Gareth,
It's precisely because reasonable people disagree on matters of fact as well as on matters of interpretation, that the Wikipedia does not take sides.
The first example you cite implied that the Supreme Court acted "undemocratically" in settling the Florida recount dispute. A Wikipedia article would have to call that a point of view (POV) and attribute it to an advocate, such as the DNC boss (McAuliffe or something). Other people had different interpretations, notably Al Gore ;-)
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm not saying I agree with you or not. I'm not saying I'm happy or unhappy with the decision -- or its outcome.
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.
BTW, only a madman could deny that sinners go to hell.
Ha, ha, gotcha going there for a moment, didn't I? (wink wink)
Uncle Ed
"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.
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 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
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net writes:
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.
You miss the point entirely.
The Lincoln quotation was *at the time* an extremely liberal position for a white politician to take.
These days, an sentiment would not be considered a liberal position.
That's moral relativism.