steven l. rubenstein wrote:
[...] many people oppose the proposal because AD/BC doesn't bother them. Okay, they have a right not to be bothered by AD/BC. But to make that a reason for not using another term is — and I am certain I am correct in this – fundamentally incompatible with our NPOV policy. The basis of our NPOV policy is that not everyone feels the same way. This necessarily means that it doesn't matter that you are not bothered by something; what matters is that someone else is. I think this is the very essence of NPOV, to recognize that one's own feelings are not shared by others and thus cannot be the basis for making decisions concerning NPOV! [...]
That's a rather extreme interpretation of NPOV. There are cases in which language itself expresses POV; "dictator" and "terrorist" are two of our classic examples, they being often used as a substitute for objective description of an individual's beliefs or acts. However, BC/AD carry little or no such baggage, just as days of the week do not convey a pro-Norse-religion POV or the months of the year endorse Roman religion.
Given that, it shouldn't be too surprising that you're going to get dismissive reactions; with the thousands of serious and difficult neutrality problems all over WP, to make BC/AD usage some kind of test case for NPOV is the sort of focus on triviality for which American (excuse me, USian) academia has become infamous in recent years.
Stan