[WikiEN-l] I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision againstjguk

[James D. Forrester]

On Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:53 PM, Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> 
> > No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the
> > particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially
> > on groups who are offended by that usage. It is more an
> > elaboration of our general policy on courtesy. Another aspect of
> > the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your
> > preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an
> > actual policy.
> 
> Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did?  He said
> he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the
> arbcomm said his offense is more important than
> consensus.

Yes, indeed, absolutely. As I said when I made my contribution to the
unfortunately divisive poll carried out on this issue, as an atheist I find
"CE"/"BCE" notation abhorrent and amazingly offensive; it suggests that my
concerns that the calendar system, based on some daft quacks' opinions on
the historical accuracy of their lore on some lackey who conned them into
believing that he was the "son" of some mythical "god"-figure invented by
tribal elders to keep their people in line, is of any relevance to the real
world, and that my life should be based on said arcane information's
"wisdom". [0]

"CE"/"BCE" notation really is religious imperialism at its very worst, and I
am saddened to see that a few odd parts of the US academic system. At least
its vileness has not (yet) spread and infected others, hood-winked into
thinking that it is "politically correct".[1] It is notable that I had never
come across it at all until coming to Wikipedia - this despite my
fascination with history and having left school but 4 years ago, so hardly
being part of an older generation, whose education was less "well-balanced"
than today's. I asked a historian friend of mine (as in, post-grad
historian) about "CE"/"BCE", who laughed and said that it was very rarely
used outside of very specialist circles, and was a very good way to make
your paper look like it was written by someone with an axe to grind.[2]

Intriguingly, those who note the absolute scarcity of use of "CE"/"BCE"
notation are now asked to prove the lack of existence of its widespread use.
Gosh. How fun. Being asked to prove a negative. Lots of critical thinking
students here, evidently.

What, exactly, would constitute sufficient proof that "CE" and "BCE" are not
well-used, or even recognised, outside of the United States?

[0] - This is not a personal attack.
[1] - Neither is this.
[2] - Yes, this is anecdotal, and has nothing like basis for an argument.
However, I am happy with it as such, because it has no stronger basis in
fact than any other argument I have yet seen (many comments written used
particular parts of this argument as "divine knowledge", self-evidently
true; this irony no doubt was sadly lost on the authors).

Yours,
-- 
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Mail: james at jdforrester.org | jon at eh.org | csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM  : (MSN) jamesdforrester at hotmail.com