Talk:Golden Rule

That's theologically 100% wrong

No, no, no, the Golden rule is not a law of reciprocity in Christianity, please, remove that, because it's theologically wrong, or use another word to explain. A reciprocity law would mean that you do the good when you meet the good, and give back the evil when you meet the evil. That's 100% the opposite of the Jesus teaching. You have to give back the good when you meet the evil, it's in the Gospel. Wikipedia shouldn't use ambiguous expressions, and be precise, or theologically 100% right when doing an article about religions.

Golden Rule

THANKS YOU 2400:1A00:B1C0:656D:7D8D:E3F5:1DFB:4CF (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

Hello! I noticed that the section for Abrahamic religions says to look at the article relating to it. However 1, that article is very broad and covers Abrahamic religions in general and 2, it makes no mention of the golden rule from what I saw. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone fix Christianity section

The versions of the Bible employed in the article are not indicated, and are also not versions which are in general use. Jonpaulusa (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonpaulusa Hello, 'Various improvements, per talk page request, replaced KJ with NRSVUE, which seems agreed upon by much more Christian denominations per WP:Bible + added Brenton Septuagint for OT quotes to include the reading of Early Church / Eastern Christians + removed irrelevant info about a Renaissance catechism (ofc the subject will be of interest and commented by most Christian denominations since it's present in the text, not necessary to include it in the intro)'. This is the summary of the edits I made to answer your legitimate request, have a good one :) AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

PS : I could have used Brenton for the Deuterocanonical books, but I preferred to use the NRSVUE, which had a translation of those books, so in the case where it was obvious and a specific translation existed, I kept NRSVUE. I also used BibleGateway instead of Wikisource, when quoting the text, which seemed more in agreement with the guidelines at WP:Bible.AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There is still a significant amount of the subsection that is WP:OR and should be sourced or, better, should be put in a separate category, after the one concerning the Church Father's readings, which would bring some context and exegesis by more modern authors, scientists, historians or exegetes. So far, it's not sufficient at all, but at least the ground-level, ie the Biblical quotes, are ok now. AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing Unnecessary Content

Why is "the Creativity Movement" given attention here? Is this really noteworthy enough to include? I'm sure there are numerous other philosophers, religious sects, political movements, etc., that have commented on the golden rule and are more significant than a small white supremacist fringe group. I can potentially see the relevance of Nazism or some other prominent racist ideology, but mentioning a tiny group that most people haven't heard of seems to be giving them undue weight. I propose removing this. LouMichel (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But it would be good to include other more mainstream criticism if it exists. Paul August ☎ 18:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Well the Creativity Movement is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It is also could be seen as unique that they flat out reject the rule. One might think no religion would flat out reject the rule, but here is one that does. But in general the article reads as a collection of musings on and versions of the subject. Lacking any clear inclusion criteria beyond "something was said about the Golden Rule" it is hard to justify removing any part. That you do not like it does not compel removal. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find many other commentaries on the golden rule by people or groups that have Wikipedia pages. We should either give equal weight to all of them, or choose the ones that are most significant. I agree that the inclusion criteria here is vague, but I also don't think something being "unusual" inherently makes it worthy of inclusion. In fact, giving the same attention to an unusual, fringe group as we give to more significant commentaries is actually a form of bias that unjustly privileges the shocking and the strange. For example, if I'm writing a Wikipedia article on physics, I don't give equal attention to the wildest, weirdest theories from relatively obscure writers simply because they're "unique" for going against the grain.

However, I can see a potential compromise. I think White supremacism as a larger political tendency is potentially notable enough for inclusion. So if we can find a more prominent White supremacist group or multiple groups that have similar views, we can place less focus on the opinion of "the Creativity Movement" and instead focus on how this is a larger tendency within White supremacism or Nazism. But, currently, the page makes it look like Ben Klassen is as significant a philosopher as Nietszche and more significant than the various other famous philosophers and religious denominations that aren't even mentioned. I think that is an inaccurate representation of discussions around the golden rule. LouMichel (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)