mvh Björn wrote,
I have observed that most of the objections to my proposal fall into one of three camps: people who simply do not understand our NPOV policy (which I addressed in my last message), and people who, as in the cases of David
I read that. To me it mostly sounded like a "I'm right, you are wrong" argumentation. It would be good if you could describe in which ways your opponents have not understood our NPOV policy. That they just disagree with you does not suffice.
First off, I really appreciate your thoughtful response.
Well, it is true that I believe very firmly in the interpretation of NPOV (or rather, the spirit behind it) that I presented. But I also felt I was addressing NPOV at a rather abstract level. My point is, I do wish that everyone agreed with what I wrote about NPOV in the prior e-mail. But I certainly believe someone can agree with everything I wrote in that e-mail about NPOV in general and disagree with my proposal concerning BCE/CE. Obviously I still think I am right about that, but there are several people who have voted against my proposal whose stance I fully respect: Jyolkowski, Tomer, KHM03, Doc Glasgow, and Theo for example.
So it isn't that someone disagrees with me concerning my proposal, that is proof to me that they do not understand our NPOV policy. It is only when they disagree in a particular way, for a particular reason. In other words, I believe that there are people who fully understand and are committed to our NPOV proposal and reject my proposals for reasons I may not particularly like, but must respect. But there are people who reject my proposal and I think their explanations are just absurd and disregard specific explicit parts of our NPOV policy. I don't want to go on and on, but I hope that between the e-mail I sent concerning my general view of NPOV, and the specific elements from our NPOV policy that I quoted verbatim in my proposal, you can understand my point about NPOV (even if you still disagree with my proposal ;-)
'DJ' Hedley and mvh Björn, either fantasize about more and more absurd and entirely hypothetical cases, which is just a means to avoid a specific and concrete proposal that addresses different views actually held by millions of people, and practices that are and have been going on for at least a
Your analysis of discrimination on the debate page was very enlightening. You said that those who are not discriminated have a very hard time understanding those who are discriminated and what they feel is discriminating (kindof, I cant quote it all here). But I think you are yourself as blind as those of us who do not prefer AD/BC over CE/BCE. I can bet alot on that millions of Americans get really irritated every time the word America is used in reference to USA.
I appreciate your generous comment. I also agree with you -- I have to, since it is clear that I really do not understand why so many people are so irritated by BCE/CE. But I have to say this: although I have read some very reasonable objections to my proposal, I don't think anyone has been able to explain to me why BCE and CE so upsets them.
As for "American," well, that is a funny thing. I work in Latin America and when in the US with Latin Americans and whenever they use the word "Americano" referring to us gringos, I reply "Todos somos Americanos" (all of us are Americans); they usually smile and shrug their shoulders. I once had a conversation with an old friend of mine who lives in Ecuador, and he complained about how we gringos call ourselves "Americans." I said to him, "Well, there is nothing stopping Ecuadorians from calling themselves "Americanos, why don't they" and he had no answer. Here is what I think: the real problem is not that the USA has appropriated for itself as a name "America." The problem is the USA economically and politically dominates Latin America in many ways. And that is what really pisses off my L. American friends. Contention over the use of the word "American" symbolically represents other, more concrete (and higher stakes) issues -- which is why it is a matter of contention, but one that at least in the eyes of my friends, is not really worth fighting about; they recognize that the real fight is elsewhere, and when they can, they really do fight it.
But to the issue at hand: anyone in N, C, or S. America has a legitimate claim to call themselves Americans. No one can stop them. Perhaps the word "American" has become so identified with the USA that many Latinos don't want to call themselves "Americans." I certainly know tons of Argentines and Brazilians who think "Argentine" and "Brazilian" are better than "American."
But to be honest with you, I still don't understand why people see BCE and CE as "American" or any kind of POV. And I still don't understand how people can claim BC and AD are not POV, although I recognize that many feel this way.
Therefore, the offense argument doesn't hold. There are hundreds of words, names and expressions in the English language that are a hundred times more loaded than AD/BC.
In my argument, "offense" is not a reason for calling AD/BC POV. In my argument, I bring up offense only as an example of one way that one group signals to a second that the second group has an unconscious bias. It is true that I believe that once you know BC and AD offend me (in secular contexts), I think it is only courteous that you avoid using them (unless of course you are a Christian and talking about your own holidays, seminal events, etc., then I wouldn't at all be offended). But I do not claim offense=POV. My argument that AD and BC are POV is simply that AD means "in the year of our Lord" and BC means "before Christ" and that Christians are free to believe that Jesus is Lord and Christ which is why they represent a Christian POV -- and are thus, necessarily, not NPOV (in non-religious/Christian POV contexts).
people were asked to stop doing these things so as not to offend, would involve no real sacrifice, no loss of integrity or honor. I will never understand why in such cases such people not only refuse to make the small change asked for, they actually seem to relish and take pride in offending people.
In a few years it is not implausible that CE/BCE will have "won." But currently AD/BC is much more popular according to Google.
You may be right. I also wonder if it was a mistake for me to invite votes immediately when I wrote my proposal. Honestly, I thought that like so many proposals it would languish for a long time as people decided how interested they were in it, and what they thought, and that it would take quite a while to see what the majority thought, or even if anyone cared. Before I wrote my proposal I went to the "Wikipedia: How to create a policy" and then to "Wikipedia Policy Thinktank" and discovered lots of proposals which, I presumed, were made a while ago and are still in proposal limbo. I thought that would happen to my proposal too.
In any event, we are building an encyclopedia, and all committed to NPOV, and if as you suggest the world may slowly change, surely a small bit of that slow change will happen here.
As to Pcb21, I didn't start a debate in which only one side had an opportunity to present its case. I made a proposal, and on the proposal page I provided space for general discussion as well as debate between opposing and supporting sides. To say that I notified other wikipedians that I was proposing a modification of one of our most important policies is "spamming" is absurd, and certainly not relevant to people actually discussing the issues. Finally, Nygaard didn't "merge" my proposal with anything. He distorted my proposal. Disagree with my proposal. Express your criticisms of my proposal in the discussion section. Vote against my proposal. But do not try to turn my proposal into something it isn't. If you don't like it, vote no and move on. If you have a better idea, come up with your own proposal. These are two legitimate and available options. Changing the title of my proposal because you do not agree with my proposal is not.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
As for "American," well, that is a funny thing. I work in Latin America and when in the US with Latin Americans and whenever they use the word "Americano" referring to us gringos, I reply "Todos somos Americanos" (all of us are Americans); they usually smile and shrug their shoulders. I once had a conversation with an old friend of mine who lives in Ecuador, and he complained about how we gringos call ourselves "Americans." I said to him, "Well, there is nothing stopping Ecuadorians from calling themselves "Americanos, why don't they" and he had no answer. Here is what I think: the real problem is not that the USA has appropriated for itself as a name "America." The problem is the USA economically and politically dominates Latin America in many ways. And that is what really pisses off my L. American friends.
It sounds to me more like YOU are the one trying to provoke anger and resentment by "correcting" an Ecuadorean who doesn't feel like he needs correcting.
RickK
Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/
I read that. To me it mostly sounded like a "I'm right, you are wrong" argumentation. It would be good if you could describe in which ways your opponents have not understood our NPOV policy. That they just disagree with you does not suffice.
First off, I really appreciate your thoughtful response.
Well, it is true that I believe very firmly in the interpretation of NPOV (or rather, the spirit behind it) that I presented. But I also felt I was addressing NPOV at a rather abstract level. My point is, I do wish that
That is a problem with how you and many other policy-makers have reasoned. You are raising the debate from the fairly concrete question "AD/BC on [[Jesus]]?" to he more abstract "AD/BC disallowed in Wikipedia?" to some really abstract discussion about NPOV. I like many other people are not comfortable in arguing and such an abstract level and therefore you get misunderstood. It would have been better if you had started the discussion at the level of abstractness you intended because the shifts from particularity to generality is confusing me.
I appreciate your generous comment. I also agree with you -- I have to, since it is clear that I really do not understand why so many people are so irritated by BCE/CE. But I have to say this: although I have read some very reasonable objections to my proposal, I don't think anyone has been able to explain to me why BCE and CE so upsets them.
It is not so much the phenomenom as much as the transition to it that upsets them. See other peoples mails in the threads in which they describe how certain things would explode if certain governments decided to measure certain things with different units. But which "USA:ian" can explain why SI-units upsets them? My only argument in favour of AD/BC is that for me it is slightly easier to interpret 75 BC - 20 AD than BCE 75 - CE 20.
But to be honest with you, I still don't understand why people see BCE and CE as "American" or any kind of POV. And I still don't understand how people can claim BC and AD are not POV, although I recognize that many feel this way.
With my analogy I was not trying to put you or anyone else in the impossible position of defending the "unfair" usage of the word American and at the same time advocating changing the usage of AD/BC. My point is that "American" is very similar to AD/BC. Certainly a misnomer, and certainly a thing that irritates some people.
In my argument, "offense" is not a reason for calling AD/BC POV. In my argument, I bring up offense only as an example of one way that one group signals to a second that the second group has an unconscious bias. It is true that I believe that once you know BC and AD offend me (in secular
I thought you were arguing with two arguments:
1. AD/BC is offensive to some people. 2. AD/BC is POV.
The argument I have tried to refute is 1. Yes, it may be offensive but much less so than hundreds of other words and expressions that changing it because of offensiveness would require you to change so many other words and expressions that the situation would become absurd. I can't debate your other argument. Because to me AD/BC is pronounced Ay-Dee slash Bee-Cee and BCE/CE is Bee-Cee-Ee slash Cee-Ee. So not so much POV with either abbrevation.
Note also that the situation is very much different in other languages.
In a few years it is not implausible that CE/BCE will have "won." But currently AD/BC is much more popular according to Google.
proposals which, I presumed, were made a while ago and are still in proposal limbo. I thought that would happen to my proposal too. In any event, we are building an encyclopedia, and all committed to NPOV, and if as you suggest the world may slowly change, surely a small bit of that slow change will happen here.
Atleast you have raised people's awareness of the issue. But both sides already have entrenched and it doesn't seem like either side is going to give up right now. In the real world, outside Wikipedia, the debate is also ongoing between the two date formats. Right now there is no clear winner, just as the situation is in Wikipedia. Isn't that perfect? Wikipedia is doing what it should do, mirror the reality. I believe that in a few years the BCE/CE side will win. Naturally, Wikipedia should also change when that happens. But for Wikipedia to advance past the real world I think is a dangerous mistake. It doesn't create NPOV, but a "Wikipedia-POV."