[WikiEN-l] Re: Announcing a policy proposal

Mon May 16 16:17:31 UTC 2005

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Skyring wrote:

> On 5/16/05, Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail at 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