Slander? That's a pretty strong accusation without providing any evidence of how our criticisms are "slander"! Being "loyal" to Dave Mckay? We believe people should be loyal to the TRUTH, and not to their religious leaders.
Dave Mckay appears to be furious! He wrote: "Susan's vandalism through wikipedia is just a small portion of the numerous attempts she has made through the internet to discredit former Jesus Christian members. Someone with authority in Wikipedia needs to remove all of her edits and those of her partner, "Jinny the Squinny"."
So there you have it. Censorship reveals fear in those who use it. Jinny repeatedly asked Dave to state HOW our edits were not Wiki friendly, biased or unsubstantiated, and she received no response to her efforts to discuss what the disagreement was based on. None whatsoever.
How are we discrediting Jesus Christian (former) members? Our website actually supports and promotes a lot of what the Jesus Christians stand (stood) for. We are not trying to discredit members, but rather point out specific criticisms.
Dave claimes Sue added "a long list of alterations to the entry in Wikipedia in order to distort the history of the group to suit her own ends". He states adding these names is Susan "inserting stuff that exaggerates Susan's role"! Perhaps what Dave is really trying to say is that by inserting these names it has diminished (by default) Dave's importance in the previous versions he had written which focussed on himself.
The following names of members of the Jesus Christians were added to the wikipedia page in Sue and Jinny's improved version in connection with significant events or historical photographs. Surnames were only mentioned if they were mentioned in the cited reference material.
Boyd and Sheri Ellery and their family
Darren and Donna Cooke
Soon after the edits were put up by Jinny, the page was "anonymously" reverted back to Dave's original page which mainly mentioned himself. And straight away Wikipedia reverted it back to Jinny's improved page. This happened twice. Dave then started complaining. Here are his complaints recorded on Wikipedia...
Below are some comments that someone with an Australian portable Telstra IP 126.96.36.199 address posted on the actual Wikipedia entry on July 14, 2013
"Susan Gianstefani now leads an attack on the original Jesus Christians, including a long list of alterations to the entry in Wikipedia in order to distort the history of the group to suit her own ends. The website she and her husband have started in the UK stands in opposition to the original Jesus christians, whom they now are committed to discrediting on the Internet. All alterations made by Susan Gianstefani, and her close personal friend "Jinny the Squinny" should be removed or disregarded on this entry, as biased individuals are not allowed to post edits, according to Wiki rules."
(Comment placed in the article after a reference to the Jesus Christians UK website by someone with an IP address by Telstra, Australia, which is Dave's ISP...)
"This website is run by Susan Gianstefani, a disgruntled ex-member of the Jesus Christians who regularly alters the Jesus Christian entry on Wikipedia to exaggerate her own importance in the history of the organisation."
"This, and many other entries on this page was contributed by Susan Gianstefani, a self-professed disgruntled ex-member of the Jesus Christians. She, along with a personal friend [Jinny the Squinny] alternates between arguing that the Jesus Christians no longer exist, arguing that they do exist but that they are totally controlled by Dave McKay, and arguing that they (Susan Gianstefani et al) are the true Jesus Christians now, despite the fact that much of what they do is aimed at slandering McKay and anyone loyal to him. Wikipedia really does need to clean up this entire page, purging out the information added by these biased opponents... OR allowing similar corrections to be made by people biased in favour of the Jesus Christians."
"The website is run by Susan and Roland Gianstefani, in an attempt to claim leadership of the organisation that they were once members of. Susan's vandalism through wikipedia is just a small portion of the numerous attempts she has made through the internet to discredit former Jesus Christian members. Someone with authority in Wikipedia needs to remove all of her edits and those of her partner, "Jinny the Squinny"."
By the way, Dave, how can we "claim leadership" of an organisation that according to your public announcement, has disbanded? Something just doesn't add up...