Difference between revisions of "Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses"
(New page: 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 organi...) |
m |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
- BornAgainBrit | - BornAgainBrit | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Just don't trash them too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:03, March 19, 2007
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. 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)