168
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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...
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
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