On 6/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I omitted the word '''some''' because the implication was being made that BCE/CE itself is POV, which is clearly untrue.
No, it isn't. Were it "clearly untrue", everyone would see it immediately (that is, after all what those words would mean). I don't. Others don't. Or are we all just being difficult and stating that we fail to see the BCE/CE is NPOV to annoy you (what is termed "trolling")?
Well, actually, I hadn't yet seen the overt claim that BCE/CE isn't NPOV... this is a first, more on that in a bit.
What I've seen claimed many times that that BCE/CE isn't any more or less NPOV than BC/AD and that because of the other issues we should prefer BC/AD. This is an argument that I am inclined to agree with.
Well, yes, indeed. Something that is regarded by one group of POV-holders as good and another as bad is, generally, well ... How to put this? So terribly tricky. Still, I will try: POV. Gosh. Wasn't actually so hard, when it came down to it.
I believe you are incorrect here. The relationship only goes one way. Only a POV supporter will agree with a strongly non-neutral position, but just because someone is a POV pusher it is not necessary that everything they support is non-neutral.
BC/BCE and BC/AD can both be NPOV even if some in the BC/BCE camp claim that BC/AD isn't NPOV and just because some of the advocates of either view carry some strong POVs this doesn't make it a POV issue.
You know, it is possible for people to disagree and for the argument to have absolutely nothing to do with NPOV.
If group A says that foo is NPOV, but group B say that it is POV, then it by definition cannot be NPOV - because otherwise group B would agree that it was.
I think you need to re-read the page on NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean that everyone always agrees.
In this scenario, I think that the difficulty is that people want something that is, indeed, absolutely NPOV, and acceptable to everyone. However, this is a case, I feel, like too many others, sadly, where there is no such Nirvana solution; we must make do with the least POV use. "Both" sides feel that using "AD" and "BC" is POV, and both are right. However, where they differ is that one side either considers "CE" and "BCE" to be less POV than the others for most people, or fails to see it as POV at all, whereas the other finds it more POV.
From your tone it sound like you're quite tired of this matter, ...
And I can't blame you.. As I've said, the issue has already been well cooked on the wiki. But I'm curious... What makes you believe that BCE/CE isn't neutral and that it's less so than AD/BC?
I get the argument against AD/BC, that it pushes a specific idea about the existence and role of Jesus and I get the counter arguments.. usually that common use and time have tempered the POVness to where no one really associates it with any POV. I can also see how people may be concerned that BCE/CE isn't in common enough use and that it may represents a degree of national snobbery, since the usage is more common in some English speaking nations than others.
But I simply don't see why BCE/CE isn't as neutral as any ideal nomenclature for naming eras.
Not all disagreements are a matters of neutrality.
Since I was specifically discussing the claim that arbcom was getting involved with supporting one POV over another, my primary interest was in demonstrating why BCE/CE isn't POV at all.
Please, do, go ahead. I await with baited breath.
Well, I've said my mind on the matter and you're still unconvinced. ... I did not claim that my demonstration would be effective. :)
I disagree; by strongly criticising one side of a wide-ranging edit war, and saying nothing at all about the other, the old proposed rulings were impliticly condoing the POV of those not mentioned, and discarding that of Jguk and others.
It seems to me that arbcom was specifically acting against users who have broken the agreement to allow both forms. In the arbcom case there is no substantially cited history of the 'other side' following around the people they disagree with and revising every use. If you are aware of such a case, I highly suggest you take it to the arbcom.
because if we were to agree that one of the phrasings were non-neutral then it would be the BC/AD nomenclature and we would have no choice but to adopt the BCE/CE form.
I agree. However, this is not true - *both* are non-neutral, the argument is to the relative neutrality of them two.
Well, this is a misunderstanding on my part then.
But I still don't see that this is of merit to the arbcom issue: If someone has been following around editors that write using BC/AD in articles containing mostly BC/AD and changing it, then I think they are also deserving a reprimand and I'm confident that arbcom would agree.
I absolutely agree. I just disagree with your conclusion. :-)
Well, we have to start with something...
Sorry. In future I will reply, point-by-point, with "See above.". I had written this thrice before deciding to merely snip.
I certainly understand the effort that goes into writing a thought out reply, and I promise that I am making a genuine attempt to understand your position and not merely trolling you. Thank you for your time and effort.