Talk:Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society

How is it honest and consistent with NPOV to redirect from "Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society" (a title which suggest opposing views) to "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (an article which contains proposing views)?

This appears deceptive. Please remove the redirect. If the original title "Websites Critical of The Watchotwer Society" is not permissible, then it should redirect elsewhere, not from opposing to proposing, which amounts to bait and switch. Thank you. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewXJW (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 July, 2006


 * Please assume good faith. The vote for deletion for this page resulted in it being changed to a redirect by an admin who does not identify as a JW.  If you think something should be corrected, be bold and make the change, and wait for fair challenges after the fact; unless of course it's highly controversial. - CobaltBlueTony 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you again CobaltBlueTony! I discovered how to change redirects after leaving the post above, made the change, and documented it. In retrospect, I guess it's easier to make such minor changes than requesting someone do so or explaining why someone should do so. The user interface is simple enough, but the rules are extensive and formidable. I can see why they're necessary though!


 * I try to avoid "controversial" edits by sticking to my area of expertise, and selecting very specifically which pages to participate in, yet find there are many unfair challenges by others who do attempt to control the flow of information and do not stick to their own area of expertise. For example, my main page of interest "Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses" has a strong pro-Witness slant, and the other pages have an even stronger pro-Witness slant. If you have any advice on how to "assume good faith" when the evidence is greatly contrary, I'd love to hear it! In the meantime, I will take initiative where appropriate and try to be concise with edit summaries, and vigilant when others conduct edit wars against me in my own areas of expertise. Thank you. AndrewXJW 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great care has been taken to keep articles encyclopedic. Efforts from many different editors with varied backgrounds were pressed into articles that are accurate and well-documented.  If one challenges the presentation of some fact, one is expected, moreso here than in any other series of articles, to find supporting research, preferrably from more than one source.  Even at this level of scrutiny, it is not Wikipedia's policy to come to a conclusion, but only to present the facts.  If one senses some some sort of "conspiracy" regarding the faithfulness of the aticles, one should take this notion up with non-Witness editors, or admins.  Editing based one's own perception of bad faith ironically places one in a bad faith editing position.  It is wise, therefore, to scrutinize the content, not on similarity to one's own perceptions or opinions, but on the factual accuracy and academic weight therein. - CobaltBlueTony 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for this disclosure about the values and ideals of Wikipedia. It is helpful, and will help me be a more effective contributor. I understand that conclusions are not sought, but rather disclosure of all sides, including the reasons why parties hold certain views, so that the reader can decide for himself. That process, allowing people to draw their own conclusions is one I am very familiar with. We share it as a common value. With a little practice and guidance from you "old pros" I will find the voice that you describe. In the meantime, the views and facts I present are still necessary in order for readers to have a rounded picture of the topic of the page.


 * Also please note I was not editing with an assumption of bad faith, but rather correcting a redirect. I have not edited the work of others at all, but only added to it. Quite contrarily to your warning, it is my work that has been edited with an assumption of bad faith. Nevertheless, I am confident that by adhering to your clear and helpful guidelines, a more balanced view will emerge. Best wishes, AndrewXJW 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on your talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)