Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 16

message: Does anyone know how to check for  sock puppets? I have reason to believe that some of the "editors" to this article are in fact a single individual editing under more than one WP user name. See also  Prohibited uses of sock puppets --DannyMuse 17:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this suspicion.  A handful of the editors who back similar points of view and edit nothing but this article often use nearly the exact same diction and methods to go about making a point.  This includes at the very least three named editors, and some anonymous IPs.  To whoever might be doing this; your input is respected much more if you stand up for your viewpoint by putting some sort of identification behind it, rather than constantly changing identies. -- uberpenguin 16:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that some users are using more than one name, why not state who you think they are, instead of trying to raise suspicions with baseless speculation.--Jeffro77 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets

message: Given the obvious POV of certain edits (elenap's come to mind) and the high flux rate of this page I think there is a high likelihood that a reader will first encounter this page in a highly POV state. With that in mind I think it appropriate to maintain the POV tag unless and until the page settles down a bit
--BEN Sep 16
:Hello Ben, 
:If you are going to insert a NPOV header on the page, you are supposed to justify all and every point you have in mind, not completely smash up a page, and then rewrite it with no discussion or debate as a Watchtower PR exercise. Many others here have covered these issues over and over and the page has been approved by two administrators in regard to the eschatology section. My edits were reverting, not altering the main text sections. I only edited the last 1995 bit, and you've said nothing about that, except made unfounded claims. All major changes are supposed to be discussed first, and you have not done that, you have just ripped out the factual material and done a whitewash edit in apologist speak to look like it was all a minor dream or something.
:A couple of points I will pick up on were where you claimed in regard to 1799, 1914, 1920, and 1925 etc., that they were “suggestive and purely speculative”, but Ben, not one of those dates falls into your apologist descriptions, you are clearly not being reasonable, rational, or honest
:You then say “Progressive adjustments of understanding in the face of unfolding events, resulted in a period of changing explanations centered around the years 1914, 1918, 1920, and 1925.” That is also incorrect because those dates were only changed after their humiliating failure, not before. It hardly takes a brain surgeon to change a prediction, where the world is still looking on, long after the end was supposed have arrived! You also are trying to use very deceitful terminologies to try and pacify the facts to more and more insignificance, when they were anything but that at their times of publishing. An example of your gross dishonesty is here where you say “Other dates variously considered being time of God's judgement”. Since when were they “variously considered”? They forcefully stated, “we affirm that, Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt. Its reliability has been abundantly confirmed. . .” and “This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct.” What you inserted was gross fabrication and deceit Ben. Why? What is your agenda? If you are embarrassed, get over it. You should not destroy, whole pages due to your religious ties to the JWs.
:Ben, you said “They do not profess to be inspired”, but they use ever synonym in the book that directly implies that exact same thing, see quotes here 1 and here 2, why are you hiding this balance?
:There are a lot more points that you are misleading and censoring for your own agenda, and that is not the purpose of Wikepedia. I get the impression you are possibly a naïve JW who does not know about the real history of your religion (please don’t take offence at this, it is a common thing), and so you edit in good faith that your indoctrinated info from the watchtower org is correct. Please do some detailed research before you vandalise many editors' hard work. Wikepedia is here for accurate information, be it good or bad, but not public relations platform for religious groups and their biases. You have also repeatedly changed long accepted text with no discussion. Can I suggest you look up the 14 pages of talk and read them all carefully before you abuse the hard work of others with your grossly biased unauthorized edits. Best wishes. Elenap 17th of September, 2005 PS. For more info, read some oh the Watchtower org’s published material here. 1914, 1975, and the whole lot (four pages)
::Elenap: Your attempt to portray your eschatology section as a settled and accepted edit is 'grossly dishonest.'  This section has caused dissension every time you have made it.  You bring an agenda to this page, as is clear to all from your comments above.  My edits made clear the history of failed interpretation by the Witnesses without descending to calumny; you cannot say the same.  Witness literature inclines to hair-splitting, you clearly are inclined to misrepresent its subtlety where convenient to your agenda.  Further, you exhibit basic misunderstanding of my clear prose.  Is this due to poor reading comprehension or to the blinders of bias? --BEN Sep 19 2005
:::Hello Ben. May I start by noting that you have not attended to a single point I have made, but merely made unfounded protestations without any factual evidence to back them; please write all sources and proof if you have a factual point to make? These reverts to the long-standing article were not my writings, they were edits back to a well-accepted compromise (a fact you surreptitiously ignore), and the main text has been in an approved state for months now. Two separate administrators are happily with its compromise from both sides, but you appear to think you can smash in here like a bull in a china store, and rearrange the whole lot based on your own religious biases and PR campaigns for the Watchtower org. As I kindly pointed out Ben, please read all the talk pages, yes all 14 of them before you do any more vandalizing, and make casual unfounded accusations. These subjects have been debated many times and a common compromise was reached months ago, which you appear clearly not interested in. Your selfishness in trying to destroy the hard work of others and their extensive debates on these matters is quite typical of many with your religious background (the blinkered view that any method is acceptable if it makes the JWs look good in the public eye). Censorship is not welcome here, especially when it has a blatant religious agenda and bias. You have failed to make a single point of valid criticism that has not been discussed at great length before (please go and read all 14 pages of talk) as you might start to understand why you are being so unreasonable and astoundingly narrow-minded. Wikipedia is here for factual information, not public relation promotions for religious sects; if you want that then go to the Watchtower's website. If you have a specific point with referenced proof and backup, then bring it here and discuss it, but please check it has not already been done before, and please don't come out with more nebulous vague accusation with no specific point or proof. If you have facts you feel are incorrect, then produce your documented proof with references, then it can be discussed here in a mature way, before any possible changes are made. Your current behaviour is highly offensive to all editors and contributors to Wikipedia. Regards. Elenap 20th of September, 2005
:Ben, understood. This explanation was what was missing. BTW, you should consider becoming a registered user. It only takes a minute and has many benefits. Also, you can automatically insert your signature at the end of posts using the second to last button at the top of these edit boxes. --DannyMuse 18:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV