On 02/09/04 21:30, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the author was factually wrong, editing out his POV is substituting your POV for his, which puts us no further ahead. That's not NPOV; it's censorship. I don't support directed interpretations; I like to give credit to the reader for being able to have his own interpretation of what he reads. If a text is too liberally sprinked with phrases like "He claims..." or "He alleges..." I start to question the motives of the interpreter. Even a favorable interpreter can distort doctrines. St. Paul was notorious for doing that. Any interpretation is a second hand statement. It is much fairer if a section of such an article is devoted to a fair presentation is made of a group's doctrines as presented in their own writings and statements. There is always adequate room in following sections for opponents to present their case.
See [[Talk:GNU General Public License]] for discussions of why that article doesn't just contain the text, as the original did.
- d.