[WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

[Chris Jenkinson]

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> 
>>Do you have any verification that the 'Resurrection' of Christ actually
>>occurred, other than Christian literature?
> 
> 
> Christian literature.  That makes it not bunk.
> 
> We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational
> to us.  To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and
> unacceptable.  It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but
> that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on
> whether or not it happened.
> 
> SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.

Well, obviously Christian literature would say that Christ was 
resurrected. I accepted that, and I asked for other verification.

Consider this scenario:

The world was considered flat in ancient times. That conformed to 
contemporary rational thinking (basically, the world is flat since we 
can't see it curve). It was also wrong. Is Wikipedia presenting a point 
of view by stating this theory is wrong?

Chris