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

Mon May 16 18:51:47 UTC 2005

Timwi wrote:

>OMG, not again.
>
>You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid.
>Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and
>magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the
>number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.

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.

But I have to respond to Timwi’s message at length.  His very statements 
actually exemplify the reason I have made this proposal.  To be clear, 
although I certainly do believe in the specifics of the proposal, my main 
motivation was concern over people’s understanding of our NPOV policy.  I 
wanted to open up a debate about NPOV, and raise people’s consciousness 
about NPOV.  As far as I am concerned, what Timwi wrote proves that s/he 
either does not understand, or does not accept, our NPOV policy, and by 
itself justifies my proposal.

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. 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! 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.

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.

Steve

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