[WikiEN-l] Re: Content, reason and the ArbCom

[Michael Snow]

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".
>
>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
>
Just wanted to note how ironic it is to see an argument against BCE/CE, 
based on the universal use of BC/AD, while simultaneously using the term 
non-USian in place of the similarly universal term non-American.

--Michael Snow