Ah, yes, well if ANDRE said it then it must be true!
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses on WIKIPEDIA
by jakeyen 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
00DAD
Umm, Andre, how can the "All of the publications can be ... verified easily" when there are NO SOURCES CITED?
Oh, I know, we can just look it up on the WT CD-ROM.
Andre, you're an idiot - now go to your room!!!
-
Little Imp
I have had a cursory look at Wikpedia and found this interesting link
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/holden-cavorting-with-the-devil.pdf
(sorry not sure how to make the link work so I am afraid you will have to paste it in your browser but it is well worth a look)
-
Band on the Run
Standard reference works taken out of context are very fraudulent. Wikipedia has never claimed that it is flawless. I find much more by reading the editing page than the article itself. The joke is that every one uses Wikipedia for a casual, first look over the territory. Academics forbid it as authority but it is very helpful in finding authority and the contours of a debate. All of this is known mostly by volunteers globally.
Do the Witnesses carry a disclaimer about all their mistaken dates and the scholars who have publicly objected to quoting their works out of context. It bothers me, in particular, because all the references to outside sources impressed me greatly. The problem was when I reached a certain reading comprehension level and would go read the actual sources. Reading the Bible as the ultimate source cured me forever.
It takes guts to stay in the viciousness and many fights at wikipedia. Many nonWitnesses are putting up the good fight. I feel a tad sorry for the Witnesses pretending to know what they are doing but merely paraphrasing Brooklyn. I wonder if the Society selects these Wikipedians or are they messing with apostates on their own.
I found this site through a link in the Wikipedia discussion section.
I
-
MrMonroe
The recent thread about Carol Olaf Jonsson's dissection of the Watchtower's latest defence of its 607/1914 dating argument provides very powerful proof that the WTS routinely distorts and manipulates exteral sources to reach a predetermined conclusion. Jonsson clearly shows how they simply ignore material (often from the same authorities they quote) that disproves their case.
People accept Wikipedia for what it's worth. Despite policies that aim to limit its content to verifiable information drawn from reliable pubished sources, Wikipedia offers its own caution about the veracity of material. The Watchtower, in contrast, claims that it speaks truth that is provided to it by God. And then tells outright lies.
The Wikipedia article does, incidentally, contain reference to the latest "mentally diseased" claims. See the section on shunning.
-
Heaven
some articles "contain significant misinformation"
This warning needs to be on the Watchtower's publications.