Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This was completly one sided. It must have been written by a JW eager to show how wonderful their religion is because the whole thing is just a glowing review of their wonderous organisation - the savour of human rights, community builder, carer for the old and infirm... if it was any more sugar-coated, it would be attracting wasps.

I read it, and found not even a single negative statement about the JW - even though they are one of the most contriversial of Christian denominations.

I dont know enough to correct this one-sided problem. For now, I have copy-pasted some of the more interesting statements over from wikipedia. Its untidy to steal from the competition, I know, but the Wikipedia licence says its acceptable. We use the same one ourselves.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong about copying from Wikipedia, for two reasons.
First, User:Aschlafly does not like copying from Wikipedia. There isn't any well-articulated formal policy, so there's wiggle-room, but he has said things like:
  • note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
  • "I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
  • "there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
Second, Conservapedia does not use the same GFDL license as Wikipedia, or any other kind of "free" license.
Third, the Wikipedia license says its acceptable to copy their content under fairly strict conditions. You're remembering the "acceptable to copy part" but conveniently forgetting the "strict conditions" part. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying says you can copy an entire article but only if you make no changes, and only if the copy itself is licensed under the GFDL. Conservapedia isn't licensed under the GFDL, so reproducing Wikipedia material here violates the terms of their license. I won't get into the further complications if you want to modify the article. Dpbsmith 14:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


It will do as a temporary solution, until we can get some of our own experts to rewrite the accusations in Conservapedia-friendly terms. Its certinly preferable to bias by ommision: The JWs are a very contriversial organisation, and conservapedia needs to reflect that.

- BornAgainBrit

Just don't trash them too much. Crackertalk 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT) I don't think that Conservapedia is using GFDL. This will likely be rv so don't work on it too much. Crackertalk 14:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I just did revert it. I'm more than willing to discuss it, but this should be hashed out before attempting to reinsert the material. The burden of proof is on those who think it is OK to copy such large quantities of material from Wikipedia to explain why it is OK, given that Conservapedia does not license its material under the GFDL.

"which some Christians consider to be a cult"

I snipped out the parenthetical comment in

a Christian denomination (which some Christians consider to be a cult)

pending someone's providing a good published source.

If you don't say which Christians and cite a published source for the statement, then this is pure weasel-wording, a simple unsupported statement of opinion which is not magically transformed into a fact by adding the phrase "some Christians consider."

I don't doubt that there are Christians who consider it to be a cult. There are probably some Catholics who consider the Pope to be the Antichrist (i.e. would answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" with "No.") It is perfectly legitimate to cite facts about opinions, but the reader is entitled to know whose opinions they are. Who is calling them "a cult?" A U. N. official annoyed by their identification of the U. N. with the Beast of the Revelation? A hospital official troubled by their stance on blood transfusions? A Catholic retaliating for their Catholic-bashing? It matters. Who, when, and what, exactly did they say?

With a good published source, this would be a valid addition to the article. Dpbsmith 18:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the most famous book on cults in Christian History, Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, has a chapter on this group. MountainDew 18:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Update

After looking at this entry for a while, decided to give it a bit of a tweaking to be a little tighter and (hopefully) read a little easier. Noticed some of the above commentary and tried to make updates in line with feedback provided on whatever the former entries had been. For those who are intersted, I've including the following logic/rationale on the updates provided:

  • Edited the first line with regard to J.W.'s being a "religious organization which considers itself Christian," but rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ. According to the dictionary, Christian is defined as: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus (Merroam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary - 10th Edition; Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary - Deluxe 2nd Edition). Their principal magazine, The Watchtower, meets those definitions when it states that it promotes "faith in Jesus Christ, who died so that we might gain everlasting life and who is now ruling as King of God's Kingdom".
  • Info re: C.T. Russell ... ran across interesting book by early J.W. (A.H. Macmillan) who gave insight into how the Bible study routine of the J.W.'s got started. Frank S. Mead's Handbook of Demoninations in the United States (copyright 1970, pages 117-120) noted that J.W.'s use the proof-text method in verifying their beliefs.
  • Noted comments regarding previous lack of notation of "controversy" surrounding J.W.'s. and added interesting note from former J.W. president N.H. Knorr regarding infallibilty. While I personally believe it is beneficial to do research on what a religion believes, I'm not one for doing a hack job on them. Have J.W.'s made mistakes (sometimes what some might consider to be whoppers)? Undoubtedly (and I think they usually acknowledge them). Show me a religion that hasn't and I'll show you a religion that isn't doing anything.

I will probably see what else I can round up regarding their beliefs. Rediscovered Leo Rosten's Religions of America.

Respectfully yours, BibleBrown 21:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)

New Contributor

I left WP because of constant edit wars and little supervision. I made some changes just now and am willing to help with the articles on JW's if I can do so without having to argue endlessly with former adherents about every nitpicking point. Just look at WP's first sentence in the JW article: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian[1] restorationist[2] Christian[3] denomination[4] with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity." How tiresome is that?

If my help is desired and accepted I will contribute. George1971 21:01, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools