Bob jones bans interracial dating
- Sleepnomore , August 27, 2005 (UTC) I strongly object to the first because it is biased against BJU.Talking about the controversy without placing the rules there is much less informative and is inherently less neutral than allowing the reader to judge for themselves.If the rules let someone "judge for themselves" I don't understand how letting them read these on the website (first hand) would affect this.It also prevents any copyvio possibilities and sources the information at the same time.The rules section we have now is not a section of excerpts intended to mislead; it is a good indication (particularly when so much of the remainder of the article leaves an unfavourable impression) of what the place is actually like. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia is for us to do the informing, not sending them elsewhere because we don't feel like covering key topics.This is why I suggested prosifying the key parts, so we maintain the information about campus life while trying to get away from having a big long list of rules.- Sleepnomore , August 27, 2005 (UTC) Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood what I meant.I'm suggesting we follow the Ratline example, so the content is still covered, but I don't want a section of criticism and praise blocks, as while it might appease warring people, it is is near-useless as part of an encyclopedia article.
Euphrosyne , 2005-08-27 (UTC) I don't think it's acceptable to throw around allegations about people who disagree with you, Euphrosyne. I've always contended that you all were good faith editors, and I appreciate the reciprocity on that feeling.In any case, my sole objection to the entire process is to take the rules as they exist and place them out of context here in the article.I think we can all agree that it is easy to take excerpts of anything and misrepresent what the person actually meant.If we end up with paragraphs of opinion, it will be POV-spun depending on who decided to edit the page at the time.There is a need for the rules to be placed in context (I think Stephen Jones' comments from the linked news article are a must to mention), and some criticism to balance out that out, I suppose, but the most fair and informative solution is for the reader to judge for themselves.