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