Well, remember, if they go with the facts and verified source material, per their own commandments, it makes George look really bad. So instead, they obfuscate by omission.

Oh well.

True, true.

(But that hasn't stopped them in some of the other articles.)

It just seems kind of silly to me. Though they may not say A.D. afterward, there are many, many, many articles on Wikipedia that do use that particular calendar, even without having to say "A.D."

Sheesh.

Winnie the Pooh example of dates

On the other hand, they just got a bunch of hits for our talking about it. Go them and their marketing strategy!

:rolleyes:

I've always hated the semi-dishonesty of academia's switch from BC and AD to BCE and CE.

"It is ethno and religio centrism to use Jesus Christ as the dividing line. So we'll just change the name and continue using the same dividing line. Also, I"m allergic to peanuts so I'm going to start calling them peaches so I won't get sick when I eat them."

They didn't even take the opportunity to correctly affix the dividing line so that 0 A.D. would equal 4 C.E. They deinstitutionalized the naming of Christ and firmly institutionalized the significance of Christ.

It goes to show that you can find just about anything to suit your tastes on the internet.