Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

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. Cracker^talk 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. Cracker^talk 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)