[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] BC vs BCE era names

Fri Sep 8 03:59:18 UTC 2006

On 9/7/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/6/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > ScottL wrote:
> > >
> > > >maru dubshinki wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>On 9/5/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Guettarda 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.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> If I am not mistaken the beginning and ends of the months etc were
> > > >>>originally set up based on astrological principals. Would it
violate
> > > >>>NPOV (since we would then be making astrological assertions) to
keep
> > > >>>using months?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>But those astrological measurements are objective and empirically
> > > >>verifiable in a way that AD/BC is not, and often track significant
> > > >>events, such as the changing of the pole star.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >According to [[March]], the month is named after Mars the god of war.
> > > >The fact that he is the god of war is empirically verifiable?
> > > >
> > > We also need to abandon our days of the week.  It is clearly a breach
of
> > > NPOV to go around celebrating a barbarian God like [[Thor]] every
seven
> > > days.
>>>
>>> A significant difference being that nobody worships the
>>> Norse/German/Roman gods these days
>>
>> I know some neopagans who would be quite insulted by that statement.

>I doubt their numbers are in the billions, or that they exert a
>dominating influence on Western culture.

Ahh, if only NPOV were such. Numbers, or influence, has absolutly 0 to do
with NPOV. Just because a group is popular does not mean it's POV is more
dangerous then one not so popular. I prefer CE/BCE, but your argument is so
ludicrous as to actually damage the rationale to use it.

-Brock