[WikiEN-l] Announcing a policy proposal: Why I devised this proposal

[steven l. rubenstein]

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