I noticed in the tutorial that dates are recommended to be placed in links: e.g., May 1, 1980 (my birthday). Why not place the era-signifier in a link too? i.e., March 15, 44 BC (the assassination of Julius Caesar). Just as the date and year can be styled according to user preferences, so too can the BC be converted to BCE dynamically, based on user preferences. Thus, registered users who are actually offended by BC/AD nomenclature can see their preferred style of naming eras across the board. The main reason for suggesting BC/AD as a default is that it already seems to be the dominant usage on Wikipedia (17113 matches for BC versus 2848 for BCE; but especially see titles such as 44 BC--now that I think of it, perhaps the link should instead be March 15, 44 BC). However, it is possible to combine this dynamic proposal with any other proposal on what should be default usage: for example, if CE is used in articles pertaining to Judaism, then CE could be converted to AD dynamically for those who have that setting, while those who have the opposite setting will see CE on all pages, including the Jesus article. This would not change occurences of BC/BCE/AD/CE that did not occur in a link, with either those letters alone in the link, or accompanied by just a number preceding the letters. Of course the guideline would remain that articles dealing entirely with the last two thousand years would not use either. (For disclosure, I am an atheist academic used to seeing CE/BCE in my reading and who usually writes CE/BCE. -- Peter Kirby 21:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
I have to disagree with the statement that the primary article on Jesus is (or ever should be) construed as being restricted to him as a religious figure; he is also a figure of interest to history & there are historicity sections of the article. There are already articles like Christian views of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life which ARE from a religious viewpoint. I seriously doubt wikipedia articles that do not qualify their viewpoint in the title should EVER be restricted to being from a religious viewpoint. It is on this issue that the proposed compromise will likely hang. Btw, there has been peace on this issue in the Jesus article for some time.-- JimWae 20:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC) Look at the Jesus article - it presently uses BOTH BC/AD & BCE/CE as a compromise. -- JimWae 01:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
It should be about Jesus, his role in Christianity being a major topic, but not exclusively. To do otherwise would violate NPOV -- JimWae 21:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC). I agree it could be acceptable to use BC/AD in Christian views of Jesus & such, but endorsing a preference for an abbreviation that means either that Jesus is Lord (AD) or Jesus is Saviour(BC) in an article about Jesus is either taking a position on his divinity or simply choosing to simply overlook grounded objections to its use - either way a violation of NPOV. Change the proposal to articles about Jesus from a religious perspective and I could agree. Unfortunately, as the proposal is worded, it also proposes to change every article on wikipedia that deals with Jesus or Christianity into a POV article. -- JimWae 23:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
It's only really the articles on Buddhism and some on Judaism that use BCE/CE notation. It's irrelevant for religions younger than 2,000 years old (such as Islam), and from what I've seen, most of the articles on other faiths quite happily sit with BC in them. The proposal should be amended to replace "non-Christian religions" with "Buddhism" and allow it on some Judaism-oriented articles. It would be perverse to force BCE/CE notation on Hinduism-related articles, for example, as BCE/CE notation is virtually unknown in India. The other problem with the proposal is that "consensus" is not defined. 195.40.200.141
It would be simple enough to side-step the whole debate. Instead of fighting over BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, we should use AUC as the time basis. Since it's based on a fairly arbitrary starting point, there'll be no fighting over implied endorsement or rejection of a Christian POV. -- Carnildo 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposal to eat babies. They are not very nutritive. siafu 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I support the compromise proposal for the reasons given on the project page. I'd also like to thank Kaldari for this work. Maurreen 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there are great intentions and some very good ideas behind this proposal but I have one major concern that leads me to be opposed to it.
Central to this proposal is regarding BC/AD and BCE/CE as being POV. From this follows the idea that articles should use the style whose POV best suits the subject of the article.
There's a serious problem here: the proposal suggests that it's OK to assign a particular POV to an article, which contravenes NPOV policy. More practically, it puts Wikipedia editors in the position of having to judge whether an article is about a religious topic or not, and which religious topics are more suited to BC/AD and which are more suited to BCE/CE. That's just asking for trouble.
How would I do it? Well, here's my proposed revision of the entire section on Eras from the Manual of Style. See what you think:
Under these guidelines, I believe that we can avoid a lot of the endless POV warring. In particular, the question of a style's suitability for a certain article becomes a matter of looking at the external literature and at general usage, instead of trying to define what POV best fits the article. The guidelines also allow for hybrid approaches where necessary, so in cases like Jesus a compromise can be reached that is still deemed acceptable under Wikipedia's standards.
Alanyst 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am opposed to the entire "reader-friendly" argument. Anyone who reads an encyclopedia expects to learn new things. To learn that scholars often use BCE and CE is not "unfriendly," it is useful information. I think many people are turning a mole-hill into a mountain, as if using BCE and CE will cause emotional distress to readers and turn many away. On the contrary, some readers will just learn that scholars use a different dating system. I think it makes sense to use BC and Ad when providing an account of a Christian POV. When providing accounts of a Jewish or other non-Christian POV, use BCE and CE. In all other areas, see if there is a general trend among scholars. If so, follow it; if not, discuss it among the contributors to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User-friendliness is fundamentally important. If you adopt a style a reader does not like, that reader goes away and reads about the subject on another website or another publication that has a style he likes. Why after all do I choose to read The Times rather than The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or The Independent? They all have the same news. The answer comes down purely to style. "Thinking of the reader" is the most important principle of all - we should stick to it firmly. (Incidentally, to those who say accuracy is more important - I disagree, but note that readers of an encyclopaedia demand accuracy, and that is what makes it important.)
Readers do expect to learn something, but as Alanyst is getting at, they expect to learn something about the subject they are looking up - not something completely and utterly different. If I look up an article on Ramesses II, say, I want to learn something new about him - but I don't want to be confused by new date notations and to learn about them (If I want that, I'll search under "dates" or "date formats" or "eras" or something of that ilk).
We should also remember that WP is an international encyclopaedia. Our audience is the world, not US academia. We should therefore ask ourselves not "what do US scholars use?" but rather "what does the world use?". Here, the position is clear - the world uses BC/AD. Looking round the world, BCE/CE is virtually unknown in India. I have only ever seen it in the UK when looking at the occasional American book (though most of those use BC/AD anyway). In Australia, when BCE/CE notation was introduced in one exam paper, there were questions in Parliament complaining about it as there was a backlash against introduction of the notation. There was a similar backlash (although it did not, as far as I am aware reach Parliament) when the teaching of what BCE/CE notation meant was introduced into the English and Welsh national curriculum in 2002. The message is clear - BCE/CE notation is rarely known outside North America, and indeed there has been much offence taken when there have been attempts to introduce it. The message is clear: for WP the only user-friendly notation is BC/AD.
We should also bear in mind that BCE/CE notation is "politically correct" (and anything that is "politically correct" is viewed, certainly hear in Britain, with a great deal of suspicion - it announces immediately that the author has a political agenda, rather than a desire to impart facts). It's whole introduction in the US follows the "politically correct" style: (1) pick an innocuous phrase used by everyone without complaint; (2) decide some people might be offended by it (generally-speaking, without even bothering to check who is really offended by it anyway); (3) propose an alternative (forgetting that in so doing you are probably offending a great great many people more than are offended by the original terminology in the first place); (4) get at anyone who disagrees with you, forcefully and unrelentingly. Thankfully we in the UK have been spared the worst excesses of this vile movement that seeks to eliminate free speech and the right to hold an alternative opinion. Let's hope we can keep WP free from it too - WP will alienate so so many people if it ever does start introducing politically correct terms.
Going back to Alanyst's proposal - it is indeed a great improvement on Kaldari's. In the first bullet point the phrase "of the Common Era" should be replaced with "of the last 2,000 years" as it would be confusing otherwise (it presupposes people know what "Common Era" means in this context and I do not believe it is true - I for one would not have recognised its meaning in these terms before this WP debate). I don't understand the second bullet point. On the third bullet point the bit in brackets is tautologous. Jguk.
jon, since you're editing again, why not just login? Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we "flip a coin," pick one and move on. As the BC-AD usage is more common let that be the default. However, if the editor of any article wishes to switch, after raising the question on the talk page and receiving no objection from any regular editor of the article, they should be able to so. Once switched, it could not be switched back. Fred Bauder 20:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Fred Bauder (20:33, Jun 23, 2005 ), with the addition of the words " for at least 2 months" to the end of the final sentence. Can we vote on it? ~~~~ 22:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This has been proposed twice, once in either direction, and neither managed to achieve consensus. As I've stated before, it would be my preference to have a final decision, but it's become rather obvious that there is no consensus to be made, at least not at present. The status quo is also clearly not functional, as there are clearly parties who are willing to push forward their preferred notation without subjecting themselves to discussion or consensus; this is the real problem. Both Kaldari's and Alanyst's proposals are aimed at resolving that, and it's clear that we need such a clear guideline to elucidate the need for consensus on a case by case basis and to at least attempt to delineate which notation is preferred where. I do not believe Fred Bauder's proposition can be successful in any productive way, and I do believe that one of the two above compromises would be more successful. siafu 23:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what I support is
~~~~ 13:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD
This phrase must be re-written. The borders of what constitutes "non-Christian" are very vague, e.g. is Judaism non-Christian before 0AD ? What about the bible? or the Old Testament? What about background information about what was going on in the first century AD? ~~~~ 13:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I dispute Jayjg's premise - however, the whole point is irrelevant for Islam as it did not start till the 6th century. There's never any need to disambiguate a year: we need no date marker, jguk 28 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)
Jayjg, could you provide an example of where this would present a problem. The only article that comes to mind is Isa, but it seems that this article doesn't use era designations anyway. Still, it's an interesting delimma, hypothetically. Any suggestions? Kaldari 28 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)
I'd like to make the following proposal for comment. It clearly isn't a final answer to the whole issue, but is intended to be part thereof:
jguk 28 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
I've read all of the feedback offered so far, and I still think the compromise is a good solution. BC/AD proponents get to use BC/AD on the Jesus article (to match all the other articles about Jesus), and BCE/CE proponents get to use BCE/CE on all the articles about Hinduism and Jainism (to match the articles on Buddhism, Judaism, etc.). At least this way we are slightly more consistent and hopefully avoid a few edit wars. Shall we put it to a vote to see if there is consensus? Kaldari 28 June 2005 21:53 (UTC)
You're still not addressing the point. First, this is not a full solution - it only relates to articles on religious issues. Second, it is not a compromise - it is saying that we should go into all the Hinduism articles (which overwhelmingly use BC/AD - hardly surprising as India does not in practice use BCE/CE notation) and force through a change so that they comply with what some US academics want. That's not a reasonable move, jguk 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)
Here are a few options to consider. Please suggest others if you like.
Maybe the poll should run for a week, and maybe voting should be limited to discourage sockpuppetry. Maurreen 29 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)
The problems with the earlier proposals are as follows:
I think any compromise has to bear these points in mind. The best option would clearly be to think of our readers and use the most common and least offensive notation throughout - which would leave us using BC/AD notation everywhere. But unfortunately that option (which is the option WP chooses for every other instance where there is a clearly dominant form or usage in real life) is not going to gain universal support. As those who are most vociferous in the campaign to force BCE/CE notation onto WP are most concerned with Buddhism-related or Judaism-related articles, let's concede that those (but not Judaeo-Christian-related articles) will use BCE/CE notation. That will be a shame as it will alienate non-Buddhists and non-Jews who will be less inclined to read the articles as a result - but it appears some concession is necessary. In return, let's accept that BC/AD notation should be used elsewhere - but, in deference to those who do not like the usage, limit that usage to the level that is strictly necessary to introduce context. Let's likewise limit usage of BCE/CE on Buddhism- and Judaism- related articles to that strictly needed to introduce context.
In full this proposal is as follows:
jguk 29 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
Jguk, your proposal is less of a compromise because it codifies BC/AD for the vast majority of articles. The other proposals above seem to more equal in splitting any codification. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
I agree with Maurreen. This is no compromise. CDThieme 30 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)
Well, jguk's proposal is a compromise of sorts, but not one that is really helpful. It seems that there previous proposals have all agreed on at least one point, that being that the preferred way of deciding which era name to use is through discussion and consensus. Rather than try to resolve broad guidelines, (and honestly, this is what, the sixth proposal put forward to try and do that?) it may be better to simply codify/reaffirm this central point and indicate that this issue should be decided on an article-by-article or possibly subject-by-subject basis. siafu 30 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)
Yes, you might be right. That's why I copied the proposal below. Does anyone object? Maurreen 1 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
I think one of the cruxes of this debate is what you define as "the relevant literature". Jguk, you claim that use of BC/AD is "overwhelming" and "by far the dominant usage". However, it is important in this case to note where BCE/CE is commonly used, which is within academic literature (which tends to be more heavily weighted by Wikipedia editors):
"The [BCE/CE] system is gaining popularity among most historians..." - from a NASA Newsletter
"Some historical and theological academic works do use the CE/BCE designations, although publications on non-religious issues tend not to bother. It is expected that the use of the two new terms will increase in the future..." - BBC
Although I don't know any percentages, it seems like a significant number of academic journals suggest or require the use of BCE/CE [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
The Smithsonian Institute uses BCE/CE and so does Encyclopedia Britannica (which also uses BC/AD).
If you primarily consider academic sources, the use of BCE/CE is not uncommon.
If, however, you are searching Google, you will see a heavy preference for BC/AD by a ratio of 6 to 1 over BCE/CE.
So not only is this debate about POV, but also about what types of sources are relavent to Wikipedia (which may depend on the topic). Further research on usage would be useful (as opposed to blanket statements without any evidence). I'm especially interested in the difference in usage between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kaldari 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)
I believe this was proposed by violet/riga.
Favouring one style of era name over another is controversial. It is recommended, but not required, that editors not replace the currently used style of era name with another until the change has been proposed on the article's talk page and a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to make the change has been achieved. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)
After reviewing the discussion of this proposal, it seems that a large number of people support parts of it, but not the whole thing. Taking this into consideration, I have decided to break the proposal up into separate pieces for voting. Since this makes the voting more complex than I was anticipating, I will not be including other proposals as part of the voting. Other editors, however, are welcome to hold their own votes on different era proposals. I only ask that they not be held until after August 1 in order to minimize confusion. If you would like to vote on the compromise proposal, please visit the voting page. Discussion of the proposal should still be held here rather than on the voting page. Kaldari 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I assume the absence of this section in the proposal:
"In articles about prehistory, if you use BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them."
doesn't mean that it is going to be removed... - Omegatron 21:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The project page states: For the record, Encyclopedia Britannica uses BC/AD for articles related to Jesus, such as Christianity.
I saw a notice that there is currently a vote on a proposal to change the style manual, but it is not clear to me (1) what the proposal is and (2) where the vote is. Can someone explain, please? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, SR
How's this for a compromise... to get rid of the bickering once and for all, rather than using 'AD' and 'CE' all over the pedia, we should simply not use either of them. Simply refer to a year as 1980 and everyone will understand which year that is. This does not solve the issue of 'BC' or 'BCE' years but that doesn't come up all that often in the first place. R adiant _>|< 14:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the calendar system used in an article be that most relevant to the article's topic, with links to a standard (a la as used for measurements) or to a conversion tool (a la as done for ISBNs and map coordinates).
For example, purely Christian articles would use BC/AD, purely Jewish articles would use Mosaic dates, purely Islamic articles would use Mohammedan dates, etc. Then either:
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed in the tutorial that dates are recommended to be placed in links: e.g., May 1, 1980 (my birthday). Why not place the era-signifier in a link too? i.e., March 15, 44 BC (the assassination of Julius Caesar). Just as the date and year can be styled according to user preferences, so too can the BC be converted to BCE dynamically, based on user preferences. Thus, registered users who are actually offended by BC/AD nomenclature can see their preferred style of naming eras across the board. The main reason for suggesting BC/AD as a default is that it already seems to be the dominant usage on Wikipedia (17113 matches for BC versus 2848 for BCE; but especially see titles such as 44 BC--now that I think of it, perhaps the link should instead be March 15, 44 BC). However, it is possible to combine this dynamic proposal with any other proposal on what should be default usage: for example, if CE is used in articles pertaining to Judaism, then CE could be converted to AD dynamically for those who have that setting, while those who have the opposite setting will see CE on all pages, including the Jesus article. This would not change occurences of BC/BCE/AD/CE that did not occur in a link, with either those letters alone in the link, or accompanied by just a number preceding the letters. Of course the guideline would remain that articles dealing entirely with the last two thousand years would not use either. (For disclosure, I am an atheist academic used to seeing CE/BCE in my reading and who usually writes CE/BCE. -- Peter Kirby 21:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
I have to disagree with the statement that the primary article on Jesus is (or ever should be) construed as being restricted to him as a religious figure; he is also a figure of interest to history & there are historicity sections of the article. There are already articles like Christian views of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life which ARE from a religious viewpoint. I seriously doubt wikipedia articles that do not qualify their viewpoint in the title should EVER be restricted to being from a religious viewpoint. It is on this issue that the proposed compromise will likely hang. Btw, there has been peace on this issue in the Jesus article for some time.-- JimWae 20:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC) Look at the Jesus article - it presently uses BOTH BC/AD & BCE/CE as a compromise. -- JimWae 01:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
It should be about Jesus, his role in Christianity being a major topic, but not exclusively. To do otherwise would violate NPOV -- JimWae 21:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC). I agree it could be acceptable to use BC/AD in Christian views of Jesus & such, but endorsing a preference for an abbreviation that means either that Jesus is Lord (AD) or Jesus is Saviour(BC) in an article about Jesus is either taking a position on his divinity or simply choosing to simply overlook grounded objections to its use - either way a violation of NPOV. Change the proposal to articles about Jesus from a religious perspective and I could agree. Unfortunately, as the proposal is worded, it also proposes to change every article on wikipedia that deals with Jesus or Christianity into a POV article. -- JimWae 23:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
It's only really the articles on Buddhism and some on Judaism that use BCE/CE notation. It's irrelevant for religions younger than 2,000 years old (such as Islam), and from what I've seen, most of the articles on other faiths quite happily sit with BC in them. The proposal should be amended to replace "non-Christian religions" with "Buddhism" and allow it on some Judaism-oriented articles. It would be perverse to force BCE/CE notation on Hinduism-related articles, for example, as BCE/CE notation is virtually unknown in India. The other problem with the proposal is that "consensus" is not defined. 195.40.200.141
It would be simple enough to side-step the whole debate. Instead of fighting over BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, we should use AUC as the time basis. Since it's based on a fairly arbitrary starting point, there'll be no fighting over implied endorsement or rejection of a Christian POV. -- Carnildo 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposal to eat babies. They are not very nutritive. siafu 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I support the compromise proposal for the reasons given on the project page. I'd also like to thank Kaldari for this work. Maurreen 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there are great intentions and some very good ideas behind this proposal but I have one major concern that leads me to be opposed to it.
Central to this proposal is regarding BC/AD and BCE/CE as being POV. From this follows the idea that articles should use the style whose POV best suits the subject of the article.
There's a serious problem here: the proposal suggests that it's OK to assign a particular POV to an article, which contravenes NPOV policy. More practically, it puts Wikipedia editors in the position of having to judge whether an article is about a religious topic or not, and which religious topics are more suited to BC/AD and which are more suited to BCE/CE. That's just asking for trouble.
How would I do it? Well, here's my proposed revision of the entire section on Eras from the Manual of Style. See what you think:
Under these guidelines, I believe that we can avoid a lot of the endless POV warring. In particular, the question of a style's suitability for a certain article becomes a matter of looking at the external literature and at general usage, instead of trying to define what POV best fits the article. The guidelines also allow for hybrid approaches where necessary, so in cases like Jesus a compromise can be reached that is still deemed acceptable under Wikipedia's standards.
Alanyst 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am opposed to the entire "reader-friendly" argument. Anyone who reads an encyclopedia expects to learn new things. To learn that scholars often use BCE and CE is not "unfriendly," it is useful information. I think many people are turning a mole-hill into a mountain, as if using BCE and CE will cause emotional distress to readers and turn many away. On the contrary, some readers will just learn that scholars use a different dating system. I think it makes sense to use BC and Ad when providing an account of a Christian POV. When providing accounts of a Jewish or other non-Christian POV, use BCE and CE. In all other areas, see if there is a general trend among scholars. If so, follow it; if not, discuss it among the contributors to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User-friendliness is fundamentally important. If you adopt a style a reader does not like, that reader goes away and reads about the subject on another website or another publication that has a style he likes. Why after all do I choose to read The Times rather than The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or The Independent? They all have the same news. The answer comes down purely to style. "Thinking of the reader" is the most important principle of all - we should stick to it firmly. (Incidentally, to those who say accuracy is more important - I disagree, but note that readers of an encyclopaedia demand accuracy, and that is what makes it important.)
Readers do expect to learn something, but as Alanyst is getting at, they expect to learn something about the subject they are looking up - not something completely and utterly different. If I look up an article on Ramesses II, say, I want to learn something new about him - but I don't want to be confused by new date notations and to learn about them (If I want that, I'll search under "dates" or "date formats" or "eras" or something of that ilk).
We should also remember that WP is an international encyclopaedia. Our audience is the world, not US academia. We should therefore ask ourselves not "what do US scholars use?" but rather "what does the world use?". Here, the position is clear - the world uses BC/AD. Looking round the world, BCE/CE is virtually unknown in India. I have only ever seen it in the UK when looking at the occasional American book (though most of those use BC/AD anyway). In Australia, when BCE/CE notation was introduced in one exam paper, there were questions in Parliament complaining about it as there was a backlash against introduction of the notation. There was a similar backlash (although it did not, as far as I am aware reach Parliament) when the teaching of what BCE/CE notation meant was introduced into the English and Welsh national curriculum in 2002. The message is clear - BCE/CE notation is rarely known outside North America, and indeed there has been much offence taken when there have been attempts to introduce it. The message is clear: for WP the only user-friendly notation is BC/AD.
We should also bear in mind that BCE/CE notation is "politically correct" (and anything that is "politically correct" is viewed, certainly hear in Britain, with a great deal of suspicion - it announces immediately that the author has a political agenda, rather than a desire to impart facts). It's whole introduction in the US follows the "politically correct" style: (1) pick an innocuous phrase used by everyone without complaint; (2) decide some people might be offended by it (generally-speaking, without even bothering to check who is really offended by it anyway); (3) propose an alternative (forgetting that in so doing you are probably offending a great great many people more than are offended by the original terminology in the first place); (4) get at anyone who disagrees with you, forcefully and unrelentingly. Thankfully we in the UK have been spared the worst excesses of this vile movement that seeks to eliminate free speech and the right to hold an alternative opinion. Let's hope we can keep WP free from it too - WP will alienate so so many people if it ever does start introducing politically correct terms.
Going back to Alanyst's proposal - it is indeed a great improvement on Kaldari's. In the first bullet point the phrase "of the Common Era" should be replaced with "of the last 2,000 years" as it would be confusing otherwise (it presupposes people know what "Common Era" means in this context and I do not believe it is true - I for one would not have recognised its meaning in these terms before this WP debate). I don't understand the second bullet point. On the third bullet point the bit in brackets is tautologous. Jguk.
jon, since you're editing again, why not just login? Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we "flip a coin," pick one and move on. As the BC-AD usage is more common let that be the default. However, if the editor of any article wishes to switch, after raising the question on the talk page and receiving no objection from any regular editor of the article, they should be able to so. Once switched, it could not be switched back. Fred Bauder 20:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Fred Bauder (20:33, Jun 23, 2005 ), with the addition of the words " for at least 2 months" to the end of the final sentence. Can we vote on it? ~~~~ 22:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This has been proposed twice, once in either direction, and neither managed to achieve consensus. As I've stated before, it would be my preference to have a final decision, but it's become rather obvious that there is no consensus to be made, at least not at present. The status quo is also clearly not functional, as there are clearly parties who are willing to push forward their preferred notation without subjecting themselves to discussion or consensus; this is the real problem. Both Kaldari's and Alanyst's proposals are aimed at resolving that, and it's clear that we need such a clear guideline to elucidate the need for consensus on a case by case basis and to at least attempt to delineate which notation is preferred where. I do not believe Fred Bauder's proposition can be successful in any productive way, and I do believe that one of the two above compromises would be more successful. siafu 23:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what I support is
~~~~ 13:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD
This phrase must be re-written. The borders of what constitutes "non-Christian" are very vague, e.g. is Judaism non-Christian before 0AD ? What about the bible? or the Old Testament? What about background information about what was going on in the first century AD? ~~~~ 13:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I dispute Jayjg's premise - however, the whole point is irrelevant for Islam as it did not start till the 6th century. There's never any need to disambiguate a year: we need no date marker, jguk 28 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)
Jayjg, could you provide an example of where this would present a problem. The only article that comes to mind is Isa, but it seems that this article doesn't use era designations anyway. Still, it's an interesting delimma, hypothetically. Any suggestions? Kaldari 28 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)
I'd like to make the following proposal for comment. It clearly isn't a final answer to the whole issue, but is intended to be part thereof:
jguk 28 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
I've read all of the feedback offered so far, and I still think the compromise is a good solution. BC/AD proponents get to use BC/AD on the Jesus article (to match all the other articles about Jesus), and BCE/CE proponents get to use BCE/CE on all the articles about Hinduism and Jainism (to match the articles on Buddhism, Judaism, etc.). At least this way we are slightly more consistent and hopefully avoid a few edit wars. Shall we put it to a vote to see if there is consensus? Kaldari 28 June 2005 21:53 (UTC)
You're still not addressing the point. First, this is not a full solution - it only relates to articles on religious issues. Second, it is not a compromise - it is saying that we should go into all the Hinduism articles (which overwhelmingly use BC/AD - hardly surprising as India does not in practice use BCE/CE notation) and force through a change so that they comply with what some US academics want. That's not a reasonable move, jguk 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)
Here are a few options to consider. Please suggest others if you like.
Maybe the poll should run for a week, and maybe voting should be limited to discourage sockpuppetry. Maurreen 29 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)
The problems with the earlier proposals are as follows:
I think any compromise has to bear these points in mind. The best option would clearly be to think of our readers and use the most common and least offensive notation throughout - which would leave us using BC/AD notation everywhere. But unfortunately that option (which is the option WP chooses for every other instance where there is a clearly dominant form or usage in real life) is not going to gain universal support. As those who are most vociferous in the campaign to force BCE/CE notation onto WP are most concerned with Buddhism-related or Judaism-related articles, let's concede that those (but not Judaeo-Christian-related articles) will use BCE/CE notation. That will be a shame as it will alienate non-Buddhists and non-Jews who will be less inclined to read the articles as a result - but it appears some concession is necessary. In return, let's accept that BC/AD notation should be used elsewhere - but, in deference to those who do not like the usage, limit that usage to the level that is strictly necessary to introduce context. Let's likewise limit usage of BCE/CE on Buddhism- and Judaism- related articles to that strictly needed to introduce context.
In full this proposal is as follows:
jguk 29 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
Jguk, your proposal is less of a compromise because it codifies BC/AD for the vast majority of articles. The other proposals above seem to more equal in splitting any codification. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
I agree with Maurreen. This is no compromise. CDThieme 30 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)
Well, jguk's proposal is a compromise of sorts, but not one that is really helpful. It seems that there previous proposals have all agreed on at least one point, that being that the preferred way of deciding which era name to use is through discussion and consensus. Rather than try to resolve broad guidelines, (and honestly, this is what, the sixth proposal put forward to try and do that?) it may be better to simply codify/reaffirm this central point and indicate that this issue should be decided on an article-by-article or possibly subject-by-subject basis. siafu 30 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)
Yes, you might be right. That's why I copied the proposal below. Does anyone object? Maurreen 1 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
I think one of the cruxes of this debate is what you define as "the relevant literature". Jguk, you claim that use of BC/AD is "overwhelming" and "by far the dominant usage". However, it is important in this case to note where BCE/CE is commonly used, which is within academic literature (which tends to be more heavily weighted by Wikipedia editors):
"The [BCE/CE] system is gaining popularity among most historians..." - from a NASA Newsletter
"Some historical and theological academic works do use the CE/BCE designations, although publications on non-religious issues tend not to bother. It is expected that the use of the two new terms will increase in the future..." - BBC
Although I don't know any percentages, it seems like a significant number of academic journals suggest or require the use of BCE/CE [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
The Smithsonian Institute uses BCE/CE and so does Encyclopedia Britannica (which also uses BC/AD).
If you primarily consider academic sources, the use of BCE/CE is not uncommon.
If, however, you are searching Google, you will see a heavy preference for BC/AD by a ratio of 6 to 1 over BCE/CE.
So not only is this debate about POV, but also about what types of sources are relavent to Wikipedia (which may depend on the topic). Further research on usage would be useful (as opposed to blanket statements without any evidence). I'm especially interested in the difference in usage between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kaldari 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)
I believe this was proposed by violet/riga.
Favouring one style of era name over another is controversial. It is recommended, but not required, that editors not replace the currently used style of era name with another until the change has been proposed on the article's talk page and a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to make the change has been achieved. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)
After reviewing the discussion of this proposal, it seems that a large number of people support parts of it, but not the whole thing. Taking this into consideration, I have decided to break the proposal up into separate pieces for voting. Since this makes the voting more complex than I was anticipating, I will not be including other proposals as part of the voting. Other editors, however, are welcome to hold their own votes on different era proposals. I only ask that they not be held until after August 1 in order to minimize confusion. If you would like to vote on the compromise proposal, please visit the voting page. Discussion of the proposal should still be held here rather than on the voting page. Kaldari 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I assume the absence of this section in the proposal:
"In articles about prehistory, if you use BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them."
doesn't mean that it is going to be removed... - Omegatron 21:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The project page states: For the record, Encyclopedia Britannica uses BC/AD for articles related to Jesus, such as Christianity.
I saw a notice that there is currently a vote on a proposal to change the style manual, but it is not clear to me (1) what the proposal is and (2) where the vote is. Can someone explain, please? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, SR
How's this for a compromise... to get rid of the bickering once and for all, rather than using 'AD' and 'CE' all over the pedia, we should simply not use either of them. Simply refer to a year as 1980 and everyone will understand which year that is. This does not solve the issue of 'BC' or 'BCE' years but that doesn't come up all that often in the first place. R adiant _>|< 14:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the calendar system used in an article be that most relevant to the article's topic, with links to a standard (a la as used for measurements) or to a conversion tool (a la as done for ISBNs and map coordinates).
For example, purely Christian articles would use BC/AD, purely Jewish articles would use Mosaic dates, purely Islamic articles would use Mohammedan dates, etc. Then either:
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)