"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> writes:
I'm saying that it's /especially/ because of
examples like this, where
one person is so sure of the 'truth' that he asserts only a
"delusional"
person could disagree, that we /must/ adhere to the NPOV when writing
Wikipedia articles.
I know.
I was trying to ridicule the previous writer by
stating *my* opinions as if they were fact.
My recommended changes should *not* be made *for exactly the same
(Actually, that Wilson segregated Federal buildings is a fact and *should* be
in the article. As Theresa said, what we needn't do is add state whether this
made him a bad person.)
Moral relativism is a fact. Moral standards change, and have changed over time.
For example : Suppose a US politician said this in a debate --
"There is a physical difference between the races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality"
I can add that to his page in two ways : I can write
"In debate, he stated that he believed
`There is a physical difference between the races ...'"
or
"He held a number of racist and racial separatist views, stating that
`There is a physical difference between the races ...'"
Now, by Fred's "logic", and calling a spade a spade, I'm going to call
this
politician on his racism, as only someone delusional could believe those were
the opinions of a man who wasn't a racist.
But the rest of us, who know who moral standards differ between
places and eras, are going to think that looks pretty odd in the
middle of [[Abraham Lincoln]].
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)