Talk:Neutrality (philosophy): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:37, 3 October 2017

Philosophy Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- [end of the Second paragraph]

"Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- This statement is incorrect.

Of course, even incorrect statements are to be considered for this article-- if the incorrect statement clearly summarizes the reasoning and point-of-view of some Reliable Source.

So I suggest that we either delete this sentence-- Or find some Reliable Source who shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral".

The Oxford English Dictionary gives many examples back in history where "neutrality" means merely applying the rule to the facts.

And of course, Conservapedia and similar zealous believers may argue that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- but where is there a Reliable Source that shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral?" --Rednblu (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WikiProject Philosophy|class=Stub|importance=Mid}}
+== "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- [end of the Second paragraph] ==
+"Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- This statement is incorrect.
+* Of course, even incorrect statements are to be considered for this article-- if the incorrect statement clearly summarizes the reasoning and point-of-view of some Reliable Source.
+So I suggest that we either delete this sentence-- Or find some Reliable Source who shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral".
+The Oxford English Dictionary gives many examples back in history where "neutrality" means merely applying the rule to the facts.
+And of course, Conservapedia and similar zealous believers may argue that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- but where is there a Reliable Source that shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral?"  --[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] ([[User talk:Rednblu|talk]]) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)