David 'DJ' Hedley wrote...
The argument of AD vs. CE is probably the most ridiculous one i've seen so far. What next - Will [[Gingerbread Man]] be made [[Gingerbread Person]] to not upset the gender equality pushers? Or how about renamed Wikipedia to Wikipédia to not upset heavily pro-French language-ists? Just about everything can be made POV in one way or another.
mvh Björn wrote...
AD and BC might be offensive to some, who knows what the abbrevations actually mean. Good stuff that so few know about it. But what ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive to a huge number of people is the imperialist use of the word "American." Therefore, if we change all instances of AD/BC, shouldn't be also change all instances of "American" to something that will not offend the majority of all Americans? -- mvh Björn
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 '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 century; or complain about how unfair it is that they are being asked not to be offensive. Sometimes, when telling the truth, some people do of course get disturbed, hurt, or angry -- these cases cannot and should not be avoided. But sometimes there are little things people do which, if the 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.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
On 5/16/05, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu 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),
Some of us, actually, believe that you misunderstand Wikipedia's NPOV policy and are attempting to apply it in an agressive way, when NPOV is supposed to be a guide to consensus-building.
AD and BC might be offensive to some, who knows what the abbrevations actually mean. Good stuff that so few know about it. But what ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive to a huge number of people is the imperialist use of the word "American." Therefore, if we change all instances of AD/BC, shouldn't be also change all instances of "American" to something that will not offend the majority of all Americans?
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.
'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.
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.
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. Google also reveals an ongoing debate between supporters of the two year-formats. Should Wikipedia really take a stand on the issue? I also think that many people feel that the idea that they would be FORCED to use the date format they do not prefer and are not accustomed to is offensive. The change in itself might be what is most offensive. Check the vote comments, there seem to be quite a few feelings there.
Let it just rest. In a few months there will be a feature for selecting your preferred dating format and then everyone can be happy.
On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:02:40 -0400, "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
But sometimes there are little things people do which, if the 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.
Is it possible that they may sincerely feel that the proposed policy chance is ill advised -- perhaps even foolish?
Good luck, Bill
William H. Haggett (whaggett@brick.net) [050517 07:01]:
On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:02:40 -0400, "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
But sometimes there are little things people do which, if the 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.
Is it possible that they may sincerely feel that the proposed policy chance is ill advised -- perhaps even foolish?
Add "querulous" and "a fine piece of support for [[m:Don't vote on everything]]".
- d.