On 9/7/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
ScottL wrote:
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 9/5/06, ScottL scott@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