20
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 305:
Line 305: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 04:00, October 1, 2007
, 04:00, October 1, 2007→"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D."
*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==
== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==