Wikipedia being abused by Jehovahs Witnesses

by Simon 93 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • jwfacts

    Hi Jgnat, I just looked at one of Janko's answers are

    Q: So, don't you think that the JWs Father/son logic is misleading?

    Janko's Answer
    Nothing we say or do is misleading,cause if it was or is we wouldn't have an International Brotherhood(includes women to)of almost seven worldwide in the same faith with no denominations but we are all united as one,one faith,one Lord(Jesus)one baptism and one God(Jehovah)above all things.
    This is who and what we are and stand for.You can only be misled if you want to and be stumbled as well if you haven't conquered the world as we have and live in a spiritual paradise.

    I can never get over how truly stupid JW answers can be, but more importantly, that they think what they are saying is actually correct.

  • itsallgoodnow

    it's a real shame wikipedia is set up the way it is. I use it sometimes for certain types of references, but the JW page really left a bad taste in my mouth. I tried to make some changes recently and it took less than 3 minutes before my changes were unchanged. and I received a swift warning. meaning, if I did it again, my ip address would be recorded and they would lock me out.

    I communicated with the pro-JW who hit me with the warning and he claims they have a mixed group of moderators, ie a few active JWs and a few non-JWs. I stated I didn't think the critics of JWs area was very well researched and the issues were not represented fairly. He advised me to put something together that was well researched. He also suggested I try to ask to be part of the moderation team. Of course that means he is still in charge, since I have a real job that doesn't allow me to surf the net all day. Along with all of that, he had the audacity to give me a stern lecture about throwing away my hope for the future and the dangers of associating with apostates. What a laugh. I gave him a few things to think about in response. He's still thinking, I suppose because I haven't heard anything back. This guy is sitting in a cramped office in brooklyn new york, I suspect. Shifts, definitely.

    Not too long ago, I remember seeing a lot more against the Jehovah's Witnesses listed there.

    I complained to wikipedia and got no response.

    I also looked up a few things under "cult" and remember it used to have more information than it currently has. Curious. I think lots of the fundamental religions are probably up to the same thing. We should check out "scientology" and see what sort of propaganda is out there.

    Wikipedia blows. I think I won't use anything from wikipedia as a source for arguments any longer. I'm only using it for trivial pop culture research.

  • cabasilas
    I read the info at Wiki, and I have to say that I thought it was pretty balanced. It seemed accurate, there was lots of info about the origins and schisms, the constantly changing teachings, the many srewed up dates were listed, and the links at the end were dominated by anti-JW sites.

    Wikipedia does not exist to expose JWs. People sometimes think they can put whatever negative stuff they want over there and it shouldn't be touched. If your submission is not backed up with sufficient documentation, it will be removed.

    If you want to post info at Wikipedia it must be verfiable, not original research and written in a neutral point of view. It is also considered bad form to link your own website. Self-promotion is not allowed.

    There are many (both JWs and non-JWs) who have worked hard on the site. It's not going to be all positive or all negative. The article has its flaws but, all in all, it contains a wealth of information that is presented in such a way that many JWs will read. If it was just a "anti-JW" article it would never be read by JWs.

  • mkr32208

    Well I've got some pretty good definitions of Jehovah, Jehovah's witnesses, cult, governing body... And anything else I could think of over at Of course I am getting a lot of thumbs down but they can't edit it hahahahahahah

    Of course WITNESS YOUTH should NOT be on a site like urbandictionary!

  • jwfacts
    If it was just a "anti-JW" article it would never be read by JWs.

    Good point Cabasilas. There is enough antiJW sites, so Wiki is a good place for an active JW to get both sides of the story in a palatable format and possibly have their thinking ability pricked.

    Wiki helped refine my writing skills. When I first started submitting, my posts contained a lot of opinion. As others refined my sentences I learnt that a lot of what i had said was opinion. An encyclopedia is not about opinion but facts. For instance, it is a fact that JWs believe Jesus started to rule in 1914, it is only an opinion as to whether or not that is true, and attempting to prove JWs wrong does not belong on Wiki. However, it is very annoying when JW apologists delete well constructed factual sentences simply because they paint the WTS in an unfavourable light.

  • truth.ceeker

    It was interesting to see the difference between my original post and that of the edited version with links to about their policy on Child Abuse. I have much more to learn about Wiki's. I was also unable to view the user who modified the text. I also liked some of the older versions that is still around on*/, especially the one dated February 03, 2004.

    My original post:

    Recent events [[ Joseph Cano - Bethel Elder]] have led to a public and private awakening of the policy that governs child abuse. The current belief and doctrine that is followed when allegations of abuse is reported is taken from the bible at Deuteronomy Chapter 15 "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." Taken from the New World Translation. In effect a child who comes forward with such allegations, without a second person to corroborate the sin, will be deemed invalid and no further action is taken against the accused. This policy is against that of the secular world in which all allegations of child abuse are investigated. According to former Bethel workers, there existed many such cases that were not reported to the proper authorities. See [[ Silent Lambs]].

    Edited Version:

    Recent events [91] have led to criticism regarding the procedures on reporting child abuse. The current belief and doctrine that is followed when allegations of abuse is reported is taken from the bible at Deuteronomy Chapter 18:15 "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good"(As quoted from the New World Translation). Another cited text is Matthew 18:15-17 . If an allegation of child abuse comes forward, and the alleged perpetrator denies it, the local congregational elders will investigate to see if there can be any others who can substantiation the claim. If there are none, the elders do not disfellowship the accused at the time. However, according to the Jehovah's Witness office of Public information: "..Even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so."[92]Critics charge that a number of charges have gone unreported.

    Well, it appears that I have found my next part time job. ;)


  • truth.ceeker

    It would also appear from reading through other threads and comparing language used that thirdwitness is actively involved in some form or fashion with the updates to the wiki page.


  • rosa

    the same problem is happen in Portuguese wikipedia. anyone put a single reference about Criminal Sues against JW in Sao Paulo, related with refusing blood transfusion and after few hours the reference was deleted.

  • 5go

    yah,It is but at least there is still the contraversy page which I helped start.

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard More info associated thread

    Lets keep the vigil

Share this