[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

Wed Jun 22 18:29:34 UTC 2005

>From: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>
>
>Most importantly, the whole BCE/CE thing is a POV lobby. It's nonsense
>to suggest that changing a very common phrase in the English language,
>hitherto used near-universally, is "neutral".
>
>Now Wikipedia with NPOV policy certainly has to avoid siding with
>different POVs - but surely to use BCE/CE notation at all is indeed
>siding with a POV. Does every POV have to be accommodated on *some*
>articles in order to have NPOV?
>
>Surely sticking to BC/AD, as has been used for centuries and centuries
>in the English language (almost certainly the vast majority using it
>without religious or political intent), is the most sensible option?
>
>Wikipedia's ridiculous pandering to all the extremist POVs is not a
>good way to ensure NPOV in my opinion, and seriously dints its
>credability.

At the risk of repeating myself, the issue is not about which version is 
better, or "POV", or "extremist", but about attempts by editors to enforce 
their own views on the matter.  And I don't think this list is the place to 
discuss the pro and con arguments regarding use of BCE/CE vs. BC/AD.

Jay.