Note: Use the main talk page or the formally proposed alternative options listing to discuss and vote for alternatives.
ANNOUNCEMENT: My primary purpose in presenting this proposal was not to take a poll, but to provoke discussion. Although there have been many comments (a few, especially among the “opposed” votes, quite thoughtful), I do not think there has really been much discussion, much dialogue. Many people state their views, without discussing them with people who have different views. One small example: although I and a few others have written comments and questions to people voting “no,” few if any of the people who oppose the proposal have asked questions of any of the sixty or so people who have voted “yes.” Moreover, it is a shame that most critics of the proposal direct their opposition to me, when so many other people support the proposal. Wikipedia is a community, a community needs to communicate, and the ideal form of communication is an open-minded discussion among people of opposing views.
I know that I am a polarizing figure for many people. Therefore, I will step out of this discussion for several days (Aside from maintenance chores). I hope that when I am gone, people on both sides of the issue will talk more to one another, asking questions and responding in ways that invite more discussion. Adios. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Well that is your own fault.
ANNOUNCEMENT: My primary purpose in presenting this proposal was not to take a poll, but to provoke discussion. Although there have been many comments (a few, especially among the “opposed” votes, quite thoughtful), I do not think there has really been much discussion, much dialogue. Many people state their views, without discussing them with people who have different views. One small example: although I and a few others have written comments and questions to people voting “no,” few if any of the people who oppose the proposal have asked questions of any of the sixty or so people who have voted “yes.” Moreover, it is a shame that most critics of the proposal direct their opposition to me, when so many other people support the proposal. Wikipedia is a community, a community needs to communicate, and the ideal form of communication is an open-minded discussion among people of opposing views.
I know that I am a polarizing figure for many people. Therefore, I will step out of this discussion for several days (Aside from maintenance chores). I hope that when I am gone, people on both sides of the issue will talk more to one another, asking questions and responding in ways that invite more discussion. Adios. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
When I use a day of the week (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.) in an article, am I exhibiting a pro-pagan POV, because the days of the week are named after pagan gods? When I refer to the month of July or August, am I exhibiting a pro-Roman POV, because these months are named after Roman leaders? No. The days of the week and the month names have been in such common usage for such a long time that their origin is not really relevant anymore. While most people know the origin of the words, seeing "Thursday" doesn't trigger thoughts about Thor, nor does seeing "August" make people think about Augustus. Similarly, seeing "B.C." doesn't trigger thoughts about Christ. They are all such accepted parts of a date that no-one thinks of anything but dates when they see them. On the other hand, when I see "B.C.E." somewhere, I personally find it jarring and find myself thinking about political correctness. Someone who is sufficiently distracted might hold that using BC/AD is NPOV and BCE/CE is POV, which is the exact opposite of what the policy proposal states at the start. I'm not saying that I hold this point of view (I believe that both date formats are NPOV), but I think that this point-of-view is missing from this argument.
Since I believe that both date formats are NPOV, I believe this is a style issue, not an NPOV issue. The MoS is in general fairly liberal about what is accepted, and I think this is a Good Thing. We should welcome contributions from anyone. What would have happened if, when I was first starting out on Wikipedia, I had written an article using British English spelling, and someone had changed it to American English spelling, and then when I changed it back and insisted that the article should use British English, I was denounced as a "POV vandal" and threatened with a block? I think I would have quit Wikipedia almost 3,000 edits ago. Similarly, I would not want to alienate anyone who wants to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, regardless of what date format they want to use.
In some cases, it may make more sense to use BCE/CE than BC/AD, just like in some articles it makes more sense to use British English spelling than American English spelling. Just like a certain POV may be exhibited in the choice of spelling used in certain articles such as War of 1812, a certain POV may be exhibited in the date format used in certain articles ( Jesus might be such an example). However, in most cases, the date format used is benign and we should be open to either. JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This proposal is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. The MOST important of which is what you said yourself: (and that is mentioned below): any Gregorian is going to express bias. Period. As I was reading this I was so incredibly amazed that you did not notice what you were saying. I love this statement, for example: Although the Gregorian calendar was created as a specifically Christian calendar, many non-Christians were forced to use it, and many more were encouraged to use it. The Gregorian calendar is now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." The EXACT same thing can be said about the terms BC/AD: Although the terms BC/AD were created as specifically Christian terminology, many non-Christians were forced to use them, and many more were encouraged to use them. The terms BC/AD are now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." Your entire argument in favour of the Gregorian Calendar is: everyone uses it, so it must be OK. That's a terrible argument. besides you're not really trying to argue in favour of the Gregorian Calendar, you're trying to defend the origin of the terms BCE/CE.
Additionally, that is not to say there isn't possibly a better system to choose! I can think of one right now, one that is far superior to your BCE/CE system, and one that we must adopt for all the reasons you have said against BC/AD apply also to the Gregorian Calendar. This system is entirely NPOV, which as you say, is non negotiable. Likewise, some of the flaws in BCE/CE (such as the claim that it is just BC/AD in another name, and that BCE/CE is still fundamentally POV). This system is shared by the global community (even if they don't know it). This is a calendar based on Geologic Epochs. This year is Holocene 11570, or for shorthand, just H11570. Additionally, there may be some error in the dating of the beginning of the Holocene Epoch, but as long as we establish a standard, an error of a few years is OK, as long as everyone is the same. Why is this system clearly better? Besides being NPOV, it also eliminates the need for 2 eras while dealing with the vast majority of human history. Previously with the outdated and POV Gregorian calendar, a large number of years relating to human history were in the NEGATIVES, this is horribly wrong. You cannot have negative time, so having negative years is foolish and confusing. While we are at calendar reform, we need to do this, because our current system of 12 months × X weeks × 7 days + .256363051 leap days is POV (based on roman and norse gods... your arguments apply to those to, and you can't just write off those as 'dead religions' because you said... the intent does not matter, so even though nobody is trying to support a nonexistent religion, we really are). This is the system we need to use, because it is NPOV and logical: 13 months of 4 weeks of 7 days + 1.256363051 leap days. This is much better: every month (named after the numbers, so we have month 0, month 1, etc...) has the exact same # of days (likewise, named after the numbers, day 0, day 1, etc...) and there are the exact same # of weeks in each month. Weeks, month, days they all evenly fit into the year except for the 1.256363051 leap days.
Obviously, I'm not seriously proposing this (unless of course people are crazy enough to support it... I know I am). What I'm saying is that there are relics of POV all over the dating system. Only with complete reform can you eliminate POV, and that reform cannot be instigated here. Wikipedia is a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. BCE/CE is nothing more than a pathetic little patch on a horrible illogical and difficult to use system. Lastly, I'm not point any fingers, but people that insist on being Politically Correct really tick me off :D -- Ctachme 01:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to have to vote against this proposal simply because I think it is too sweeping in its imposition of the POV that BCE/CE is less POV than BC/AD. I concur with previous statements that B/CE is POV. On the other hand, saying that the only NPOV system would be to use years Before Now (I believe I called this system BTY when I mentioned it on Talk:Jesus) is also POV, since it clearly indicates that the present is the only valid timeframe from which to view history. We could propose to use BJ, for "Before Jesus" (thought I'd better clarify that I wasn't talking about Slrubenstein's "sodomy" reference above...), vs. ABJ (oh my...), but I don't think inventing a new system just for Wikipedia is a very good way to go either. I'm afraid I see the years we use, no matter what letters we attach to them, as an expression of a POV, albeit a widespread POV and a generally accepted dating system (again, because of how widely spread this POV is). As has been pointed out by others, this system is deeply flawed, and the illogic of it was the basis for my arguments against its use specifically in the Jesus article (cf. Talk:Jesus. (To repeat my assertion there: it sounds ridiculous to say "Jesus was born as early as 6 BC." How can he be born before he was born? 6 years, in fact, before he was born?!) That is the only reason I have argued in favor of using B/CE in the Jesus article, eventhough I agree with Slrubenstein's POV that this is, in fact, 5765. Heavy-handedly saying Wikipedia is going to use only B/CE is in conflict with several WP policies, including NPOV. I'm not going to go through and list them, but I'm sure someone else will be happy to do so if my assertion is challenged. I don't think using BC/AD is POV, eventhough the terms themselves, when coined, clearly endorsed a POV. There is a not-so-subtle and very important difference. Incidentally, in the write-up, Anno Domini is consistently mistranslated as "in the year of our Lord". The correct translation is "in the Lord's year". There is a big difference. Clearly, saying "our Lord" is a very different thing from saying "the Lord". Incidentally, I just looked up "Anno domini" in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Ed....where it defines "Anno Domini" as "in the (given) year since the beginning of the Christian Era" (emphasis mine). Interestingly enough, the next entry is "anno mundi", which is defined as "in the (given) year since the supposed creation of the world" (again, the emphasis is mine...). Maybe I'm reading something into the text, but to me, the use of "supposed" would constitute a gross violation of NPOV! Maybe we should let Webster know... :-p Tomer TALK 02:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so maybe I do have something of a proposal, sketchy, at best...but ultimately, I think, more acceptable in its scope to most ppl who care about this discussion at all...please see this proposal's talk page. Tomer TALK 03:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
A personal note: I have no argument with people voting as they wish. But I am disappointed that — with the exception of a few very thoughtful comments (as many or more opposed as in favor) – the discussion centers on the very first paragraph of the proposal, and no one has yet to argue for or against any of the specific arguments and reasons detailed in the proposal. I think this is an embarrasment to the level of wiki-dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Since you're being personal, I will too - I read the whole thing, and the reasoning gets awfully tortured. A reference to the Belgian Congo is a transparent attempt to play the guilt card, and it's simply not ever going to influence my view on how to write English prose. I favor BC/AD mostly because my authorities do - historians of ancient Greece and Rome probably use specific "BC" dates more than anyone, and I can't find a single Greece/Rome book on my shelf that uses "BCE" rather than "BC" in its thicket of dates. When the OCD switches to BCE/CE, I will favor it then. We have so many more serious NPOV problems to work on that my main embarassment is that this borderline triviality is sucking up so much time and attention. Stan 13:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
In responce to a few of the points above. While quantity and popularity have nothing to do with neutrality, this isn't about a position... it's about language. Under Naming Conventions it is made clear that it is best to be readable, that is... "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I do not believe that when most people read AD 1600 that they are reading outright "In The Year Of Our Lord Sixteen Hundred" but rather that the two letters have become a "word" in and of themselves... much in the way that people will say "ATM Machine" or "Pin Number" even if this is -technically- redundant. The abbreviation has become a seperate word as far as grammar goes. When it comes to words, understanding is tantamount. As far as being Anti-Christian [3], it has nothing to do with the words "Before" "Common" and/or "Era". It has more to do with the fact that AD/BC are so common that when reading CE/BCE, the average reader will automatically replace the term CE/BCE into AD/BC in their own heads, and the process of translation emphasizes the differences between the two. CE/BCE isn't automatically translated into "A date that I recognize", but rather into AD/BC, and that leads the mind to question "Why the change" which leads directly to the point that "The person using CE/BCE doesn't want to mention Jesus even via the etymology of a word" which leads to "Mentioning Jesus must be a terrible thing" which is, in fact, anti-christian. Note that in this chain of thought, I say etymology of a word. When an abreviation is used enough, it becomes a WORD. The etymology of "Pumpernickle" is "Goblin Fart" but you probably don't think about goblins farting when you say the word... you mean the bread, not the breaking of wind. Likewise, to most people, AD 1600 refers to a year, not a form of worship. To deliberately avoid AD/BC, ironically, MAKES a word religiosly charged, whereas normally it is not. AD/BC is, under normal circumstances, automatically translated in most people's heads as "a year I recognize". Heck, remove the AD entirely... 1990 I recognize as "A year I lived through, and I can recall these facts about this year, and in the back of my mind I know that this is the gregorian dating system which, more formally, would be written as AD 1990, a year that I recognize". I can easily say that using CE/BCE does negate the Christian faith, because it calls to attention the religious aspect of the commonly accepted term, and then negates it as an active thing. Likewise, I can say that using the terms AD/BC does not negate the religious practises of any other faith, because unless attention is called to it, there is generally no religious connotation to the term. If you must stop to think about the religious aspect to AD/BC, it would be in the same respect as analyzing the origins of CE/BCE... namely that the numbering system is tied to the date of a significant person in Christian history. The dating system is due to Christian influences, and this can be recognized no matter which term you use. Fieari 21:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, SlR, for taking the time to outline this issue so comprehensively and clearly. El_C 22:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
There are so many phrases used in modern English that used to be related to religion but no longer are. "Oh my god!" does not imply a cry out to a monotheistic deity. Language evolves and, while I am fully aware of the meaning of AD, I do not think of any Christianity-related meaning when I see/use it. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
As a pagan-friendly agnostic, BC/AD does not bother me in the least. In fact, it should be maintained because to use BCE and CE IS POV, as it assumes that common usage is somehow wrong. Why can't we just make this part of the Preferences, like date formatting? Rick K 23:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, this is a fascinating debate. As a Christian (agendas are best unhidden), I'm comfortable with AD/BC, but I concede that they are very problematic in general discourse. (You say that 'Jesus is Lord' is not a fact but an opinion - I suppose one might pedantically say that even that is an opinion - but let's agree that 'Jesus is Lord' is a very contentious claim.) My problem is that although I do not want to defend AD/BC - as they are professions of faith - I don't really care for the alternatives. Common to whom? You suggests that the calendar is common in its usage- yes, but we are speaking of dates of the Common Era - to whom, and in what sense is the era common? My personal preference would be to speak of dates before and after the 'Christian calendar' - that avoids professions of faith - and keeps us to the facts - this is a Christian Calendar (as there are Chinese, Muslim and Jewish ones) – this calendar takes its reference from a Christian claim to the dating of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course many who use the calendar are not Christians - but then we speak of 'Arabic numerals' and ‘English language’, without worrying about how many of the users are Arabs or Anglo-Saxons. Of course this option is no use - unless Wikipedia adopts its own notation - and that's useless. Given that, I'd rather not force a choice between the two problematic alternatives - let each editor use their own (as with US and English spellings). Incidentally, I believe that is the policy of most academic publishers - I recently published with Continuum and they raised no objections to my choice of AD/BC.-- Doc Glasgow 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
To take the discussion of an ‘alternative system’ forward from my remarks above, ideally, I would favour 'BCC and CC' – ‘before’ and ‘after’ Christian calendar. That would be a factual description – not a profession of faith as AD/BC – which I think is the valid root of the objection. However, in reality I think this is a non-starter. It would leave Wikipedia with a system no-one outside the community would understand. However, the logic of your rejection of the 'popularity' argument would be that this shouldn't matter, even if AD and CE are the popular choices, if they are POV - then we must use something else, even if it is less popular. But, personally, I think the popularity argument must carry some weight.
I think, for many Christians, it is the wish to avoid the fact that it is a Christian calendar that is the difficulty - rather than a defence of AD/BC and their obvious 'profession of faith'. Removing the Christian references – and denying the fact that it is a Christian system, raises the (perhaps unjustified) suspicion that there is an anti-Christian, wishing to deny Christian cultural influence, rather than a ‘neutral’ agenda behind it. If I were to suggest that ‘Arabic numerals’ be renamed ‘common numerals’ on the basis that they were now common to various languages, and alphabets, I think my motives would come under suspicion.
Without a radical alternative, I think there is no NPOV usage here – and thus both should be permitted – no-one forced to use a system they are uncomfortable with. Whilst I do not object to CE BCE – I for one would not use it – and I do object to being compelled. The debate is very interesting – and it is a test of how ‘libertarian’ liberal culture should be. -- Doc Glasgow 12:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This thorough and lucid proposal has provoked me to some reflection. I tend to use CE/BCE when writing as an archaeologist/historian and AD/BC when writing as a journalist. I recognise that AD/BC has the echoes of Christian connotations but so does much of English language usage. What I had not appreciated before reading this proposal was that CE/BCE has Judaeo-Christian connotations. I remember learning that CE is variously interpreted as "Christian Era" and "Common Era". I had not thought about the POV inherent in "Common Era"; but there it is—implicitly elevating the divergence of Christianity from Judaism above the foundation of Islam or some other cusp that is significant to a social/cultural/religious group. I now see the AD/BC vs CE/BCE divide in the same light as British and American spellings. Some people prefer one; some the other. Neither is wrong nor more right. -- Theo (Talk) 23:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
As I noted on the talkpage for Jesus, Wikipedia does not exclude POVs, which is what you are seeking to do. NPOV specifically does not call for us to write in a "neutral" way. The policy even explicitly says that is not what we do. It calls for us to express all views. The view that 4 BC is, erm, 4 BC is widely held and that should be reflected. I agree that the view that that is not acceptable should also be reflected and it's my belief that 4 BC/BCE shows that. I think that the discussion is very much complicated by the fact that it's largely those offended who interpret the dating system as having to do with "our Lord" or "the Messiah". I'm among those who just sees them as just letters, whose significance is gone -- dead metaphors, if you will. I'm afraid I believe that this sort of argument that views that some find offensive must be excluded must be opposed strenuously because it so flatly contradicts NPOV policy. Grace Note 00:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This quote is from our NPOV policy. It explains why we can't make exclusions, why we have to cater to more than one POV. Our style guide does not say we should use one form over the other. The only way to be neutral is to use both, as using either by itself obviously makes some people unhappy. It has been shown on the
Jesus article how both forms can be used in the one article quite successfully. Those who are fighting to have "their way" are the ones who are violating the Wikipedia spirit. We need to be accepting of the views, feelings and beliefs of every reader of Wikipedia (keeping in mind this is the English Wikipedia), which is why we can't ignore BCE/CE, and which is why we can't put aside BC/AD.
"There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing." --
Silversmith 01:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
From the Chicago Manual of Style [9]:
Which is pretty much how I feel about it. BCE/CE is the most neutral and most scholarly, let's just go with that. But it's not a big deal either way, unless we are hell-bent on making it one. -- Fastfission 01:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
As a non-Christian non-Jew non-Muslim, I'm not greatly bothered by "B.C.". I have always assumed, perhaps ignorantly, that "Jesus" and "Christ" were two names of the same person. In any case, I don't much care about the difference and the sense of "before Jesus" is clearly correct (give or take the calendrical error).
"A.D." however, is another matter. It is clearly P.O.V. to refer to any year as "the year of our lord" in full, scarcely less to write that in Latin, and I don't think the abbreviation loses all of that sense. — Ashley Y 01:52, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I don't want to sound glib (although I would like to lighten the mood a bit if possible)...both BC/AD and B/CE are POV, as are any other proposals. While "time" is not a human construct, "history" and its perception clearly are, and always will be. And a little more of my POV: Messiah comes from the Hebrew word "mashiach". Moshi's ach is Aharon. :-p Tomer TALK 02:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
This is obviously something that Slrubenstein feels very strongly about, and I would like to thank him for a cogent and thorough discussion of the issues. However, I don't think there is any way of escaping the fact that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are both POV. One reflecting millenia of Christian influence on western thought and life, and the other a reflection of the growing diversity of modern life and a not so subtle statement that it is wrong to impose Christian views on other cultures. Of course, even BCE/CE does not avoid the Christian heritage of the year one. [If people really wanted to avoid religious overtones, we'd probably switch to something more like the geologic calendar, where everything is measured in years before 1950 (a fairly arbitrary date). Of course, talking about living in annum -55 does feel a little awkward.] Though both BCE/CE and BC/AD strike me as POV, I am willing to concede that BCE/CE is probably a marginal improvement over BC/AD. But whatever its marginal virtue, it doesn't escape the fact that it is still far less common and less understood in the everyday world, the world for which Wikipedia is written. For me, I can't justify making Wikipedia less readable for a marginal improvment in POV. Maybe someday most people will understand BCE/CE and it will be a sensible switch, but in my opinion that is probably at least a generation of school children away. Sorry. Dragons flight 03:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I propose to remove from Wikipedia all instances of "etc." because it is in Latin and therefore conveys a matter of opinion about the relative superiority of Latin over English, which is an abhorrent violation of our NPOV policy. While we're at it, let's change all instances of "he or she" to "sie" because the use of the former embodies a value statement about the number of actual genders there are in humanity, which is again a gross violation of NPOV policy. Oh, strike that, my use of 'humanity' there is POV because animals are people too, and to exclude them from consideration is awfully POV. Oh, and aliens too. It is argued by some people (weasel words, I know) that aliens exist and are sentient. Maybe they only have one gender? This reinforces that we must remove "he" and "she" from articles. We have a NPOV policy specifically for situations like this. But seriously, if BC/AD comprises an NPOV violation, BCE/CE is just as much a violation of NPOV. It implies that the common era (which suggests modern development) began with the birth of Jesus, since that is where the Gregorian calendar supposedly begins. CE therefore says to people "this modern era of development started with the birth of Jesus". The calendar is a religious calendar inherently, and attempting to remove any reference to religion by simply renaming the notation for it is silly. The only way to remove any existing POV would be for Wikipedia to make up its own calendar. Anyway, the result of this poll probably won't be binding (it has no quorum provision). - Mark 03:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, you are a dishonest bastard. After I showed on Talk:Jesus that your argument had nothing to do with existing Wikipedia:neutral point of view policy, but rather deals only with your notions of what would be "culturally neutral language", you try to stack the deck in your favor by creating a page that claims in its title that this is a "neutral point of view" debate. Gene Nygaard 03:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't claim it is NPOV. I claim that neutral point of view is totally irrelevant to this argument. Gene Nygaard 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
(Creating a subsection to General Discussion which is obviously becoming lengthy)
Question for those who believe BC/AD is not POV: Would you feel the same if the acronymns appended to the year stood for a sanskrit abbreviation that meant "I offer my respectful obeisances unto Lord Krishna"? Would you argue that it's been commonly used for centuries and most people don't know what the acronymn really stands for anyway? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
A personal comment: I have no argument with people voting as they wish. But I am disappointed that — with the exception of some exceptionally thoughtful comments (as many or as more opposed as in favor) – the discussion centers on the very first paragraph of the proposal, and no one has yet to argue for or against any of the specific arguments and reasons detailed in the proposal. I think this is an embarrasment to the level of wiki-dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
A personal observation: Far too much, for my comfort at least, of the discussion happening here, especially in the voting sections, is all about people trying to prop up their own POVs, rather than dealing with the issue(s) at hand: namely, "does the usage of BC/AD constitute a violation of the set-in-stone-policy requiring NPOV?" While I would say that yes, it does, I also think that wiping BC/AD out of Wikipedia constitutes a violation of several other set-in-stone WP policies. Don't block me for saying this, but I'm on the verge of blanking out the voting sections entirely (in keeping with the fact that, after all, WP is not a democracy), as it seems people are going there to wage a war of numbers vs. commenting here to the comment section, or going to the talk page, and waging a far more important war of words and ideas, and getting involved in a more productive discussion about how to proceed. Tomer TALK 12:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think I need to clarify my position as represented by Slrubenstein above (search for my username in the page to find those instances). I hasten to add that I believe any misrepresentations he made were done in good faith.
First of all, I wish to make clear that it is only my sense of style, and not my belief system, that is offended by the BCE/CE nomenclature. I have tried to make clear that I consider BC/AD and BCE/CE equally NPOV, and from that premise argue against BCE/CE on stylistic grounds only. The bulk of my contribution to this debate has been to show how BC/AD can have a neutral meaning, which is a proposition with which Slrubenstein and others disagree.
Slrubenstein equates my statement "It's so widely used that it no longer identifies the religious POV of the author who uses it. Hence its usage is NPOV, even if its historical meaning is not." to the "it's popular" argument. I base my argument not on the number of people who have used it, but the diversity of people who have used it under interpretations that are clearly different from the POV meaning that Slrubenstein et al. assign as the exclusive meaning for those terms. I am confident that many non-Christians, including Jews, Muslims, and atheists, have both read and used the BC/AD terminology without concerns about misrepresenting their own beliefs. (Some of the opponents of this proposal include themselves in this group by their comments below.) This shows that BC/AD can be both used and interpreted in a neutral way. I do not believe that Slrubenstein has addressed this argument.
This does not discount the fact that some are offended by the BC/AD terminology, Slrubenstein being representative of such. The problem is that the fact that someone is offended by some particular term does not inherently make that using that term a violation of NPOV. If it were, Wikipedia could be shut down by people maliciously claiming to be offended at everything that was written. (I do not claim that those offended by BC/AD are malicious.) Clearly, though a person's taking offense may be indicative of POV, it is insufficient to establish it.
I am not satisfied with the attempts to explain the difference between BC/AD and Thursday. Quoting Slrubenstein's argument:
This argument conflicts with another statement of Slrubenstein's:
And it seems further to suffer from a fatal injection of POV from Slrubenstein himself: that BC/AD is POV because of the crimes committed in the name of Christianity against non-Christians. Not only does this ignore crimes committed in the other direction, but it also suggests that any symbol or term that originated in Christianity is tainted with POV that only becomes neutral when one can say "there aren't very many worshipers of Christ these days" and "if worshipers of Christ went around converting people to Christianity or killing them, it was a very very long time ago." The real distinction between BC/AD and Thursday is that Slrubenstein and others perceive Christianity to be a threat, and Thor-worship is not so perceived. But this is of course not an objective reason for rejecting one and accepting the other.
Finally, Slrubenstein's entire argument is based on one major presupposition: that "400 AD" represents a proposition—a statement with a truth value—and not just a date value. In other words, "400 AD" is equivalent in his interpretation as "400 CE and Jesus is Lord". While he is free to treat each occurrence of BC or AD as a proposition, he is not free to impose this way of thinking on everyone else. In the modern English vernacular, BC and AD are simply date markers, not logical propositions. This is the clearest way I can think of to state my argument that BC/AD are neutral terms in the English vernacular, and since that is the language of the English Wikipedia, BC/AD is NPOV.
I do sincerely thank Slrubenstein for his efforts spent in placing this debate in a more appropriate arena of discourse than the Talk:Jesus page. Alanyst 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think Gene Nygaard is correct: the question is, is this issue a matter of style, or of NPOV. If you truly believe it is of style and not NPOV, vote against my proposal. If you think it is about NPOV, please just read my proposal carefully and think about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The proposal I assume applies to articles written henceforth forward. Question: How does this apply to the use of historic materials? Must they be revised or disclaimed to be in compliance with Wiki's NPOV policy? Nobs 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
So by appeasing other cultures whom the majority are Christian and use bc/ad and probably could care less. You are now purposely making this a religious topic and in doing so pissing odd Christians which I am guessing most countries who use Wikipedia are from Christian faith. You are also pissing off people who grew up with the bc/ad usage who are not religious and see bce/ce being crow barred down our throats is so pointless and selfish on your parts. Do yourself a favor and stop making Wikipedia look so petty and agenda driven. I’m pretty sure BC/AD are still more widely used and no one has died from the usage. Why not appease everyone and use both together? CE 2021 AD
Why only BC/AD and BCE/CE? Let's take a reality check. This is a narrow focus for such an important matter. Bishop James Ussher calculated Anno Mundi that dates creation as 4004 years before the current calendrical era, using what both Jews and Christians acknowledge as scripture, and 2005AD/2005CE is actually 6009AM. (Ussher actually calculated that it was sunset on the 22nd October of that year.) Others say it was 3761 years before that we should add to the number of years, others again that it was 4000. Others again date the calendar from the creation of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, in 530BCE, so we could also use that. Another system goes back to the completion of the First Temple, said to be 1000BCE for a system called Anno Depositionis. See some of these discussed at Calendar era. In short, people, widen your narrow view and REALLY get a neutral POV. Am I stirring? Only a lot! Peter Ellis 14:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
(Starting another subsection for easy editing)
I agree AD has NPOV problems, so let's use it carefully. But I think BC is fine. BC, to me, means Before Common era. Can we keep the use of BC ? -- PFHLai 14:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I feel like the wording of some of the points in the proposal are comming on a bit strong. Saying things like "This argument must be dismissed out of hand" repeatedly does not necessarily make the argument false. There may be counter-arguments to your counter-arguments (counter-counter-arguments, so to speak) which the language written here seems to dismiss out of hand. Also, is it fair to have responces to objections to CE/BCE but not responces to your dismissal of the arguments for AD/BC? Fieari 22:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Using a non-Gregorian dating system is not feasible for Wikipedia, but there are these two date-marker conventions which are reasonable to adopt. Not everyone is familiar with the CE/BCE convention, but many people are, and Wikipedia is supposed to be an educational experience anyway, and hyperlinks can clear up any confusion.
One of these conventions (for people who know what the abbreviations expand to) makes reference to a particular religious figure; the other one doesn't. Clearly removing reference to the founder of Christianity is reducing the association of the dating system with Christianity. This is something of a "culture war" loss for Christians who want their religion to be as omni-present as possible. But we live in a multi-religious society, and it's unfair and offensive to some to leave explicitly religious language from a particular sect or tradition in community affairs.
Is changing language from potentially offensive to alternative forms an example of political correctness? Yes. But there are reasonable changes to demand (like saying "black" or "African-American" instead of "nigger") and there are unreasonable changes (like saying "vertically challenged" instead of "short"). For people who aren't offended by AD/BC, don't see the connection with Jesus, or generally just don't care -- well, that's fine. I'm not offended by people who use AD/BC because it's conventional, and I wouldn't label them all as culturally insensitive for doing so. I can see why they argue against the change because they don't want to put lots of work into something that they find pointless. But in this case, there are plenty of other people who are willing to implement the change and fix any future usage.
Simply in terms of awkwardness, I find the change to be an improvement, since it changes the expansion from an archaic, non-English phrase, into one which is more comprehensible and also more factually accurate. In terms of sectarian affairs...well,the first place I encountered the CE/BCE dating system was actually in religion class at the Catholic high school I attended. So at least some Christians see this as a reasonable accommodation in a multi-cultural and multi-sectarian world. After all, they get to keep their dating system and their claim to its historical roots.
At first, I did find the new system somewhat jarring, but I quickly got used to it. (I interpreted "Common Era" to mean "the era that we are all living in right now", not "the era that Jews and Christians share".) Now I read AD and CE dates for semantic meaning more or less transparently. But the "AD" definitely does have more of an 19th-century gravestone feel, where acknowledgment of Christianity is exactly what is intended.
Personally, I would rather see an encyclopedia-wide convention. I don't particularly see any reason to us AD/BC anywhere except in direct quotes. Even when the encyclopedia is talking about Jesus, it should be doing in a neutral and respectful fashion. We have enough mixed conventions as it is. -- Beland 22:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
When I was a small child, I used to spend a lot of time at my friend Tom Larson's house. His mother was real nice and it kind of became a habit for me to call her Mom. Now I'm grown up and I call her Mrs. Larson. Why? because she's not my mom, she's Tom's mom.
I call Jesus Jesus, Christians call him Christ the Lord. -- Tom_Larsons_Friend
Slrubenstien has lost the vote on the proposal that he called himself, but this hasn't stopped him from going out and beginning an edit war by making changes on BC to BCE and AD to CE despite the lack of consensus to do such a thing. He has gotten User:SouthernComfort and User:Sunray to work with him to enforce his non-policy. When User:Jguk called them on it, and reverted the changes they were making despite the lack of consensus to do so (and even going against the majority of the votes on the subject), they filed a requrest for arbitration against him. VIoletriga and I have been trying to revert their changes, but the three of them are in cahoots to enforce this non-policy even though they have clearly lost the vote. Rick K 22:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
To be consistent, advocates of CE/BCE to replace AD/BC must also reject the current words to label the days of the week in English. These reflect the onetime worship of the moon (Monday), the sun (Sunday), and worship of the various deities; Thor (Thursday), Wotan (Wednesday), Tiu (Tuesday), Saturn (Saturday), and Frige (Friday). So far as I know, none of the advocates of the switch to CE/BCE have any problem with the days of the week. Why not? The answer is that they have a problem with Christianity, but ignore other religious traditions whose relics pervade common speech. The critics of AD/BC are not consistent, and certainly not neutral. Esf456 ( talk) 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)esf456
Note: Use the main talk page or the formally proposed alternative options listing to discuss and vote for alternatives.
ANNOUNCEMENT: My primary purpose in presenting this proposal was not to take a poll, but to provoke discussion. Although there have been many comments (a few, especially among the “opposed” votes, quite thoughtful), I do not think there has really been much discussion, much dialogue. Many people state their views, without discussing them with people who have different views. One small example: although I and a few others have written comments and questions to people voting “no,” few if any of the people who oppose the proposal have asked questions of any of the sixty or so people who have voted “yes.” Moreover, it is a shame that most critics of the proposal direct their opposition to me, when so many other people support the proposal. Wikipedia is a community, a community needs to communicate, and the ideal form of communication is an open-minded discussion among people of opposing views.
I know that I am a polarizing figure for many people. Therefore, I will step out of this discussion for several days (Aside from maintenance chores). I hope that when I am gone, people on both sides of the issue will talk more to one another, asking questions and responding in ways that invite more discussion. Adios. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Well that is your own fault.
ANNOUNCEMENT: My primary purpose in presenting this proposal was not to take a poll, but to provoke discussion. Although there have been many comments (a few, especially among the “opposed” votes, quite thoughtful), I do not think there has really been much discussion, much dialogue. Many people state their views, without discussing them with people who have different views. One small example: although I and a few others have written comments and questions to people voting “no,” few if any of the people who oppose the proposal have asked questions of any of the sixty or so people who have voted “yes.” Moreover, it is a shame that most critics of the proposal direct their opposition to me, when so many other people support the proposal. Wikipedia is a community, a community needs to communicate, and the ideal form of communication is an open-minded discussion among people of opposing views.
I know that I am a polarizing figure for many people. Therefore, I will step out of this discussion for several days (Aside from maintenance chores). I hope that when I am gone, people on both sides of the issue will talk more to one another, asking questions and responding in ways that invite more discussion. Adios. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
When I use a day of the week (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.) in an article, am I exhibiting a pro-pagan POV, because the days of the week are named after pagan gods? When I refer to the month of July or August, am I exhibiting a pro-Roman POV, because these months are named after Roman leaders? No. The days of the week and the month names have been in such common usage for such a long time that their origin is not really relevant anymore. While most people know the origin of the words, seeing "Thursday" doesn't trigger thoughts about Thor, nor does seeing "August" make people think about Augustus. Similarly, seeing "B.C." doesn't trigger thoughts about Christ. They are all such accepted parts of a date that no-one thinks of anything but dates when they see them. On the other hand, when I see "B.C.E." somewhere, I personally find it jarring and find myself thinking about political correctness. Someone who is sufficiently distracted might hold that using BC/AD is NPOV and BCE/CE is POV, which is the exact opposite of what the policy proposal states at the start. I'm not saying that I hold this point of view (I believe that both date formats are NPOV), but I think that this point-of-view is missing from this argument.
Since I believe that both date formats are NPOV, I believe this is a style issue, not an NPOV issue. The MoS is in general fairly liberal about what is accepted, and I think this is a Good Thing. We should welcome contributions from anyone. What would have happened if, when I was first starting out on Wikipedia, I had written an article using British English spelling, and someone had changed it to American English spelling, and then when I changed it back and insisted that the article should use British English, I was denounced as a "POV vandal" and threatened with a block? I think I would have quit Wikipedia almost 3,000 edits ago. Similarly, I would not want to alienate anyone who wants to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, regardless of what date format they want to use.
In some cases, it may make more sense to use BCE/CE than BC/AD, just like in some articles it makes more sense to use British English spelling than American English spelling. Just like a certain POV may be exhibited in the choice of spelling used in certain articles such as War of 1812, a certain POV may be exhibited in the date format used in certain articles ( Jesus might be such an example). However, in most cases, the date format used is benign and we should be open to either. JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This proposal is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. The MOST important of which is what you said yourself: (and that is mentioned below): any Gregorian is going to express bias. Period. As I was reading this I was so incredibly amazed that you did not notice what you were saying. I love this statement, for example: Although the Gregorian calendar was created as a specifically Christian calendar, many non-Christians were forced to use it, and many more were encouraged to use it. The Gregorian calendar is now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." The EXACT same thing can be said about the terms BC/AD: Although the terms BC/AD were created as specifically Christian terminology, many non-Christians were forced to use them, and many more were encouraged to use them. The terms BC/AD are now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." Your entire argument in favour of the Gregorian Calendar is: everyone uses it, so it must be OK. That's a terrible argument. besides you're not really trying to argue in favour of the Gregorian Calendar, you're trying to defend the origin of the terms BCE/CE.
Additionally, that is not to say there isn't possibly a better system to choose! I can think of one right now, one that is far superior to your BCE/CE system, and one that we must adopt for all the reasons you have said against BC/AD apply also to the Gregorian Calendar. This system is entirely NPOV, which as you say, is non negotiable. Likewise, some of the flaws in BCE/CE (such as the claim that it is just BC/AD in another name, and that BCE/CE is still fundamentally POV). This system is shared by the global community (even if they don't know it). This is a calendar based on Geologic Epochs. This year is Holocene 11570, or for shorthand, just H11570. Additionally, there may be some error in the dating of the beginning of the Holocene Epoch, but as long as we establish a standard, an error of a few years is OK, as long as everyone is the same. Why is this system clearly better? Besides being NPOV, it also eliminates the need for 2 eras while dealing with the vast majority of human history. Previously with the outdated and POV Gregorian calendar, a large number of years relating to human history were in the NEGATIVES, this is horribly wrong. You cannot have negative time, so having negative years is foolish and confusing. While we are at calendar reform, we need to do this, because our current system of 12 months × X weeks × 7 days + .256363051 leap days is POV (based on roman and norse gods... your arguments apply to those to, and you can't just write off those as 'dead religions' because you said... the intent does not matter, so even though nobody is trying to support a nonexistent religion, we really are). This is the system we need to use, because it is NPOV and logical: 13 months of 4 weeks of 7 days + 1.256363051 leap days. This is much better: every month (named after the numbers, so we have month 0, month 1, etc...) has the exact same # of days (likewise, named after the numbers, day 0, day 1, etc...) and there are the exact same # of weeks in each month. Weeks, month, days they all evenly fit into the year except for the 1.256363051 leap days.
Obviously, I'm not seriously proposing this (unless of course people are crazy enough to support it... I know I am). What I'm saying is that there are relics of POV all over the dating system. Only with complete reform can you eliminate POV, and that reform cannot be instigated here. Wikipedia is a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. BCE/CE is nothing more than a pathetic little patch on a horrible illogical and difficult to use system. Lastly, I'm not point any fingers, but people that insist on being Politically Correct really tick me off :D -- Ctachme 01:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to have to vote against this proposal simply because I think it is too sweeping in its imposition of the POV that BCE/CE is less POV than BC/AD. I concur with previous statements that B/CE is POV. On the other hand, saying that the only NPOV system would be to use years Before Now (I believe I called this system BTY when I mentioned it on Talk:Jesus) is also POV, since it clearly indicates that the present is the only valid timeframe from which to view history. We could propose to use BJ, for "Before Jesus" (thought I'd better clarify that I wasn't talking about Slrubenstein's "sodomy" reference above...), vs. ABJ (oh my...), but I don't think inventing a new system just for Wikipedia is a very good way to go either. I'm afraid I see the years we use, no matter what letters we attach to them, as an expression of a POV, albeit a widespread POV and a generally accepted dating system (again, because of how widely spread this POV is). As has been pointed out by others, this system is deeply flawed, and the illogic of it was the basis for my arguments against its use specifically in the Jesus article (cf. Talk:Jesus. (To repeat my assertion there: it sounds ridiculous to say "Jesus was born as early as 6 BC." How can he be born before he was born? 6 years, in fact, before he was born?!) That is the only reason I have argued in favor of using B/CE in the Jesus article, eventhough I agree with Slrubenstein's POV that this is, in fact, 5765. Heavy-handedly saying Wikipedia is going to use only B/CE is in conflict with several WP policies, including NPOV. I'm not going to go through and list them, but I'm sure someone else will be happy to do so if my assertion is challenged. I don't think using BC/AD is POV, eventhough the terms themselves, when coined, clearly endorsed a POV. There is a not-so-subtle and very important difference. Incidentally, in the write-up, Anno Domini is consistently mistranslated as "in the year of our Lord". The correct translation is "in the Lord's year". There is a big difference. Clearly, saying "our Lord" is a very different thing from saying "the Lord". Incidentally, I just looked up "Anno domini" in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Ed....where it defines "Anno Domini" as "in the (given) year since the beginning of the Christian Era" (emphasis mine). Interestingly enough, the next entry is "anno mundi", which is defined as "in the (given) year since the supposed creation of the world" (again, the emphasis is mine...). Maybe I'm reading something into the text, but to me, the use of "supposed" would constitute a gross violation of NPOV! Maybe we should let Webster know... :-p Tomer TALK 02:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so maybe I do have something of a proposal, sketchy, at best...but ultimately, I think, more acceptable in its scope to most ppl who care about this discussion at all...please see this proposal's talk page. Tomer TALK 03:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
A personal note: I have no argument with people voting as they wish. But I am disappointed that — with the exception of a few very thoughtful comments (as many or more opposed as in favor) – the discussion centers on the very first paragraph of the proposal, and no one has yet to argue for or against any of the specific arguments and reasons detailed in the proposal. I think this is an embarrasment to the level of wiki-dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Since you're being personal, I will too - I read the whole thing, and the reasoning gets awfully tortured. A reference to the Belgian Congo is a transparent attempt to play the guilt card, and it's simply not ever going to influence my view on how to write English prose. I favor BC/AD mostly because my authorities do - historians of ancient Greece and Rome probably use specific "BC" dates more than anyone, and I can't find a single Greece/Rome book on my shelf that uses "BCE" rather than "BC" in its thicket of dates. When the OCD switches to BCE/CE, I will favor it then. We have so many more serious NPOV problems to work on that my main embarassment is that this borderline triviality is sucking up so much time and attention. Stan 13:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
In responce to a few of the points above. While quantity and popularity have nothing to do with neutrality, this isn't about a position... it's about language. Under Naming Conventions it is made clear that it is best to be readable, that is... "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I do not believe that when most people read AD 1600 that they are reading outright "In The Year Of Our Lord Sixteen Hundred" but rather that the two letters have become a "word" in and of themselves... much in the way that people will say "ATM Machine" or "Pin Number" even if this is -technically- redundant. The abbreviation has become a seperate word as far as grammar goes. When it comes to words, understanding is tantamount. As far as being Anti-Christian [3], it has nothing to do with the words "Before" "Common" and/or "Era". It has more to do with the fact that AD/BC are so common that when reading CE/BCE, the average reader will automatically replace the term CE/BCE into AD/BC in their own heads, and the process of translation emphasizes the differences between the two. CE/BCE isn't automatically translated into "A date that I recognize", but rather into AD/BC, and that leads the mind to question "Why the change" which leads directly to the point that "The person using CE/BCE doesn't want to mention Jesus even via the etymology of a word" which leads to "Mentioning Jesus must be a terrible thing" which is, in fact, anti-christian. Note that in this chain of thought, I say etymology of a word. When an abreviation is used enough, it becomes a WORD. The etymology of "Pumpernickle" is "Goblin Fart" but you probably don't think about goblins farting when you say the word... you mean the bread, not the breaking of wind. Likewise, to most people, AD 1600 refers to a year, not a form of worship. To deliberately avoid AD/BC, ironically, MAKES a word religiosly charged, whereas normally it is not. AD/BC is, under normal circumstances, automatically translated in most people's heads as "a year I recognize". Heck, remove the AD entirely... 1990 I recognize as "A year I lived through, and I can recall these facts about this year, and in the back of my mind I know that this is the gregorian dating system which, more formally, would be written as AD 1990, a year that I recognize". I can easily say that using CE/BCE does negate the Christian faith, because it calls to attention the religious aspect of the commonly accepted term, and then negates it as an active thing. Likewise, I can say that using the terms AD/BC does not negate the religious practises of any other faith, because unless attention is called to it, there is generally no religious connotation to the term. If you must stop to think about the religious aspect to AD/BC, it would be in the same respect as analyzing the origins of CE/BCE... namely that the numbering system is tied to the date of a significant person in Christian history. The dating system is due to Christian influences, and this can be recognized no matter which term you use. Fieari 21:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, SlR, for taking the time to outline this issue so comprehensively and clearly. El_C 22:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
There are so many phrases used in modern English that used to be related to religion but no longer are. "Oh my god!" does not imply a cry out to a monotheistic deity. Language evolves and, while I am fully aware of the meaning of AD, I do not think of any Christianity-related meaning when I see/use it. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
As a pagan-friendly agnostic, BC/AD does not bother me in the least. In fact, it should be maintained because to use BCE and CE IS POV, as it assumes that common usage is somehow wrong. Why can't we just make this part of the Preferences, like date formatting? Rick K 23:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, this is a fascinating debate. As a Christian (agendas are best unhidden), I'm comfortable with AD/BC, but I concede that they are very problematic in general discourse. (You say that 'Jesus is Lord' is not a fact but an opinion - I suppose one might pedantically say that even that is an opinion - but let's agree that 'Jesus is Lord' is a very contentious claim.) My problem is that although I do not want to defend AD/BC - as they are professions of faith - I don't really care for the alternatives. Common to whom? You suggests that the calendar is common in its usage- yes, but we are speaking of dates of the Common Era - to whom, and in what sense is the era common? My personal preference would be to speak of dates before and after the 'Christian calendar' - that avoids professions of faith - and keeps us to the facts - this is a Christian Calendar (as there are Chinese, Muslim and Jewish ones) – this calendar takes its reference from a Christian claim to the dating of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course many who use the calendar are not Christians - but then we speak of 'Arabic numerals' and ‘English language’, without worrying about how many of the users are Arabs or Anglo-Saxons. Of course this option is no use - unless Wikipedia adopts its own notation - and that's useless. Given that, I'd rather not force a choice between the two problematic alternatives - let each editor use their own (as with US and English spellings). Incidentally, I believe that is the policy of most academic publishers - I recently published with Continuum and they raised no objections to my choice of AD/BC.-- Doc Glasgow 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
To take the discussion of an ‘alternative system’ forward from my remarks above, ideally, I would favour 'BCC and CC' – ‘before’ and ‘after’ Christian calendar. That would be a factual description – not a profession of faith as AD/BC – which I think is the valid root of the objection. However, in reality I think this is a non-starter. It would leave Wikipedia with a system no-one outside the community would understand. However, the logic of your rejection of the 'popularity' argument would be that this shouldn't matter, even if AD and CE are the popular choices, if they are POV - then we must use something else, even if it is less popular. But, personally, I think the popularity argument must carry some weight.
I think, for many Christians, it is the wish to avoid the fact that it is a Christian calendar that is the difficulty - rather than a defence of AD/BC and their obvious 'profession of faith'. Removing the Christian references – and denying the fact that it is a Christian system, raises the (perhaps unjustified) suspicion that there is an anti-Christian, wishing to deny Christian cultural influence, rather than a ‘neutral’ agenda behind it. If I were to suggest that ‘Arabic numerals’ be renamed ‘common numerals’ on the basis that they were now common to various languages, and alphabets, I think my motives would come under suspicion.
Without a radical alternative, I think there is no NPOV usage here – and thus both should be permitted – no-one forced to use a system they are uncomfortable with. Whilst I do not object to CE BCE – I for one would not use it – and I do object to being compelled. The debate is very interesting – and it is a test of how ‘libertarian’ liberal culture should be. -- Doc Glasgow 12:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This thorough and lucid proposal has provoked me to some reflection. I tend to use CE/BCE when writing as an archaeologist/historian and AD/BC when writing as a journalist. I recognise that AD/BC has the echoes of Christian connotations but so does much of English language usage. What I had not appreciated before reading this proposal was that CE/BCE has Judaeo-Christian connotations. I remember learning that CE is variously interpreted as "Christian Era" and "Common Era". I had not thought about the POV inherent in "Common Era"; but there it is—implicitly elevating the divergence of Christianity from Judaism above the foundation of Islam or some other cusp that is significant to a social/cultural/religious group. I now see the AD/BC vs CE/BCE divide in the same light as British and American spellings. Some people prefer one; some the other. Neither is wrong nor more right. -- Theo (Talk) 23:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
As I noted on the talkpage for Jesus, Wikipedia does not exclude POVs, which is what you are seeking to do. NPOV specifically does not call for us to write in a "neutral" way. The policy even explicitly says that is not what we do. It calls for us to express all views. The view that 4 BC is, erm, 4 BC is widely held and that should be reflected. I agree that the view that that is not acceptable should also be reflected and it's my belief that 4 BC/BCE shows that. I think that the discussion is very much complicated by the fact that it's largely those offended who interpret the dating system as having to do with "our Lord" or "the Messiah". I'm among those who just sees them as just letters, whose significance is gone -- dead metaphors, if you will. I'm afraid I believe that this sort of argument that views that some find offensive must be excluded must be opposed strenuously because it so flatly contradicts NPOV policy. Grace Note 00:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This quote is from our NPOV policy. It explains why we can't make exclusions, why we have to cater to more than one POV. Our style guide does not say we should use one form over the other. The only way to be neutral is to use both, as using either by itself obviously makes some people unhappy. It has been shown on the
Jesus article how both forms can be used in the one article quite successfully. Those who are fighting to have "their way" are the ones who are violating the Wikipedia spirit. We need to be accepting of the views, feelings and beliefs of every reader of Wikipedia (keeping in mind this is the English Wikipedia), which is why we can't ignore BCE/CE, and which is why we can't put aside BC/AD.
"There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing." --
Silversmith 01:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
From the Chicago Manual of Style [9]:
Which is pretty much how I feel about it. BCE/CE is the most neutral and most scholarly, let's just go with that. But it's not a big deal either way, unless we are hell-bent on making it one. -- Fastfission 01:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
As a non-Christian non-Jew non-Muslim, I'm not greatly bothered by "B.C.". I have always assumed, perhaps ignorantly, that "Jesus" and "Christ" were two names of the same person. In any case, I don't much care about the difference and the sense of "before Jesus" is clearly correct (give or take the calendrical error).
"A.D." however, is another matter. It is clearly P.O.V. to refer to any year as "the year of our lord" in full, scarcely less to write that in Latin, and I don't think the abbreviation loses all of that sense. — Ashley Y 01:52, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I don't want to sound glib (although I would like to lighten the mood a bit if possible)...both BC/AD and B/CE are POV, as are any other proposals. While "time" is not a human construct, "history" and its perception clearly are, and always will be. And a little more of my POV: Messiah comes from the Hebrew word "mashiach". Moshi's ach is Aharon. :-p Tomer TALK 02:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
This is obviously something that Slrubenstein feels very strongly about, and I would like to thank him for a cogent and thorough discussion of the issues. However, I don't think there is any way of escaping the fact that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are both POV. One reflecting millenia of Christian influence on western thought and life, and the other a reflection of the growing diversity of modern life and a not so subtle statement that it is wrong to impose Christian views on other cultures. Of course, even BCE/CE does not avoid the Christian heritage of the year one. [If people really wanted to avoid religious overtones, we'd probably switch to something more like the geologic calendar, where everything is measured in years before 1950 (a fairly arbitrary date). Of course, talking about living in annum -55 does feel a little awkward.] Though both BCE/CE and BC/AD strike me as POV, I am willing to concede that BCE/CE is probably a marginal improvement over BC/AD. But whatever its marginal virtue, it doesn't escape the fact that it is still far less common and less understood in the everyday world, the world for which Wikipedia is written. For me, I can't justify making Wikipedia less readable for a marginal improvment in POV. Maybe someday most people will understand BCE/CE and it will be a sensible switch, but in my opinion that is probably at least a generation of school children away. Sorry. Dragons flight 03:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I propose to remove from Wikipedia all instances of "etc." because it is in Latin and therefore conveys a matter of opinion about the relative superiority of Latin over English, which is an abhorrent violation of our NPOV policy. While we're at it, let's change all instances of "he or she" to "sie" because the use of the former embodies a value statement about the number of actual genders there are in humanity, which is again a gross violation of NPOV policy. Oh, strike that, my use of 'humanity' there is POV because animals are people too, and to exclude them from consideration is awfully POV. Oh, and aliens too. It is argued by some people (weasel words, I know) that aliens exist and are sentient. Maybe they only have one gender? This reinforces that we must remove "he" and "she" from articles. We have a NPOV policy specifically for situations like this. But seriously, if BC/AD comprises an NPOV violation, BCE/CE is just as much a violation of NPOV. It implies that the common era (which suggests modern development) began with the birth of Jesus, since that is where the Gregorian calendar supposedly begins. CE therefore says to people "this modern era of development started with the birth of Jesus". The calendar is a religious calendar inherently, and attempting to remove any reference to religion by simply renaming the notation for it is silly. The only way to remove any existing POV would be for Wikipedia to make up its own calendar. Anyway, the result of this poll probably won't be binding (it has no quorum provision). - Mark 03:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, you are a dishonest bastard. After I showed on Talk:Jesus that your argument had nothing to do with existing Wikipedia:neutral point of view policy, but rather deals only with your notions of what would be "culturally neutral language", you try to stack the deck in your favor by creating a page that claims in its title that this is a "neutral point of view" debate. Gene Nygaard 03:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't claim it is NPOV. I claim that neutral point of view is totally irrelevant to this argument. Gene Nygaard 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
(Creating a subsection to General Discussion which is obviously becoming lengthy)
Question for those who believe BC/AD is not POV: Would you feel the same if the acronymns appended to the year stood for a sanskrit abbreviation that meant "I offer my respectful obeisances unto Lord Krishna"? Would you argue that it's been commonly used for centuries and most people don't know what the acronymn really stands for anyway? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
A personal comment: I have no argument with people voting as they wish. But I am disappointed that — with the exception of some exceptionally thoughtful comments (as many or as more opposed as in favor) – the discussion centers on the very first paragraph of the proposal, and no one has yet to argue for or against any of the specific arguments and reasons detailed in the proposal. I think this is an embarrasment to the level of wiki-dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
A personal observation: Far too much, for my comfort at least, of the discussion happening here, especially in the voting sections, is all about people trying to prop up their own POVs, rather than dealing with the issue(s) at hand: namely, "does the usage of BC/AD constitute a violation of the set-in-stone-policy requiring NPOV?" While I would say that yes, it does, I also think that wiping BC/AD out of Wikipedia constitutes a violation of several other set-in-stone WP policies. Don't block me for saying this, but I'm on the verge of blanking out the voting sections entirely (in keeping with the fact that, after all, WP is not a democracy), as it seems people are going there to wage a war of numbers vs. commenting here to the comment section, or going to the talk page, and waging a far more important war of words and ideas, and getting involved in a more productive discussion about how to proceed. Tomer TALK 12:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think I need to clarify my position as represented by Slrubenstein above (search for my username in the page to find those instances). I hasten to add that I believe any misrepresentations he made were done in good faith.
First of all, I wish to make clear that it is only my sense of style, and not my belief system, that is offended by the BCE/CE nomenclature. I have tried to make clear that I consider BC/AD and BCE/CE equally NPOV, and from that premise argue against BCE/CE on stylistic grounds only. The bulk of my contribution to this debate has been to show how BC/AD can have a neutral meaning, which is a proposition with which Slrubenstein and others disagree.
Slrubenstein equates my statement "It's so widely used that it no longer identifies the religious POV of the author who uses it. Hence its usage is NPOV, even if its historical meaning is not." to the "it's popular" argument. I base my argument not on the number of people who have used it, but the diversity of people who have used it under interpretations that are clearly different from the POV meaning that Slrubenstein et al. assign as the exclusive meaning for those terms. I am confident that many non-Christians, including Jews, Muslims, and atheists, have both read and used the BC/AD terminology without concerns about misrepresenting their own beliefs. (Some of the opponents of this proposal include themselves in this group by their comments below.) This shows that BC/AD can be both used and interpreted in a neutral way. I do not believe that Slrubenstein has addressed this argument.
This does not discount the fact that some are offended by the BC/AD terminology, Slrubenstein being representative of such. The problem is that the fact that someone is offended by some particular term does not inherently make that using that term a violation of NPOV. If it were, Wikipedia could be shut down by people maliciously claiming to be offended at everything that was written. (I do not claim that those offended by BC/AD are malicious.) Clearly, though a person's taking offense may be indicative of POV, it is insufficient to establish it.
I am not satisfied with the attempts to explain the difference between BC/AD and Thursday. Quoting Slrubenstein's argument:
This argument conflicts with another statement of Slrubenstein's:
And it seems further to suffer from a fatal injection of POV from Slrubenstein himself: that BC/AD is POV because of the crimes committed in the name of Christianity against non-Christians. Not only does this ignore crimes committed in the other direction, but it also suggests that any symbol or term that originated in Christianity is tainted with POV that only becomes neutral when one can say "there aren't very many worshipers of Christ these days" and "if worshipers of Christ went around converting people to Christianity or killing them, it was a very very long time ago." The real distinction between BC/AD and Thursday is that Slrubenstein and others perceive Christianity to be a threat, and Thor-worship is not so perceived. But this is of course not an objective reason for rejecting one and accepting the other.
Finally, Slrubenstein's entire argument is based on one major presupposition: that "400 AD" represents a proposition—a statement with a truth value—and not just a date value. In other words, "400 AD" is equivalent in his interpretation as "400 CE and Jesus is Lord". While he is free to treat each occurrence of BC or AD as a proposition, he is not free to impose this way of thinking on everyone else. In the modern English vernacular, BC and AD are simply date markers, not logical propositions. This is the clearest way I can think of to state my argument that BC/AD are neutral terms in the English vernacular, and since that is the language of the English Wikipedia, BC/AD is NPOV.
I do sincerely thank Slrubenstein for his efforts spent in placing this debate in a more appropriate arena of discourse than the Talk:Jesus page. Alanyst 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think Gene Nygaard is correct: the question is, is this issue a matter of style, or of NPOV. If you truly believe it is of style and not NPOV, vote against my proposal. If you think it is about NPOV, please just read my proposal carefully and think about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The proposal I assume applies to articles written henceforth forward. Question: How does this apply to the use of historic materials? Must they be revised or disclaimed to be in compliance with Wiki's NPOV policy? Nobs 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
So by appeasing other cultures whom the majority are Christian and use bc/ad and probably could care less. You are now purposely making this a religious topic and in doing so pissing odd Christians which I am guessing most countries who use Wikipedia are from Christian faith. You are also pissing off people who grew up with the bc/ad usage who are not religious and see bce/ce being crow barred down our throats is so pointless and selfish on your parts. Do yourself a favor and stop making Wikipedia look so petty and agenda driven. I’m pretty sure BC/AD are still more widely used and no one has died from the usage. Why not appease everyone and use both together? CE 2021 AD
Why only BC/AD and BCE/CE? Let's take a reality check. This is a narrow focus for such an important matter. Bishop James Ussher calculated Anno Mundi that dates creation as 4004 years before the current calendrical era, using what both Jews and Christians acknowledge as scripture, and 2005AD/2005CE is actually 6009AM. (Ussher actually calculated that it was sunset on the 22nd October of that year.) Others say it was 3761 years before that we should add to the number of years, others again that it was 4000. Others again date the calendar from the creation of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, in 530BCE, so we could also use that. Another system goes back to the completion of the First Temple, said to be 1000BCE for a system called Anno Depositionis. See some of these discussed at Calendar era. In short, people, widen your narrow view and REALLY get a neutral POV. Am I stirring? Only a lot! Peter Ellis 14:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
(Starting another subsection for easy editing)
I agree AD has NPOV problems, so let's use it carefully. But I think BC is fine. BC, to me, means Before Common era. Can we keep the use of BC ? -- PFHLai 14:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I feel like the wording of some of the points in the proposal are comming on a bit strong. Saying things like "This argument must be dismissed out of hand" repeatedly does not necessarily make the argument false. There may be counter-arguments to your counter-arguments (counter-counter-arguments, so to speak) which the language written here seems to dismiss out of hand. Also, is it fair to have responces to objections to CE/BCE but not responces to your dismissal of the arguments for AD/BC? Fieari 22:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Using a non-Gregorian dating system is not feasible for Wikipedia, but there are these two date-marker conventions which are reasonable to adopt. Not everyone is familiar with the CE/BCE convention, but many people are, and Wikipedia is supposed to be an educational experience anyway, and hyperlinks can clear up any confusion.
One of these conventions (for people who know what the abbreviations expand to) makes reference to a particular religious figure; the other one doesn't. Clearly removing reference to the founder of Christianity is reducing the association of the dating system with Christianity. This is something of a "culture war" loss for Christians who want their religion to be as omni-present as possible. But we live in a multi-religious society, and it's unfair and offensive to some to leave explicitly religious language from a particular sect or tradition in community affairs.
Is changing language from potentially offensive to alternative forms an example of political correctness? Yes. But there are reasonable changes to demand (like saying "black" or "African-American" instead of "nigger") and there are unreasonable changes (like saying "vertically challenged" instead of "short"). For people who aren't offended by AD/BC, don't see the connection with Jesus, or generally just don't care -- well, that's fine. I'm not offended by people who use AD/BC because it's conventional, and I wouldn't label them all as culturally insensitive for doing so. I can see why they argue against the change because they don't want to put lots of work into something that they find pointless. But in this case, there are plenty of other people who are willing to implement the change and fix any future usage.
Simply in terms of awkwardness, I find the change to be an improvement, since it changes the expansion from an archaic, non-English phrase, into one which is more comprehensible and also more factually accurate. In terms of sectarian affairs...well,the first place I encountered the CE/BCE dating system was actually in religion class at the Catholic high school I attended. So at least some Christians see this as a reasonable accommodation in a multi-cultural and multi-sectarian world. After all, they get to keep their dating system and their claim to its historical roots.
At first, I did find the new system somewhat jarring, but I quickly got used to it. (I interpreted "Common Era" to mean "the era that we are all living in right now", not "the era that Jews and Christians share".) Now I read AD and CE dates for semantic meaning more or less transparently. But the "AD" definitely does have more of an 19th-century gravestone feel, where acknowledgment of Christianity is exactly what is intended.
Personally, I would rather see an encyclopedia-wide convention. I don't particularly see any reason to us AD/BC anywhere except in direct quotes. Even when the encyclopedia is talking about Jesus, it should be doing in a neutral and respectful fashion. We have enough mixed conventions as it is. -- Beland 22:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
When I was a small child, I used to spend a lot of time at my friend Tom Larson's house. His mother was real nice and it kind of became a habit for me to call her Mom. Now I'm grown up and I call her Mrs. Larson. Why? because she's not my mom, she's Tom's mom.
I call Jesus Jesus, Christians call him Christ the Lord. -- Tom_Larsons_Friend
Slrubenstien has lost the vote on the proposal that he called himself, but this hasn't stopped him from going out and beginning an edit war by making changes on BC to BCE and AD to CE despite the lack of consensus to do such a thing. He has gotten User:SouthernComfort and User:Sunray to work with him to enforce his non-policy. When User:Jguk called them on it, and reverted the changes they were making despite the lack of consensus to do so (and even going against the majority of the votes on the subject), they filed a requrest for arbitration against him. VIoletriga and I have been trying to revert their changes, but the three of them are in cahoots to enforce this non-policy even though they have clearly lost the vote. Rick K 22:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
To be consistent, advocates of CE/BCE to replace AD/BC must also reject the current words to label the days of the week in English. These reflect the onetime worship of the moon (Monday), the sun (Sunday), and worship of the various deities; Thor (Thursday), Wotan (Wednesday), Tiu (Tuesday), Saturn (Saturday), and Frige (Friday). So far as I know, none of the advocates of the switch to CE/BCE have any problem with the days of the week. Why not? The answer is that they have a problem with Christianity, but ignore other religious traditions whose relics pervade common speech. The critics of AD/BC are not consistent, and certainly not neutral. Esf456 ( talk) 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)esf456