Everyone take a deep breath. It was pretty out of character for Ed to post a sharp remark like that, and I think he'll quickly make things right with Sheldon.
And Ed has always, more than just about any of us, expressed a firm commitment to NPOV. Attacking his biases is something he will likely welcome, as an opportunity to improve an article.
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of Jesus Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this were a documented fact.
How do we deal with similar claims/stories for other religious figures? It seems pretty easy to fix, for example by saying, "In 1969, Moon said that he had had a vision or revelation of Jesus Christ while praying on top of a tall hill". This is a nice formulation because it limits us to making a simple uncontroversial claim, without projecting any kind of attitude of belief or disbelief.
Another reformulation might say something like "Moon allegedly had a vision or revelation", but I like my version above, better, because the word "allegedly" has some baggage.
It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual text of articles.
Maybe, unless this gossip is documented somewhere as having actually happened. I mean, asserting the content of the gossip as fact isn't good, but reporting on the gossip is fine, if it was important and widespread.
I don't fault Ed for having some ideological blind spots. I'm sure I have my own. However, I strongly disagree with his absurd notion that I have some personal responsibility to do his dirty work for him by inserting arguments with which I do not agree into the global warming article.
But I think this is a misreading. I think that his idea is a very good one. All of us, if we are writing in an area where we know we have some strong feelings, should try *hard* to formulate the arguments of the opponents as best we can.
There are at least two views of how wikipedia articles should be written -- the competitive view and the co-operative view. Ed is merely (and correctly, I think) advocating for the co-operative view.
On the competitive view, partisans go at it and fight until the fight has gone out of all sides, and the result is an article that no one hates too much. On the co-operative view, partisans try really hard to please _each other_ with a presentation that's fair to all sides.
The co-operative method is faster, and also less exhausting in the long run.
am sure that he will set an example for us all by editing his articles about Rev. Moon so that they "focus on making the best case" for arguments... [against Moon]
In my experience, Ed has always set an example for us.
--Jimbo