[WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

[Blackcap]

> 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
>

No, because the earth has been conclusively proven wrong, and there isn't
any significant opposition to the theory that the world is flat (and so
there is no conflict). The Resurrection, on the other hand, is, hasn't been
conclusively proven wrong (due to lack of evidence), and is still believed
by a vast amount of people.

--
[[User:Blackcap]]