On 9/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/09/06, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually one of the major issues in the dispute
is whether BC/AD
violates
NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an
assertion the Jesus is the
Messiah/God. BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what
the
NPOV policy asks.
That's not an "issue", it's an "assertion". Plus the common
assertion
that BCE is standard in academia, when that doesn't apply outside the
US.
The "assertion" was the major "issue" in the debate. So yes, it's
the
issue. Leaving aside the people who claimed religious persecution, the
major ISSUES in the debate were, on one side, that BC/AD violated NPOV and
on the other a mixture of "well so does BCE/CE" or "common usage trumps
NPOV". And, as a result, an exception was voted to NPOV.
As to the second argument - did anyone ever provide any evidence to back up
the assertion that BCE/CE in academe was a US thing, with non-US academics
using BC/AD? I don't recall any evidence provided (ok, I don't recall
anyone providing evidence to back up their position except Steve, who
provided pages and pages of it)
Ian