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