[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 6/19/05, Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> SouthernComfort, for one.  It was his sole editing
> procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to
> engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's
> failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.

I know it might not be entirely obvious just just because someone
prefers something doesn't make it 'POV' in the NPOV sense. The only
POV  intrinsic to the BCE/CE side is that BC/AD is not NPOV.  BCE/CE
doesn't push a specific world view, it doesn't deny the existence or
importance of Jesus, it merely doesn't support that view either.

Just because the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE
doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.

So at worst you could claim that it is meta-meta-pov: the use of
BCE/CE implies that BC/AD may not be NPOV.

The majority opinion on Wikipedia doesn't support the claim that
BCE/CE use is a POV, but rather that the use of BC/AD is so old that
the POVness of it has been washed away by time and therefor it is
permissible.

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]