Is anybody here actualy maintaining wikipedia on Jehovahs Witnesses these..

vomit

... days?

Seriously its been taken over by JWs especially [edited]. I am not the best writer and people dont like my methods, but even if somebody can post neutral points please do so as its been turning into a recruitment page.

cabasilas

Do you think that Wikipedia exists to "expose" JWs? Or that putting in positive facts about them in the article is wrong? The article is supposed to contain facts pro and con written from a neutral point of view. It's not supposed to be a tool to trash JWs.

cabasilas

I hope this doesn't start what happened last time a similar thread started. A person from JWD tried to post the link to JWD in the resources section. Problem is Wikipedia has rules against posting a link to a discussion board as an external link. So the link to JWD was removed. That person then posted a complaint here about Wikipedia being "taken over by JWs." That provoked a bunch of people from here making crazy edits over there. One person bragged they'd changed "Witness" to "Witless" and other such silly stuff.

Do you really think such stuff really helps the cause?

vomit

Quote from [edited]
Specifics? Wikipedia does not exist to "expose" JWs. Facts are presented here both pro and con, hopefully written from a neutral point of view.[edited] 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Latest_Edits

Terribly similar to yours cabasilas. Are you one and the same?

It doesn't exist to expose JWs, but when they are wrong they are wrong just because 6million belive they are right still doesn't make a statement factual. Only posting the pluses of that religion is recruitment.

cabasilas

You misrepresent me. I have posted stuff that can be called both pro and con. Check the logs for the past year and you'll see.

Recently, I posted info on the Supreme Court cases in the history section. It had not been mentioned. Was I wrong to do that? Should I only post negative things? Is that what you think Wikipedia is all about? Posting all the bad stuff we can? Should an encyclopedia article on JWs not mention their Supreme Court battles?

thebiggestlie

ive edited wikipedia for a while and lurked a bit on the jw page. If i'm correct i dont believe [edited] is a witness and i agree wikipedia is not the place to witness bash although it is supposed to display a neutral point of view thus allowing for points pro and con. Evidently a jw editor named cobaltbluetony wrote the org and they wrote him back suggesting not to edit jw wikipedia pages so i wouldnt be suprised if the society doesnt “ban” wikipedia claiming that its a porthole of apostates or something to that extent.

free2beme

Why care? Not like what you write there is going to convert a person to be a Witness. I read it, and actually felt sleepy.

vomit

I have read the history page and I can see that you have well over 50% of the edits and control much of the talk page.

I have never raised any issue over the Supreme court battles. It seems you are out to misrepresent me. I also don't have an issue with posting positive things. Facts are neutral. But how they are used is not. I object to the posting of member numbers as used in a positive way as backing to their Bible based Christianity, as numbers used in that way is a recruitment method.
I object to them being introduced as being bible based, not because they are, most Christian religions are. But saying that they are bible based makes it sound like their claims are valid.

I have a problem with the whole lead-in as it is almost identical to the latter day saints page.

cabasilas

To begin with, I control nothing at Wikipedia.

Where have I said they were Bible based?

ackack

They (JWs) say they are Bible based. They (JWs) say they are Christians. The article says only this I believe.

ackack

Is anybody here actualy maintaining wikipedia on Jehovahs Witnesses these..

Share this