Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death

It strikes me that everyone who voted on deletion for this long ago did so because they didn't care about the subject and on the other hand the people who chose to keep it have very anti-Jehovah's-Witnesses biases in their comments, just as the article itself is written. Jehovah's witnesses don't care what you write about them unless it is outright slander or libel. So the third catagory was of course missing; there were no Jehovah's witnesses who were in favor of keeping this article to have thier view considered sans the bias of fanatically anti-Jehovah's-Witness. As it stands, without the appropriate citations or references it is nothing more than anti-Jehovah's-Witness propaganda. Case in point, the reference to the description of a cross by a Jewish historian. It is moot as the it is the Latin Crux that is being considered there not the Greek Stauros, which is the real issue. Greek Stauros means Stake: what more need be said, unless you call Bible writers liars. I am neither JW or Christian, but I know deception when I see it. Once it is admitted what the original greek says, then it doesn't matter what the (fraudulent) Latin translations say about it. And that's what makes this article biased and useless, clearly written by anti-JWs. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) It should be noted that people who are biased against JW's or any religion without understanding their perspective are one step away from being considered a fool. I don't particularly profess to be of any religious denomination, but I do know that from what I see, JW's seem to really give a damn about trying to follow what this country professes to be... "Christian".

Is this article and vote not lacking in a bias and sockpuppet check? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both the article and the AfD opinions look fine to me. Most of those expressing opinions in the AfD are Wikipedians who have been here for some time and edit many different subjects. Their opinions do not seem to be biased. Do you have some specific user you wish to have checked for sockpuppetry with evidence to be considered? If not, there is no reason to believe that there is any problem here. 88.80.200.138 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC again. If you really thing a sockpuppet check is called for, use WP:RFCU. Cool Hand Luke 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)