Difference between revisions of "Talk:Golden Rule"

Revision as of 19:17, April 17, 2007

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.

The real problem, though, is that this material is essentially copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity Dpbsmith 12:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

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)

Flippin, are you Wikipedia User:Dmerrill? Dpbsmith 12:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I used my computer IP address in college--so no idea. Flippin 12:39, 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.[1]

So I don't see the problem with calling it that. Dpbsmith 14:29, 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)

Organization

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)