[WikiEN-l] Re: Announcing a policy proposal

[steven l. rubenstein]

James Trodel writes ...
>He gets a
>compromise on the Jesus page* (which he claims to support) on Sunday
>and follows it up Sunday night with this proposal.
>*The compromise was to use BC/BCE only and to avoid the use of AD/CE
>all together.


First, we need to keep the debate on the Jesus talk page and the debate 
over my proposal separate.  It is clear that the discussion on the 
Talk:Jesus page over BCE/CE and BC/AD relates only to the Jesus page.  This 
became evident when Tomer added "applies to this article ONLY" on 7:59 9 May:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=13466533&oldid=13466515

Second, as to my then making a proposal, the reason is obvious -- the 
debate on the Jesus talk page is limited to changes in the Jesus article, 
and in the debate several people argued that there was no clear NPOV policy 
concerning this question.  Indeed, on 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Rangerdude 
responded to one of my comments, "Re your statement "And if the policy says 
BC/AD is acceptable, that policy should be changed." That's something for 
you to take up with the policy itself then if you truly feel that way."

Rangerdude was right which is why I developed a policy proposal.  Is Jim 
Trodel saying editors are not allowed to make policy proposals?

Third, the compromise was to use both BCE/CE and BC/AD and I have kept to 
that compromise.

James D. Forrester wrote ...
>No, SLR, this doesn't logically follow; I am of the same (or, at least,
>similar) beliefs as Alphax on this issue, which is that cloaking the
>Jesus-based calender behind more 'PC' terms is the exact opposite of NPOV,
>attempting to hide the western imperialism with a sop to 'minorities'. I
>have read your suggestion, and yes, you do mention this, but I disagree with
>your argument (and yes - before you suggest this, as you have done before -
>I did understand it).

James, you may be right.  I am not sure, but I think I was responding to 
something Tiwi said ("You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate 
extremely stupid.") and not Alphax.  Alphax, if this is so I am sorry.  I 
was trying to use something you said to raise a much bigger issue, and I am 
sorry that (1) I didn't make it clear that the comment just led me to want 
to make a comment, rather than that I was replying directly to your 
comments, and (2) it may have been Tiwi's comment any way and my using your 
name was a mistake.  Please accept my apologies.

As to the point I was trying to make, I still think it is valid.  People 
with opposing points of vie often think that each other's view is 
stupid.  This is one of the main reasons we have an NPOV policy to begin 
with.  Saying that "this debate is stupid" is precisely the reason to have 
an NPOV discussion, not to end it.

As to James' own argument against my proposal.  James, I disagree with you 
for all of the reasons set out in my proposal.  But I do think you have a 
reasonable argument, and I respect that.  I honestly do,

Steve


Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701