I am writing to respond to Ray Saintong's comment of Tue, 17 May 2005
12:06:08 -0700. I am not, as is customary, going to quote his whole
comment. His comment was long and thoughtful; to quote the whole thing
would take up too much space, and to excerpt parts of it would not do it
justice. I will quote only those sentences to which I am specifically
replying; assume I do not have any major problem with the bulk of his
comment.
The first thing I want to say is that I appreciate its thoughtfulness, and
if a hundred people responded to my proposal as thoughtfully -- even if
they all voted to oppose my proposal -- I'd be happy. I agree with you
that people may disagree with my interpretation of NPOV. I still believe
many do not understand the policy and I think the comments on my proposal
page give ample evidence of it. But among people who understand it there
is room for reasonable disagreement and thus discussion. I hope that is
what I am doing in responding to your comment. I certainly think that is
what you were doing in your response to mine.
I just want to say a few things to clarify my position (and no, I do not
mean that if you disagree with me it is because you do not understand
me. But I do think that even if you disagree with me for legitimate or
even very good reasons, you might still misunderstand at least part of what
I said).
"I'm one of those non-believers who is not offended by using BC/AD"
I understand your not being offended by AD-BC, and I cannot argue against
your feelings.
"We really can't let policy be driven by what various handfuls of people
consider offensive. "
I do not think handfulls of people are offended, I think millions of
people find this offensive (and I repeat, only when being used in
secular topics or to express non-Christian views), and I think there are
many more who may not be offended but who do find it inappropriate. These
millions may not be wikipedians, but they are out there and part of our
potential readership.
You see, I won't argue against your feelings. You are not offended? Okay,
I accept and respect that.
But it seems to me that you and others do not accept and respect my
feelings. I am offended. Why do people tell me I am "feigning offence" or
hypersensitive, or over-reacting, or stupid? We can discuss our reasons
for our feelings, but I am not criticizing or challenging yours.
And this is where I do think NPOV comes in. People have different points
of view. People have different thoughts and feelings. I see NPOV as a way
of dealing with that when writing articles. I have said a number of times
that there are several people who reject my proposal whom I respect. But
when people reject it because
* AC/BC does not offend them
* They think it is silly to take offense
* they think it is trivial
they are just erasing my point of view -- and the point of view of
millions. If the basis of our NPOV policy is that there are different
points of view and we cannot dismiss anyone held by a significant number of
people, then I just do not understand these particular reasons for opposing
my proposal. It seems to me that these people are saying only their point
of view counts, and my point of view does not count. Some people even
state that the whole debate is stupid. But if our NPOV policy is premised
on the fact that there are opposing points of view, doesn't that
necessarily suggest that there will be debates, and that such debates are
valid? Please explain to me what interpretation of NPOV this is consistent
with?
I guess at this point I once again need to make clear that I am not for
banishing AD/BC. I respect the Christian point of view, and believe that
in many articles it must be presented (along with other views, be they
Jewish or Atheist or critical history, or whatever), and in presenting this
POV it only makes sense to use AD and BC. Please accept the fact that I am
not trying to outlaw BC and AD
(and yes, I see several points in my argument where people can disagree,
e.g. BC and AD no longer signify a Christian point of view. I disagree
with you, but I will NOT say that you do not understand or care about our
NPOV policy)
"The claim of systemic bias ignores the fact that most people do things
without any intention to offend."
Ec, please explain to me how you square this with our NPOV policy, which
states:
Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to
realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of
one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to
render the article entirely unbiased.)
"For me NPOV is more an attitude and state of mind than a series of rigid
rules. It little behoves us that that such a principle be used as a
rhetorical tool for silencing opposition"
I agree. The reason that I included a space for general discussion,
comments opposed to my proposal, and space for opposing votes in addition
to the conventional "talk" page, was because I did not want to silence
opposition.
I agree that NPOV is a state of mind, but when people learn that my view is
different from theirs and they tell me I am feigning my view or stupid, I
do not think they get the NPOV state of mind. (By the way, people have
explained to me why they think AD and BC do not violate NPOV. But so far,
I haven't figured out the argument for why BCE and CE are POV. The best I
can make out is that people think it is POV because they are not accustomed
to it. But doesn't our NPOV policy often require editors to write in a way
we are unaccustomed to?)
I agree that NPOV is a state of mind. The reason I made my proposal was
because in the Jesus debate (where, at the time, BCE/CE was in the
majority) many people who argued for using AD and BC were rejecting, out of
hand, the possibility that anyone could reasonable object -- which to me
meant, they didn't have the NPOV state of mind.
Maybe my way of going about encouraging discussion was not the best
way. Still, I am glad it led you to write the e-mail you did, and hope you
accept mine in the same spirit. And perhaps you have other ideas about
opening up constructive discussion about NPOV. I would welcome that,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701