Clutch writes:

It is of note that the Changing Doctrines material was a straight dump of material RK had already written and put on another page on the Wikipedia,

You have this backwards. This essay on changing doctrines was originally written for the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. After it was finished, it became apparent that it would be useful somewhere else as where.

Further, this is not the section that Jimbo was referring to. This is '''not'' the section that was part of the edit wars. Rather, it was specific controversial issues within the essay that he (and I) are referring to.

Clutch writes "RK's information dump would have been appropriate in the talk page, but not the article proper."

Sigh. Stop attacking the analysis as an "information dump". As the clear consensus on the Talk page explcitly states, others agree that this material is necessary here for a discussion of the topic.

Clutch then adds "I will refrain from characterising RK's action, but I invite you to look at what he added, then imagine if you were a Jew, and someone dumped something like that in the article on Judaism, how would you feel?"

Huh? THIS WAS ALREADY DONE TO THE JUDAISM ARTICLES. There are very detailed section explicitly showing the changing of doctrines in Judaism; this section became so long that it was spun off a long time ago into its own separate article. (And I myself wrote most of this article!) Additionally, an ever harsher view of Orthodox Jewish perceptions versus historical reality has been written in the section on Torah study, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and the documentary hypothesis.

And even more, the same critical historical analysis of Christianity exists in many Wikipedia articles.

I would ask you to stop claiming that people are, in effect, out to hurt the Jehovah's Witnesses. In point of fact, all of us are working together to describe ALL religions, and we strive to do so in an NPOV fashion, using critical historical and logical analysis.

I myself have been the target of harsh criticism from many religious Jews, because they think that the Wikipedia articles are unfair to Judaism, as they contradict the positions they learned in Hebrew school or Yeshiva. (Most of the criticism I have received has come in direct e-mail, and some of it was nearly flammable. The word "heretic" comes to mind.)

Frankly, the criticism you have given me about the consensus edits to the Jehovah's Witness articles is mild to what I have received in regards to the articles on Judaism and the controversy about the origin of the Torah (five books of Moses)!

If you would look at the big picture, you will see that over a wide array of articles, no religion is favored. They are merely being discussed from the point of view from someone observing and describing that religion, rather than being an adherent of that religion.

Shalom,

Robert (RK)

===== "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous". The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com