[WikiEN-l] Re: Announcing a policy proposal

[steven l. rubenstein]

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