On Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:53 PM, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@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,