This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
i remember i saw once a page with standards for timeline, but i can't find it now; anyway, there is total mess, almost each page is slightly different from others. I guess we should take one standard, stick to it, and convert all pages to that standard. Working in teams! I mean, i could take 2nd centuy, other one 3rd century etc etc szopen
I would like to suggest a general conversion from BC - AD to BCE - CE, for the sake of NPOV, SR
And also becauser BCE/CE are increasingly used in scientific, historical, and archaeological materials. Wikipedia should reflect the best of current 21st century scholarship, not the religious genuflections on the 19th century.
I followed your suggestion and looked at the "political correctness" page, and read that the term refers to "a movement to encourage the use of language in such a way as to avoid perpetuating past hatred and discrimination." This still seems relatively consistent with NPOV concerns. I do not think that "AD" and "BC" themselves perpetuate hatred, but they do represent Christian hegemony.
Using the terms BCE and CE are not obfuscatory nor are they fads. More and more scientific and scholarly works rely on this nomenclature, because they manage to accept convention (e.g. non-Christians and Christians alike use the same calendar) without privileging Christ or the belief in the divinity of Jesus. Most people I know who are not academics are aware of what these terms mean, and seem comfortable using them. It is strange that you seem so defensive about the issue. It really seems rather straightforward to me: an encyclopedia with an NPOV policy should not use the terms AD and BC. SR
There's a long debate on this subject at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommends writing dates in the common era as plain numbers (thus, [[1664]], not [[1664|AD 1664]]). This avoids the whole issue of whether to call the era "AD" or "BC". Gdr 15:15, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
I reverted the omission of "AD" from years in this era. Face it, whether it imposes a "Christian" hegemony in Wikipedia or not, it is the usage most English speakers are familiar with & use. If you want to change it to "CE" or to a simple number, I insist you put it to a vote for all of the Wikipedians to decide, & not impose your own sense of what is right or NPOV. -- llywrch 04:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is one element missing from this entire discussion - which is the term that most accurately describes the concept we want to express here? I say that we are trying to number years clearly, for the sake of referring to them unambiguously, and in a way that is understood by everybody -- to me, that sounds more like a Common Era than an Anno Domini. Individual religions and cultures may also have their own calendars and their own year numberings, which are used and well understood in their own communities, such as the Jewish era, the Muslim era and so on. Personally, I was amazed to see AD/BC here, since I have become used to the current academic norm of CE/BCE. -- FrankP 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The use of BC/AD is POV, it uses a figure of one religion to measure time for our entire species. I agree that it should be changed to BCE/CE. However, such a change would be bad because it could confuse or upset the great unwashed masses with a dating system that doesn't endorse their religion, so it'll probably stay that way. For the rest. of. time. Pretty sad when you think about it. - Golfvivid 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that for all "vertical" timelines the most recent year should be at the top. That means that I think this page and all "Year in review Xth Century" pages need to be changed. I would do this, if nobody disagrees. user:Marian
Tabular format, anyone? Martin
Wow...a very impressive collection of means to view history. I'm not sure of exactly what is being referred to above by Tabular format, but I thought it may be nice to have world history data, at least for the pages covering larger spans of time such as millenia or centuries, in a tabular format. This can allow people to easily compare what was going on at the same time in the rest of the world, yet also be able to track the history of a specific country or continent without leaving the page. As with many pages here at Wikipedia, it would be nice to be able to have interactive databases to do this, but it could still be done, I think, with the system as it is now.
- Brettz9 23:31 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
hey, how about a Creation timetable (to oppose the evolutionary one)? i'd do it, i just don't know where to put it. -sasha
no one actually going to say how long a century is, or why it is called a century ?-- BozMo 20:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC) (talk)
Polish Wikipedia (e.g. 2004) has a neat feature of listing heads (presidents, prime ministers, kings, etc.) of countries and international organizations in each year entry (going back to ancient times). Could something similar be done here? Ausir 08:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the redirects to Future in some of the 4th-millennium centuries are unhelpful and should be removed... Does anyone have any objection to this?
--- I think the same applies to some years in the 21st century. 193.171.121.30 07:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The links to
future have been restored. Makes more sense to have an entry in the main article directing to "future" entry & saying that the numerical entries are not being set up unless people have something to put in them. 22 March 2005
Why was this article deleted? The prediction was based on the current rate of slowing of earth's rotation. 193.171.121.30 01:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
i remember i saw once a page with standards for timeline, but i can't find it now; anyway, there is total mess, almost each page is slightly different from others. I guess we should take one standard, stick to it, and convert all pages to that standard. Working in teams! I mean, i could take 2nd centuy, other one 3rd century etc etc szopen
I would like to suggest a general conversion from BC - AD to BCE - CE, for the sake of NPOV, SR
And also becauser BCE/CE are increasingly used in scientific, historical, and archaeological materials. Wikipedia should reflect the best of current 21st century scholarship, not the religious genuflections on the 19th century.
I followed your suggestion and looked at the "political correctness" page, and read that the term refers to "a movement to encourage the use of language in such a way as to avoid perpetuating past hatred and discrimination." This still seems relatively consistent with NPOV concerns. I do not think that "AD" and "BC" themselves perpetuate hatred, but they do represent Christian hegemony.
Using the terms BCE and CE are not obfuscatory nor are they fads. More and more scientific and scholarly works rely on this nomenclature, because they manage to accept convention (e.g. non-Christians and Christians alike use the same calendar) without privileging Christ or the belief in the divinity of Jesus. Most people I know who are not academics are aware of what these terms mean, and seem comfortable using them. It is strange that you seem so defensive about the issue. It really seems rather straightforward to me: an encyclopedia with an NPOV policy should not use the terms AD and BC. SR
There's a long debate on this subject at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommends writing dates in the common era as plain numbers (thus, [[1664]], not [[1664|AD 1664]]). This avoids the whole issue of whether to call the era "AD" or "BC". Gdr 15:15, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
I reverted the omission of "AD" from years in this era. Face it, whether it imposes a "Christian" hegemony in Wikipedia or not, it is the usage most English speakers are familiar with & use. If you want to change it to "CE" or to a simple number, I insist you put it to a vote for all of the Wikipedians to decide, & not impose your own sense of what is right or NPOV. -- llywrch 04:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is one element missing from this entire discussion - which is the term that most accurately describes the concept we want to express here? I say that we are trying to number years clearly, for the sake of referring to them unambiguously, and in a way that is understood by everybody -- to me, that sounds more like a Common Era than an Anno Domini. Individual religions and cultures may also have their own calendars and their own year numberings, which are used and well understood in their own communities, such as the Jewish era, the Muslim era and so on. Personally, I was amazed to see AD/BC here, since I have become used to the current academic norm of CE/BCE. -- FrankP 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The use of BC/AD is POV, it uses a figure of one religion to measure time for our entire species. I agree that it should be changed to BCE/CE. However, such a change would be bad because it could confuse or upset the great unwashed masses with a dating system that doesn't endorse their religion, so it'll probably stay that way. For the rest. of. time. Pretty sad when you think about it. - Golfvivid 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that for all "vertical" timelines the most recent year should be at the top. That means that I think this page and all "Year in review Xth Century" pages need to be changed. I would do this, if nobody disagrees. user:Marian
Tabular format, anyone? Martin
Wow...a very impressive collection of means to view history. I'm not sure of exactly what is being referred to above by Tabular format, but I thought it may be nice to have world history data, at least for the pages covering larger spans of time such as millenia or centuries, in a tabular format. This can allow people to easily compare what was going on at the same time in the rest of the world, yet also be able to track the history of a specific country or continent without leaving the page. As with many pages here at Wikipedia, it would be nice to be able to have interactive databases to do this, but it could still be done, I think, with the system as it is now.
- Brettz9 23:31 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
hey, how about a Creation timetable (to oppose the evolutionary one)? i'd do it, i just don't know where to put it. -sasha
no one actually going to say how long a century is, or why it is called a century ?-- BozMo 20:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC) (talk)
Polish Wikipedia (e.g. 2004) has a neat feature of listing heads (presidents, prime ministers, kings, etc.) of countries and international organizations in each year entry (going back to ancient times). Could something similar be done here? Ausir 08:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the redirects to Future in some of the 4th-millennium centuries are unhelpful and should be removed... Does anyone have any objection to this?
--- I think the same applies to some years in the 21st century. 193.171.121.30 07:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The links to
future have been restored. Makes more sense to have an entry in the main article directing to "future" entry & saying that the numerical entries are not being set up unless people have something to put in them. 22 March 2005
Why was this article deleted? The prediction was based on the current rate of slowing of earth's rotation. 193.171.121.30 01:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)