4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + Line 25:
Line 25: + + + +
no edit summary
:Does that make it a fact that I am the most important person in the world? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:Does that make it a fact that I am the most important person in the world? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
There aren't any point-of-view problems here. MatteeNeutra is believes that facts ''about'' opinions are automatically non-neutral because they are ''about'' opinions. That's incorrect.
There aren't any point-of-view problems here. <s>MatteeNeutra apparently believes that facts ''about'' opinions are automatically non-neutral because they are ''about'' opinions. That's incorrect.</s>
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.
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.
(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. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:43, 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. [[User:MatteeNeutra|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.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/G0182500.html]
:So I don't see the problem with calling it that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
== What is the problem, exactly? ==
== What is the problem, exactly? ==