On Mon, 16 May 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 5/16/05, Pete/Pcb21
<pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com> wrote:
Ultra-short summary of previous debates:
Pro-CE) AD = "Year of Our Lord" thus is POV. Use CE.
Pro-AD) No AD is more widely used and WP is not a vehicle for advocacy
for change, so stick to AD.
Pro-CE) But that is ignorance. We should be correct and neutral, not
sheep-followers of the majority.
Pro-AD) I am not Christian nor ignorant, but still use AD as the
"standard". Adovacy is a bigger POV problem than origins of common terms
being POV.
The horse has long bolted. CE has been common usage for decades in an
expanding circle of groups, most notably those of science or academia.
The Christians trying to contain the infection are as ultimately
risible as the French trying to keep their language pure by opposing
terms such as "le weekend". Christian belief is something that comes
from the heart, not from strict adherence to the display of symbols.
The "standardists" may have a better moral case, but I see them as
like those who grew up with the Imperial system of measurement and
staunchly resist the metric system because they aren't used to the
terms. Oddly enough, within the British Commonwealth these same people
didn't have any problem in grasping decimal currency after conversion
from pounds, shillings and pence. If they *really* have a problem with
BCE rather than BC, then the standardists are picking the smallest of
nits.
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
And here we can see several reasons why this proposal stirs up so much
resistance.
* The assertion that because the style "CE/BCE" is "common usage", it
should be exclusive usage. A confusion of categories: is there any proof
that if an academic or scientist uses the style "AD/BC", that the
editor will change it or reject the submission? (A glance at my copy of
the MLA Handbook only discusses how to use both correctly -- although
it does discourage use of the once hallowed "ibid." & "op. cit.")
* That usage amongst certain groups -- i.e., academics -- is preferable
to usage amongst other groups. Appeal to authority: I would hope that
if academics have unamimously embraced this style, that there are a
number of readily-available -- & published essays -- that eloquently
& convincingly explain why one style is preferable to another.
* That the only people who would resist using this style do so for
reasons of faith. A straw man argument: I prefer "AD/BC" over
"CE/BCE"
because that was the style that I felt was the most authentic for me.
I am currently not a member of any religion, although at one point in
my past I did embrace neo-paganism.
* That the style "CE/BCE" is universally embraced except for a few
implictly out-of-fashion groups. Assertion without proof: I was not
aware that the of "AD/BC" has gone the way of isenglas & mimeograph
printing.
I suspect many people who defend the use of "AD/BC" tend towards emotional
arguments because they are not familiar with how to make meta-lingusitic
arguments -- which I admit is difficult to do, & harder to do well.
In effect, we who prefer that style are being told we are wrong & are
accused of causing offense where none is intended, but the reasons offered
fail to convince us how or why; & when we protest, we are perjoratively
labelled (i.e., "Christians"), & condemned. This sorta goes against the
ideal of [[Assume good faith]].
Geoff