Not meaning to be disrespectful, but this article seems very out of place on an encyclopedia. "The Golden Rule" seems like a fairly childish idea, and is pure PoV. Does this article need to exist, or should there not be a disclaimer paragraph at the top, such as the one found at the top of "Essay" pages? MatteeNeutra 12:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
How is it POV? It has supporting quotes. Flippin 12:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- I am the most important person in the world
- "MatteeNeutra is the most important person in the world" - MatteeNeutra's Mum
- Does that make it a fact that I am the most important person in the world? MatteeNeutra 12:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
There aren't any point-of-view problems here.
MatteeNeutra apparently believes that facts about opinions are automatically non-neutral because they are about opinions. That's incorrect.
The article paraphrases the Golden Rule, and the reader can judge the accuracy of that paraphrase. It states that a version of the Golden Rule is found throughout religious history and supports that statement with example. It contains one questionable sentence, the one beginning "many consider," but I have very little doubt that statement could be supported. The difficulty would be finding anyone except George Bernard Shaw who would challenge it.
That might be because I worked on it there, too. Flippin 12:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Is there any way you can document that? You probably should have said something about it here when you created the page.... It's not at all obvious from the edit history at Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 12:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- I am no longer on wikipedia, so I don't think so. sorry, but I did source two of those quotes. If you'd like, I'd be happy to remove the information until the matter is resolved. Flippin 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
(Just to respond) I have no problem with facts about opinions (and I'm appalled at the implication that somehow I would censor information on all PoV subjects), but by calling this article "Golden Rule" it appears to be endorsing it. If (like at Wikipedia) it was called Ethic of Reciprocity then it would be much more neutral and would indeed be an article which just documents a PoV. MatteeNeutra 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- The phrase "Golden Rule" is well accepted as a name for the principle. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary defines Golden Rule as
- The biblical teaching that one should behave toward others as one would have others behave toward oneself.
- So I don't see the problem with calling it that. Dpbsmith 14:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Before today I thought the Golden Rule related to saying Please and Thank You, but thats just because I've been brought up that way! I imagine many other "Golden Rules" exist in the world. The principle may be called the Golden Rule by some but as the principal is in fact "The Principal of Reciprocity" and the article is about the principle, shouldn't the article be called that? MatteeNeutra 16:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, because 1) "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is very, very commonly called the Golden Rule and very, very rarely called the Principal of Reciprocity, and because 2) two dictionaries say "Golden Rule" refers to the Biblical saying of Jesus and neither of them says it has to do with saying "Please" and "Thank you." Dpbsmith
- golden rule
- Function: noun
- 1 capitalized G&R : a rule of ethical conduct referring to Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31: do to others as you would have them do to you
- 2 : a guiding principle
- Fair enough, dude! I live over the pond in the UK, so I reckon there might be some discrepancies but I can see where you're coming from! MatteeNeutra 16:41, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
What is the problem, exactly?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (c. 5 BC—33 AD) in the Gospels I thought this was pretty clear: don't hurt people because YOU don't want to be hurt. So, slowly, can you explain your issue? Flippin 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- (Actually, as I've pointed out, that's a misquotation...) Dpbsmith 16:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- MatteeNeutra, this is my understanding of what you are saying:
- 1) "Golden" is a word of praise.
- 2) "Golden Rule" therefore is a biassed description of the principle, because it implies that it is a good principle.
- 3) By accepting the common phrase "Golden Rule" rather than substituting a neutral phrase like "principle of reciprocity," Conservapedia is itself exhibiting bias in favor of the principle.
Would it be possible for the quotes to be listed in approximate chronological order? The Torah/Leviticus cites are the only ones that are undated, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Or, put Jesus first and then the rest in chron. order? Oh, and how about some philosophers? There must be a few (Kant's categorical imperative might come to mind) Human 12:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Have at--I just started this page to get it going. Flippin 13:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Does anyone have reasonably authoritative dates for the Leviticus quotes? Surely at least Bishop of Usher could provide a date? I can't find it in any likely sources on here Human 15:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I question some of the entries in the “Historical Formulations” section as being equivalent to the Golden Rule.
The Leviticus “love thy neighbor as thyself” has to do with your actions only--actions towards neighbors and self. The Golden Rule has to do with your actions verses your neighbor’s actions. It says an act is universally right, i.e right for everyone to act in this way. The Golden Rule essentially states that ethical principles should be universal. There is a question in my mind that Judaism has such rules that qualifies it as a universal religion. There are some rules that apply to all the children of Noah ... but all rules?
Likewise it is not clear that the Udana-Varqua is also a plea that everyone acts according to the same rule.
Finally, this Hadith doesn’t even suggest actions (i.e. virtue) but welfare (i.e. value). The Islamic websites that I find suggest it has to do with envy. Thus, it is an egalitarian theme. There is also a question about scope--does it apply to only fellow Muslims? Then it would not be universal. Given Islam's rules for dhimmi one has to question the universality of Islamic ethical teachings. JasonNYC 08:28, 16 May 2012 (EDT)