[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

[Geoff Burling]

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