steven l. rubenstein wrote:

[...] many people oppose the proposal because AD/BC doesn't bother them. Okay, they have a right not to be bothered by AD/BC. But to make that a reason for not using another term is — and I am certain I am correct in this – fundamentally incompatible with our NPOV policy. The basis of our NPOV policy is that not everyone feels the same way. This necessarily means that it doesn't matter that you are not bothered by something; what matters is that someone else is. I think this is the very essence of NPOV, to recognize that one's own feelings are not shared by others and thus cannot be the basis for making decisions concerning NPOV! [...]

That's a rather extreme interpretation of NPOV. There are cases in which language itself expresses POV; "dictator" and "terrorist" are two of our classic examples, they being often used as a substitute for objective description of an individual's beliefs or acts. However, BC/AD carry little or no such baggage, just as days of the week do not convey a pro-Norse-religion POV or the months of the year endorse Roman religion.

Given that, it shouldn't be too surprising that you're going to get dismissive reactions; with the thousands of serious and difficult neutrality problems all over WP, to make BC/AD usage some kind of test case for NPOV is the sort of focus on triviality for which American (excuse me, USian) academia has become infamous in recent years.

Stan

steven l. rubenstein wrote:

I have a few, brief comments to make concerning the list-serve discussion. First, I appreciate Skyring’s comments (and several others), very much. I disagree with Stephen Bain on one point: yes, BC and AD should be used when appropriate. But I do not think that “when appropriate” means “Christianity related articles.” Christianity related articles, like Jewish related articles, Muslim related articles, Marxism related articles, Fascism related articles must all be written from an NPOV. BUT I recognize that many articles will include within them passages that describe or present a Christian point of view. I believe that it is in such sections that BC and AD are not only appropriate, but must be used for the sake of accuracy.

I'm one of those non-believers who is not offended by using BC/AD, and would continue to use it I also think that people should continue to feel free to use whichever form suits them. True enough that the BCE/CE formats are being used by increasingly more people, but it may be a generation or two before everybody does.

The fact is, if I thought everyone understood and was committed to our NPOV policy, I would not have made this proposal NPOV should be a general policy people can use to make decisions on an ad hoc basis. However, much of the opposition to this proposal (and remember, the big dispute on the Talk: Jesus page started with a change by JimWae) convinces me that many people do not understand or care about NPOV. I realize you may think my understanding of NPOV is eccentric.

The fact that other people interpret NPOV differently from you doesn't mean that they are less committed to the policy than you

But here is what convinces me: many people oppose the proposal because AD/BC doesn't bother them. Okay, they have a right not to be bothered by AD/BC. But to make that a reason for not using another term is — and I am certain I am correct in this – fundamentally incompatible with our NPOV policy. The basis of our NPOV policy is that not everyone feels the same way. This necessarily means that it doesn't matter that you are not bothered by something; what matters is that someone else is. I think this is the very essence of NPOV, to recognize that one's own feelings are not shared by others and thus cannot be the basis for making decisions concerning NPOV!

It sounds more like the essence of political correctness. We really can't let policy be driven by what various handfuls of people consider offensive. There are some terms that everybody agrees are vile, and it's quite proper to ban them. Beyond that it's important to give the users the benefit of the doubt, and recognize that they are usually using a term in good faith. Assuming good faith is just as important a policy as NPOV. Whether a systemic bias really exists is not for one person to pronounce; it's rarely a simple matter of changing from one set of abbreviations to another. The claim of systemic bias ignores the fact that most people do things without any intention to offend. Such a claim as often expresses wallowing in offense. Words and other terms change their meaning and importance over time. Others have referred to the adaption of Teutonic and Roman gods to the days of the week, and the months of the year. How are these any less offensive? One does well to learn from one of those gods. Janus, with one of his faces, represented a lamentation about the misfortunes of the past, but with the other represented a future that put aside and no longer dwelt on past ills.

Yet in many, if not most of the arguments in favor of keeping BC/AD, this is the ultimate reason people give. So I have very serious doubts about the commitment to NPOV. Jimbo says it is an unconditional policy, and everyone pays it lip-service. You know what? I think most people follow the policy because most of the time it is easy to follow the policy. I think here we have stumbled upon a situation where many people truly find it hard to follow the policy, because they cannot understand why someone would object to BC/AD as POV. But this is precisely the test: to accept that your position is POV even when you cannot understand why others do not share it. If someone cannot make that leap, then our NPOV policy is in jeopardy. That is why I make this proposal: to bolster our NPOV policy in a situation where many people find it hard to follow the NPOV policy.

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

By the way, I don’t want to descend into an argument over language or logic. I am NOT saying that all opposition to my proposal is motivated by a disregard for out NPOV people. In fact, many people who oppose my proposal share my commitment to NPOV, for which I am grateful. I do not write this to convince anyone to support my proposal. I write this to propel my real purpose, which is to spark a frank discussion about our NPOV policy.

The flaw in this argument is that you can't expect a decent discussion of a broad policy such as NPOV by focussing on its application in the more limited circumstances of detailed policy such as how to name years. Doing so draws people away from a big picture approach to NPOV policy.

Ec