Fred - let me clarify the position as far as the English and Welsh national curriculum is concerned.
In 2002 the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which sets the English and Welsh National Curriculum for state schools, for the first time added into the history curriculum that children should be taught what BCE/CE means. Nothing more than that - just what it means. That in itself caused angry letters to be written to some newspapers, and the Evening Standard article to which someone else has already provided the URL to.
The QCA (no doubt aware of the public outcry that would occur if they did anything different) made clear that this does not mean they are introducing BCE/CE notation - they themselves continue and will continue to use BC/AD notation. They did note that children could, if they wished, use BCE/CE notation. Despite the QCA continuing to use BC/AD notation itself, a very very small number of renegate "right-on" teachers have insisted their pupils use BCE/CE - only for an angry response from parents to follow.
In summary - the English and Welsh national curriculum requires children to be taught what BCE/CE means. The QCA continues and will continue to use BC/AD notation, which remains the form of notation used throughout the QCA's syllabuses. Wherever there have been attempts by a small number of teachers acting on their own initiative to require BCE/CE notation in UK, they have normally been met by an angry response.
Jon
Fred Bauder wrote:
It seems to have been adopted as part of the curriculum in the UK.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2005, at 10:12 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050621 23:45]:
My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.
That's a bit US POV-centric. It's certainly not true outside the US.
- d.
--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Jon (thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk) [050622 04:49]:
In summary - the English and Welsh national curriculum requires children to be taught what BCE/CE means. The QCA continues and will continue to use BC/AD notation, which remains the form of notation used throughout the QCA's syllabuses. Wherever there have been attempts by a small number of teachers acting on their own initiative to require BCE/CE notation in UK, they have normally been met by an angry response.
Yep. As I said, the push for BCE/CE is essentially US POV-centric.
- d.
On 6/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Jon (thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk) [050622 04:49]:
In summary - the English and Welsh national curriculum requires children to be taught what BCE/CE means. The QCA continues and will continue to use BC/AD notation, which remains the form of notation used throughout the QCA's syllabuses. Wherever there have been attempts by a small number of teachers acting on their own initiative to require BCE/CE notation in UK, they have normally been met by an angry response.
Yep. As I said, the push for BCE/CE is essentially US POV-centric.
- d.
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Zoney 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".
<snip>
I agree with your post entirely.
- -- 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
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com
Zoney 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".
<snip>
I agree with your post entirely.
Alphax
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.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2005, at 19:42, Jay JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
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.
Actually, using "African-American" instead of "black" is widely ridiculed in the UK, FWIW. But yes, I agree, language changes - the point is, the use of CE/BCE notation is a POV term like all the others whose time of being considered better than any others has not yet come, and may indeed never do so.
[Snip]
Yours,
James D. Forrester (james@jdforrester.org) [050623 04:48]:
On Wednesday, June 22, 2005, at 19:42, Jay JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
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.
Actually, using "African-American" instead of "black" is widely ridiculed in the UK, FWIW.
Yeah, it tends toward "Afro-Caribbean", or just "Afro" on the Afro hair product shops in Walthamstow ;-)
- d.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, JAY JG wrote:
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.
Then JAY JG wrote:
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?
If you want the conversation taken off-list, then take it off-list yourself. Don't use it as an attempt to get the final word.
Geoff
From: Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, JAY JG wrote:
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.
Then JAY JG wrote:
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?
If you want the conversation taken off-list, then take it off-list yourself. Don't use it as an attempt to get the final word.
And furthermore, BC/AD is completely POV. So there. :-P
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050623 08:49]:
From: Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com
If you want the conversation taken off-list, then take it off-list yourself. Don't use it as an attempt to get the final word.
And furthermore, BC/AD is completely POV. So there. :-P
I understand that Before Cheese and After Cheese are henceforth standard on Uncyclopedia.
- d.
"David Gerard" fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote in message news:20050622232739.GE7309@thingy.apana.org.au... [snip]
I understand that Before Cheese and After Cheese are henceforth standard on Uncyclopedia.
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 :-)
JAY JG wrote:
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").
Despite the current fad for the term "African-American" neither the United Negro College Fund nor the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have seen fit to change the names of their organizations. I avoid the term "African-American" because a person's citizenship is not apparent in his racial features, and I certainly would not want to offend a non-citizen by calling him "American". To me there is something offensive about a herd instinct that requires me to change my terminology to suit the whims and fashions of the day.
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.
Language change is more complex than that. We learn our terminology at different times and different places. Paramount is its need to continue as an effective means of communication. These formerly neutral terms may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the same society, or in different circumstances. "Assuming good faith" includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so without intent to offend. Only the context of his words will show the difference.
Ec
On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Despite the current fad for the term "African-American" neither the United Negro College Fund nor the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have seen fit to change the names of their organizations. I avoid the term "African-American" because a person's citizenship is not apparent in his racial features, and I certainly would not want to offend a non-citizen by calling him "American". To me there is something offensive about a herd instinct that requires me to change my terminology to suit the whims and fashions of the day.
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.
Language change is more complex than that. We learn our terminology at different times and different places. Paramount is its need to continue as an effective means of communication. These formerly neutral terms may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the same society, or in different circumstances. "Assuming good faith" includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so without intent to offend. Only the context of his words will show the difference.
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
Fastfission wrote:
On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Despite the current fad for the term "African-American" neither the United Negro College Fund nor the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have seen fit to change the names of their organizations. I avoid the term "African-American" because a person's citizenship is not apparent in his racial features, and I certainly would not want to offend a non-citizen by calling him "American". To me there is something offensive about a herd instinct that requires me to change my terminology to suit the whims and fashions of the day.
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.
A person's racial characteristics are not evident from his participation in this list, and in general should not need to be referenced at all.
Your presumptions about historically derogatory labels presume that all uses of these labels were derogatory.
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.
Respectfulness goes two ways. Those who want to insist on politically correct vocabulary are just as much in need of lessons in being 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.
In fact in most circumstances I am most likely to use "blacks". But I do not do so to please someone who has just displayed a make-believe show of being offended..
Language change is more complex than that. We learn our terminology at different times and different places. Paramount is its need to continue as an effective means of communication. These formerly neutral terms may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the same society, or in different circumstances. "Assuming good faith" includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so without intent to offend. Only the context of his words will show the difference.
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.
I said nothing about it being difficult to track the changes. That was not my argument. My argument was against the imposition of political correctness.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Language change is more complex than that. We learn our terminology at different times and different places. Paramount is its need to continue as an effective means of communication. These formerly neutral terms may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the same society, or in different circumstances. "Assuming good faith" includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so without intent to offend. Only the context of his words will show the difference.
Excuse me - I get the last word here. Use of BC/AD is evil and causes cancer.
Jay.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument
:-)
Sam
On 6/23/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Wrom:
XCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSWZIDREXCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSWZIDREXCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSWZIDREXCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Language change is more complex than that. We learn our terminology at different times and different places. Paramount is its need to continue as an effective means of communication. These formerly neutral terms may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the same society, or in different circumstances. "Assuming good faith" includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so without intent to offend. Only the context of his words will show the difference.
Excuse me - I get the last word here. Use of BC/AD is evil and causes cancer.
Jay.
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
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
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).
People have been predicting this for years and it has not happened yet. Heck, I thought so as well when we jumped from 800 edits a day to 3000 within months of me starting in 2002. Whenever we get bigger, we adapt. If and when things get too bad, then for the sake of the encyclopedia we will need to start locking things down. I do not think we will be at that stage for some time and may even be able to adapt indefinitely.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com
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.
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.