Gareth Owen wrote:
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@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.
Impugning someone's sanity if they don't believe is a common bully tactic.
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 ...'"
There are three ways. You have given an indirect quotation and a characterization, with the latter being a clearly inferior option. Direct quotation is also a viable option, and is preferable if the statement is at all controversial. Thus "On this date and at that place he said 'There is ...'" The reader would have the opportunity to relatively easily check the facts.
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]].
The presumption that heroes can say nothing wrong, and that villains can say nothing right is often very strong.
Ec