Wikipedia talk:Beyond Good and Evil

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Αναρχία in topic Support

Define good and evil

edit

Joke? I oppose this as this assumes good and evil exists and can be defined in an NPOV objective way. --Nnp 13:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fixed :) --Nnp 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suitable for discussion

edit

I'm not necessarily in favour of this, but as amended by Nnp, it is now suitable for discussion. Runcorn 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was reverted though, don't blame me for the current version. I'm not in favor of any statement that involves good or evil, and wikipedia is stated to be NPOV already. Oh well. --Nnp 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your suggestion may well have been good, but it was a drastic alteration of the proposal. It would be best to suggest it separately. Yesterdog 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see no need to do that though, since NPOV is already a stated goal. --Nnp 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perfect, then the only _new_ resolution on the table is BG&E. What do you think of it? Yesterdog 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks like nobody opposes WP:BG&E. What's the process for making it an official policy? Jimpartame 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The first step would be to draw attention to this idea. For consensus the more people the better. HighInBC 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It might help if we explained what the practical implications of this policy would be. No censorship (though that's already in place). No regard for the impact on others for what is in Wikipedia (subject to libel laws, etc.)--Runcorn 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Support

edit

Oppose

edit