On 6/22/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: 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. I suspect many have no idea how absurd it appears to a non-USian to see BCE/CE spreading across Wikipedia (and judging by the biases most prevalent among Wikipedians - it seems likely to continue to increase and be used in what is at the least, a disproportionate amount of articles). HAH! NPOV? Wikipedia merely reflects the biases of its editors, both the majority and the minorities who push strongly for their POV. Zoney P.S. Long term, I cannot see how Wikipedia will avoid descending into anarchy. And unfortunately, I can see more of the current editors and admins choosing to leave (yes there are plenty more who will take over, but it's a bad way to do things). I hope I'm proved wrong though - the content Wikipedia has collated to date is impressive in size, and a fine body of articles are very good quality too. Slán go fóill. -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Sigh. Until 40 years ago or so the word "Colored" for "African-American" was used near-universally in the United States, and was seen as "neutral" as well. Before that the neutral and near-universally used term was "Negro". They're now seen as offensive, though I'm sure some older users of the terms see (or saw) their replacements as "nonsense" and a "POV lobby". Regardless, I imagine that none of the members of this list would use those terms today, and there are many other examples of this kind of thing (e.g. "Mohammedan"->"Moslem"->"Muslim"). Language changes, and English probably changes faster than most other languages; usages that were once thought neutral are now seen to contain inherent bias. This has happened with other terms in the past, and may be happening with BC/AD today. Now, can we move the debate about BCE/CE vs. BC/AD to where it belongs, on some policy page? Jay.

James D. Forrester (james(a)jdforrester.org) [050623 04:48]: Yeah, it tends toward "Afro-Caribbean", or just "Afro" on the Afro hair product shops in Walthamstow ;-) - d.

And furthermore, BC/AD is completely POV. So there. :-P Jay.

"David Gerard" <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote in message news:20050622232739.GE7309@thingy.apana.org.au... [snip] Shurely shome mishtake. "Before C_l_eese" and "After C_l_eese" would be much more suitable. We are still ostensibly a Pythonist society after all :-) -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: These particular examples are not about "whims and fashions of the day" but a people who have historically labeled in a derogatory manner and who have no simple identification term attempting to find something they can live with. The two groups you named have names from the time they were created and get a lot out of the fact that they are historic. On its own printed matter the UCNF refers to its mission as supporting "historically black" college and uses the term "African American" (no hyphen). The NAACP also uses the term "African Americans." Just because they keep historic names does not mean that they have not seen it fit to change their overall terminology. This is not about "herd instinct" in the slightest, and this is a lousy example. One should in these cases, especially with issues which have LONG histories of abuse, try to be a bit respectful. If using your judgment to pick out the best term ("Black" and "African American" and "people of Africa descent" are all known to be acceptable as polite terms if used in good faith) based on the definition of "polite" of the day (or, in this case, the last 20 years or so) is too much for your brain to handle, I can't imagine how you possibly get through the day. There is nothing that irritates me more than people using the ridiculous excuse that they "can't keep up" or "can't be expected to remember" or things like that with this particular case when honestly there have been a total of only five or six "changes" and the last one was twenty years ago. Hopefully you are capable. We learn, and we continue to learn. Our language is not static, and neither are we. This is not rocket science, don't act as if it is truly difficult. If you want to insist on your own labelings and terminology -- fine. But don't pretend it is difficult to keep track of, unless you travel from country to country every different day of the week. FF

Excuse me - I get the last word here. Use of BC/AD is evil and causes cancer. Jay.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 JAY JG wrote: Jimbo has said that there is nothing wrong with BC/AD, and he's American! So nyeh! :-P - -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis

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.