User talk:Castanea dentata/The Keep

Welcome to JW project!

Just wanted to shout out a cheery hello. Welcome to the incredibly thorny JW project. I look forward to some outside opinions (and hopefully some objectivity). joshbuddy 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks! Aren't you all friendly! - C. dentata

19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses, a dangerous cult

... Duffer 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome to your own point of view. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own websites and there is even a section in this article allowing for discussion of these views. The overwhelming majority of editors do not follow that religion, but we have been generous and perhaps indulgent in incorporating these sectarian views in the article.

Convention and the scholarly consensus are quite clear in regard to the use of the word "Jehovah" and official statements from official sites of the Jehovah's Witnesses differ markedly.

However, Wikipedia policy is explicit that articles must follow scholarly convention and consensus. One cannot make an article on Wikipedia conform to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor may one compel editors to conform their edits to any religion whatsoever. - C. dentata

22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and lying as a way of life

I am keeping the following comments here that all may know what a goofy group of liars the Jehovah's Witnesses are. Fortunately Wikipedia Policy seems still to be enforced; the cult failed in the attempts below to manipulate Wikipedia into a cost-free recruitment platform for themselves.

Does anyone want to join a cult like this?!

I have submitted a Request for investigation into the matter of your persistent abuse of editing privileges on the Jehovah in the New Testament page. In regards to your comment above ("No. Wikipedia policy is not enforced. That's why Wikipedia will never become respected."); I've instigated and prevailed in two mediations and an arbitration, trust me, Wiki policy does get enforced. Duffer 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're jerking yourself off in public (repressed Jehovah's Witness, I know, probably still a virgin at 24), would you care to share the details of these great "triumphs" with the rest of us? Are you counting that thing mentioned on your Talk page where you got your ass handed to you in arbitration but still somehow completely escaped punishment (the poster posited your possession of embarrassing naked pictures of the committee, which is as good an explanation as any)?Petronifico 10:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit graphic, but thanks for the support, Petronifico! - Cestus ^Cd

19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... the article IS a bit of an oxymoron. Not sure if there is a quick remedy for that. I would say, that you can also do an AfD on it, and see how that goes. Its a better remedy than vandalism though! :) joshbuddy^talk 05:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is an obvious hoax to anyone with a NPOV, it may be better to leave it out in the open. - Cestus ^Cd

05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JW page and balance

Are you labouring under the mistaken concept that I'm a JW, or I'm somehow pro or anti JW in someway? While its true I am an ex-JW, with regards to Jehovah's Witnesses my objective has always been to make it as fair and balanced as possible, while at the same time giving a perhaps more complete exposure of information that is commonly given.

If you think some point of view is not being represented, please say something about it. Simply slapping a {{unreferenced}} tag is rather unhelpful. I was the one who added the "critical views" section to the Beliefs so I think its fair to say I have an interest in keeping the article fair and balanced.

Remember too, we are constrained by size. The article can't be that long, but you're really interested in helping, I'd say go take a look at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses ... it needs all sorts of love and merging. And ideally, the sort of critical section that would truly be comprehensive.

I would remind you as well to look at WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I think Franz has been given good weight here (along with other criticism). Please feel free to add a point though. Cheers. joshbuddy^talk 06:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then. I can see you have tried hard and conscientiously. I commend you for the effort. However, you have given undue weight to a minority point of view — the JWs themselves. The article and its dependent articles are inaccurate as well.

I sympathize with you. Cults are a very different animal requiring a different approach. They operate by their own rules and define themselves as against everyone else. They do not negotiate (although they may want you to think they do). They will let you have nothing. There are quite a number of cults here using Wikipedia as free bandwidth. This article is one such example; it's a virtual advertisement. Cults thrive by manipulating people. Don't be manipulated anymore.

To the JWs, there are but two kinds of non-JWs: potential recruits and enemies.

By the way, to be perfectly clear, I appreciate your good manners and the respect you have shown me. Thanks.

Best wishes. - Cestus ^Cd

16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given undue weight to the subject? I don't even know how to process that. I'm going to remove your tag, but please, if there is something you'd like to add to the series of articles, please do so.

With regards to the "us vs them" mentality, this appears (in the JW case) to be an addition of Rutherford's. But to paint the JW's with the cult brush seems a little undue. The exact same thinking you describe here can be seen in many different organizations. I think the current Bush administration is a good example of exactly this sort of "cult" thinking.

But regardless, we're here to report the facts, and do it as evenly as possible. Enjoy. :) joshbuddy^talk 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The JWs are a classic cult, a cult of cults. There are academic studies showing that its members have a high incidence of mental illness. If you acknowledge that fact, then I can see why the JW articles lack NPOV. Bush and his bosses are a cult, too. Poor guy. - Cestus ^Cd

17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to have a NPOV in your writing? joshbuddy^talk 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs and practices

Haven't you seen how I structured this section? Beliefs are presented from the JW pov. Your style of writing is not in a fair or sympathetic tone to the JW's. That is a requirement. joshbuddy^talk 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating Wikipedia rules and guidelines. As you know, all articles must be neutral. Although you claim not to be a member of this organization, all your edits without exception deliver the Jehovah's Witnesse minority point of view without proper evaluation. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia is not free advertizing space for unusual groups and belief systems. - Cestus ^Cd

19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]