Wikipedia talk:Eras

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras - Archive1

Why was discussion deleted

Why in the world is this all of a sudden Jguk talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras?

In the editorial comment moving everyone else's discussion to Archive1, Jguk said "archiving on a point of agreement - in hope that this can be the start of reconciliation"

I have no idea what agreement he is talking about.

The most significant portion thrown in out in the archives was the discussion of the wording, which is proposed on the project page to which this talk page is attached. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras - Archive1#Wording discussion. Gene Nygaard 02:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'm bringing the discussion back. This kind of high-handed action is the crux of the problem we have been dealing with. I will avoid getting Ad Hominem but must say this is typical. Sunray 05:54, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Returning the archived text to the page

I could just be slow, but the wording of the project page is not very clear. What is "the policy" that's referred to? The policy for changing BCE/CE to BC/AD and vice versa? It's not explicit. siafu 22:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I must say I really have no idea what is being proposed. I think we need to at least discuss that before voting starts (and so I will add a note to that effect). Surely we should seek to formalise the current practice that you should not change a page that is consistency BCE/CE to BC/AD or a page that is consistently BC/AD to BCE/CE? jguk 22:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What does "current practice" mean? How many people follow this practice other than Jguk? Sunray 04:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Since you ask, virtually everyone until you, Slrubenstein and SouthernComfort very recently decided to start editing in line with Slrubenstein's failed policy proposal. Kind regards, jguk 06:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone? Name five people who use this practice. Sunray 06:04, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

I am one. --Theo (Talk) 08:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, and I dare add RickK, Fornadan and Codex Sinaiticus after the List of kings of Persia war. violet/riga (t) 09:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

War? That was merely a skirmish, my dear! Sunray 15:56, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Two points:

• First off, one, five or twenty people do not make this "current practice." Without any difficulty at all I could name dozens of people who are very familiar with the Manual of Style and do not regard this as current practice. In fact, it is not current practice at all.
• Secondly, and much more importantly, in a project such as Wikipedia "current practice" is not a sufficient reason for telling people to do something. We need policies agreed on by consensus to do that. Sunray 15:35, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

"I could name dozens of people..." do so! The point was in agreement with you; namely, that there needs to be an established policy. It's just that our interpretations of existing policies and guidelines differs on this case. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We agree on the need for policy. Meanwhile we have the Manual of Style which says nothing about not changing from one notation to the other. It says that either BC/AD or BCE/CE may be used in an article and that there must be consistency within an article. Because of established Wikipedia policy on consensus, authors of an article must together decide which notation to use. That is current policy. Some do not abide by it, which is the problem, IMO. Sunray 16:20, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

There was a time when Quakers "did not use names for days of the week or months of the year since most of these names were derived from the names of pagan gods”. Should we stop using them for fear of offending? I suggest not, for they were emphasizing their point of view.

The days of the week are named after pagan (mainly Norse) Gods. When we speak of Thursday we do not honor Thor, nor Woden on Wednesday. Months are (mainly) named after Roman deities. We do not honor Mars when we speak of March nor Aphrodite for April. Knowing that these were originally named for these deities is a curiosity. It is nothing more. Knowing that BC/AD refers to the Christian deity is also a curiosity. It is nothing more.

I first met BCE in Jehovah Witness literature. It was there to make a point. Those who do use it are making a point. To suggest that BCE is NPOV is disingenuous, to say the least. --ClemMcGann 09:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that you call Wednesday "Odin's Day" and Thursday "Thor's Day"? How quaint :) Seriously, this argument simply says that the religious aspects of BC/AC are not an issue for some people. Sunray 15:52, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Yes - the religious aspects of BC/AD are not an issue

Yes - Thursday "Thor's Day"? How quaint :)

Yes - it's quaint - just as connecting AD to Christianity is quaint

And BCE is POV when used by Jehovah Witnesses --ClemMcGann 16:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

And that's your point of view and your sticking to it! Sunray 16:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

I have yet to read any justification for the change, other than some are under the impression that it is ‘Christian’. It may have been once, a millennium ago, as the weekdays and months honored other deities. It has yet to be demonstrated that it does so today. A change to BCE would promote a POV; many are not familiar with it; it will lead to confusion; wiki editors have demonstrated error in it use. I fail to see any justification for it.--ClemMcGann 22:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added the "current wording" section in a hope that it clears some things up. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Clem, et al: "BCE"/"CE" has been used in the academic world (at first selectively, then ever more widely) for at least 80 years -- often as a courtesy to Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist etc. peers when working on historical and archaeological issues. It makes a neutral dating system for people who use other calendars and other notations, although everyone is well aware that the "common era" we are using is based on an estimated date for the birth of Jesus. Courtesy should also be a Wikipedia virtue, I think. If a real proposal gets off the ground here, I (as a Christian) would have no problem being courteous enough to use "BCE"/"CE" as the Wiki style. WBardwin 21:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

WBardwin is right that we should be courteous, but mistaken as to whom we should extend the courtesy - and that is to our readers. Our readers are a diverse bunch - they can come from any part of the world and have any background, and it is clear worldwide that there really is only one standard, BC/AD. This is true by a long, long way. So much so that many do not understand, or get confused by, or just will probably not choose to read, something that uses what to them is an alien style, BCE/CE. It is fundamentally important that we keep our readers happy. That is the test. So we should extend a courtesy, and that is by using BC/AD throughout.

Incidentally, WBardwin, you misunderstand some of the history. You might find this, which is only 12 years old and is from America, of interest. Kind regards, jguk 21:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And -- the point of your link? Old news. I understand the history. CE is very old, it is from theological ideas in the middle ages. It is part of a church based perspective. But, having used it since I went to undergraduate school (at a church based university) for many many years, it is a workable relatively neutral standard. Just because the Jehovah Witness's apparently like to use it does not make it any more point of view than BC/AD.

I agree with you that BC/AD is the current Western non-academic standard and that all of our readers would need educating in how to use a new nomenclature. But, may I point out that we have many English readers from Asia and other parts of the world as well, a large majority without exposure to the Western norm. I work with a number of Koreans /by phone and online primarily/ who are most comfortable using BCE/CE terms. In fact, one of them asked me to explain AD when it was found in a reference document. We use terms in Wiki (like Amerind) which are also moving toward neutral and are academically based. We get away with it because an encyclopedia can explain its entries. We expect our readers to read. If they do, we can explain new and useful terms to them. Now, nowhere in this present talk/proposal have I read that we are banning the use of one or another of the conventions, just trying to establish how the systems could best be used. But sticking with the "old" just because it is old and comfortable implies that we and our readers are unwilling and unable to learn new things. This may reflect America's current school system -- but that is a topic for another day. WBardwin 22:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Tempora mutant et nos mutantur in illis. In 50 years time we most probably won't be having this discussion - maybe BCE/CE will have passed off into oblivion, maybe BC/AD will be quaintly archaic, maybe another style entirely will be preferred. And if the style used out there in the real world changes, so should the style on WP. We should reflect and respond, not lead. Currently BC/AD is overwhelmingly, by a long, long way the worldwide standard, as you acknowledge. It is therefore appropriate that we extend the courtesy to readers of using that terminology as it is that terminology that they prefer. If, over time, that changes, then we too should change. Kind regards, jguk 22:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If we were composing this encyclopedia early in the previous century, would it be appropriate to use terms like "darkie," "abo," or "half-breed" because they were in common use? These may seem like extreme examples, but I am troubled by your apparent assertion that the discussion of appropriate terms should be sidestepped in favor of pandering to what the readers prefer. The readers could well be wrong in preference (wrong in relation to wikipedia's principles), and we shouldn't simply assume that it doesn't matter because they have such a preference. If you were to indicate that this particular case is not a big deal that would be one thing, but I'm getting the impression that you hold the view that the discussion (of POV, of appropriateness, etc.) itself is illegitimate because the perceived comfort of the readership should trump outright. siafu 22:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't misquote me, Jguk --- "....the current Western non-academic standard..." (see above). Wikipedia is a reference work -- designed to give people old, current and innovative information in a useful readable format. I currently use both of the styles in Wiki, but judiciously. I tailor their use to fit the article and the previous usage on the page. But, if I were to choose, I would use 207 Before Common Era (207 B.C.) for first reference and then 207 BCE for second reference and that would be that. I do that in my own work. Our reader would understand the parenthetical reference and realize that the two scales are numerically equivalent with two different suffixes. Many would learn something new and perhaps incorporate it into regular usage elsewhere. People should expect to learn new things when they come here and we should provide them that opportunity. We may not be aware of it, but we are educators here. English is becoming a worldwide language, yes. But what type of English should we promote? I would vote for an English that suits a 21st Century world viewpoint, not a traditional or comfortable or religious Western viewpoint. WBardwin 23:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I'm going to take a stab at a proposed wording for each variation listed on the proposal page. Please feel free to rework these. Alanyst 22:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Favour the change

Variation 1

Proposed wording

Favouring one style of era name over the other is controversial. Editors should be judicious about changing established patterns within an article.

Variation 2

Proposed wording

Editors are free to change from one style of era name to another within an article if the style is not currently subject to dispute on the article's talk page. Editors should not revert such changes without first discussing the matter on the article's talk page and achieving a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to revert.

Variation 3

Proposed wording

Editors are free to change from one style of era name to another within an article if the style is not currently subject to dispute on the article's talk page. If those changes are then reverted, they should not be restored without achieving a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to do so on the article's talk page.

Favour discussion

Variation 1

Proposed wording

Favouring one style of era name over another is controversial. Editors should 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.

Variation 2

Proposed wording

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.

Favour the original author

Proposed wording

Favouring one style of era name over the other is controversial. The original era naming style of an article should be preserved. Changes to an article's era naming style should not be made except to restore the style used originally.

Wording discussion

The above wordings (as of timestamp) seem to be very good and exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense now. So, are we voting, or what? siafu 00:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Long-standing usage

Another thing that should be favored in some way is long-standing usage. Exactly what that means in various circumstances (age of article would be a major factor) would need to be spelled out better. Gene Nygaard 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What does "favoring" mean?

Any favoring on any basis should not be a determinative factor. Mostly, what the favoring should do is to place the burden of establishing a relatively clear basis for change on those proposing the change. Gene Nygaard 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Different approaches in different circumstances

The proposed variations are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes more than one of them could apply, or sometimes the one which should apply could depend on the state of development of the article in question or other factors. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If the issues are raised shortly after either of these dates are added to an article (say within two weeks, or whatever, maybe a specific time should be named), then it should be an open table and the choice should be determined by something like a simple majority of editors. The only favoring of the original author would be the fact that any objection needs to be raised within this time period for this procedure to apply. This will help eliminate a race to add these designations to articles not because they are needed in the articles, but to establish "first use".Gene Nygaard 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other things that should be split between an open table approach, and an approach where the burden for establishing the basis for a change is placed on one party or the other. Gene Nygaard 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Perhaps sufficiently long-standing inconsistency in an article, not including recent additions contrary to previously established usage, but some case where the two styles have coexisted for a considerable time without anyone raising an objection to either. Specific time frames would probably be needed. I just throwing this one out for discussion, and would need to have it narrowed down more before I'd support or oppose it. Gene Nygaard 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

All of us are Wikipedia editors. Those who concentrate primarily on spelling or other style issues are as much a part of the process of creating a good encyclopedia as those who write substantial parts of the article. The people who has edited the article before, of course, will have the advantage of being more likely to be aware that the issue has raised, because they will be more likely to be aware that an issue has been raised. Let's not make the determination of the value of a person's contribution to an article an issue in the interpretation of support or opposition. Gene Nygaard 13:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Original author

the heading of the "Favour the original author" section of alternatives is in direct conflict with the proposed wording, "Changes to an article's era naming style should not be made except to restore the style used originally." If you don't understand the difference, see Talk:Diamond. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

MoS versus Policy

With this being a proposal to change the Manual of Style guidelines would it be enforceable? Should we therefore replicate any decision into Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? violet/riga (t) 23:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion calendar format is not a POV issue, or rather it is not primarily a POV issue. If we wish to establish a calendar format policy then we should write one explicitly rather than conflating it with NPOV. Furthermore, I believe that any policy should acknowledge that CE/BCE is not yet generally taught below tertiary education in the UK or the US; nor is it much taught at tertiary level outside a significant number of humanities disciplines. Because of this, many people are unfamiliar with the notation. --Theo (Talk) 23:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Style Manual is a guideline and not binding. But obviously it is a useful point of reference. I am not sure where I stand. Perhpas I prefer an as yet unproposed option. But first off, I am absolutely opposed to the "favor the original author" argument. No one, not even original authors, own articles and nothing the original author does should in and of itself dictate how the article is edited. In my mind, this goes against the whole idea of a wikipedia, i.e. a permanently ongoing project. Of the "favor the change" options, I favor proposal three. However, I think that more can and should be said. I am not rehashing my "BCE/CE" is NPOV argument. But I am making an argument shared by many, which is that dating conventions are not arbitrary, and that different conventions may be more or less appropriate given the topic and contents of an article. I would explicitly (1) encourage editors to discuss which convention to use on the basis of whether one may be more appropriate to the article in question, and why. Also, I do think that in any discussion/attempt to reach consensus, (2) much weight should be given to editors who have a demonstrated history of making substantive contributions to the contents of the article or who otherwise demonstrate some degree of expertise concerning the topic. Given that the Style Manual is a guideline and that it clearly states that this manual is non-binding (actually, the intro almost encourages people to go against the manual), the two elements I am proposing will not have the status of "policy" and be binding, which gives any editor room to make some other argument on other grounds. But if we are trying to formulate a constructive guideline, I think what I suggest (1 and 2) are reasonable and useful. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue. That notion was already rejected. Not only that, but a new proposal there would be out of order while we have one on the floor. It could be a stand-alone policy, or a part of some other policy, and something explicitly referred to from the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy deals with entirely different kinds of problems, two or more conflicting views, both of which must be presented, fairly, without claiming one is right and without giving undue emphasis to minority views. Don't confuse language which is claimed (but not unanimously agreed) to be culturally neutral with neutral point of view. This is a style issue. Gene Nygaard 12:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we agree. As I said above, this is not an NPOV issue, and my proposal is not based, as you point out, on NPOV. I am glad you finally accept one of my proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the place for this issue begins with the Manual of Style - over time the use of BC/AD will either become viewed as Christian POV or it will be viewed as the common usage that has lost its religious meaning over time. As discussed elsewhere I think there is some doubt as to the understanding of most average readers what the big deal is about CE/AD, not usally thinking about the meaning of the abbreviations.

I am strongly in favor of discussing such a potentially controversial change first on the talk page so that the opinions of regular editors of the article's substantive content can weigh in before a chagne is made.

I am also strongly in favor of "writing for your audience"

As can be seen on the Jesus page - a controversial page with many groups that have strong opinions about their POV - reasonable people with very different viewpoints can agree or at least comet o a compromise. Trödel|talk 03:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's how the frequent contributors of an article get an edge; by having the discussion on the article's talk page, where they are likely to notice it. There is no need for anything else in the policy to specifically favor their views, or to give them any ownership rights in the article. In other words, don't make some subjective measurement of the value of previous contributions to that particular article an issue for debate in determining this issue.

It doesn't matter much if that discussion comes first, or in response to a reversion after an undiscussed change. Just encourage the discussion at some point. Gene Nygaard 12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - having the style manual recommend discussion is a good thing. However, making a change first, and then discussing it, encourages edit waring rather than consensus - see Jesus, List of kings of Persia - and it is the way any potentially controversial edit should begin. Trödel|talk 14:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Make it a rule that once such a discussion starts, the status quo ante should be restored. In other words, until it is resolved, it should remain where it was before the first change which prompted the first revert. Gene Nygaard 14:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Renaming this page

I propose that this policy should be named as Wikipedia:Eras – I'll move it there shortly unless someone can come up with an objection or better alternative. violet/riga (t) 09:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Writing policy

Thank you violet/riga for undertaking this. I think that the current Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (which is a guideline) should be used as a basis for policy. The current style guide is good, but the problem we are running into, is what it doesn't say. It seems to make sense that there be a policy that BCE/CE is acceptable for use in non-Christian subjects and non-Christian parts of the world if there is consensus (meaning general agreement) of the authors of a particular article. I think we should keep it simple and add to what we have now. Sunray 06:02, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Extreme simplification

Why don't we just say: "Don't change the year notation without a good reason" and let editors that work on concerned articles decide what good reasons are? Zocky 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What passes as "a good reason" though? I don't think that changing it because the article isn't about Christianity or the western world is a good reason, but some others here do. violet/riga (t) 16:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would depend on the merits of the case. If you know about non-Christian cultures and religions and about how and why BCE and CE are used by people who study those subjects, you could explain why you oppose it on article talk pages, user talk pages or at the appropriate wikiproject. If you don't, you could find somebody that does and agrees with you to take it furher.

So far, the only arguments I've heard for this to be regulated any further were that either CE and BCE are somehow anti-Christian (which is clearly not true, since many Christians of different traditions use it), or that AD and BC are somehow pro-Christian (which would be true only if they were rarely used in the real world), or that our readers are so stupid that they won't be able to figure out what CE and BCE mean (which, as said elsewhere, is a poor reason for deciding conventions in an enyclopedia). Not enough to prove the need to micromanage year notation. Zocky 09:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Explaining BCE/CE

By and large the general populance aren't going to have a clue what CE/BCE stands for (or why it's being used). I suggest the policy state that if CE/BCE are being used, they should be linked to in the first occurance. Certainly the usage is clear from the context, but the first two points are issues that non-academics and non-secularists aren't going to be aware of.

Perhaps BCE/CE is more common in the US, I don't know. But the US is a minority, and does not represent the whole world of English users.

zoney ♣ talk 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A very good point. I've questioned numerous people about its use, including kids in history lessons, and they aren't really sure of what BCE/CE refers to. I agree that it should be policy to link the first occurance. violet/riga (t) 10:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This argument isn't worth much by itself. It's not like it's a complex concept. An encyclopedia cannot make its editorial decision based on the supposed ignorance of the readership. All years are linked and any reasonable reader will easily understand what they mean. Zocky 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Zocky is mistaken here - he is assuming that all readers have a certain basic knowledge of certain things. This is untrue - particularly when we are dealing on a worldwide basis. I know all about 1066 and all that - it's general knowledge here. But is it general knowledge everywhere: India, Pakistan, United States? We should make editorial decisions on how best to inform readers - and that is by using words and phrases they are most likely to know, and styles with which they are most familiar. Zocky is right that we should not make suppositions - but in this case we know almost everyone understands BC/AD, that by at least a 9:1 majority they prefer BC/AD notation - and are making suppositions about how well known BCE/CE are understood. Should we not go with the known? jguk 12:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about we sidestep the whole mess, and use Julian dates for everything? Time in the JD system is measured in days since a fairly arbitrary point far enough in the past to cover recorded human history.

As an alternative, if people want to use years, we could use the AUC system. It too is based on a fairly arbitrary starting point, but requires the use of negative numbers for years far enough in the past.

What do you think? --Carnildo 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's view - stated in full for the first time

I laid off outlining my views in full during the NPOV/POV dispute - but now that proposal has failed and it is clear we are not going to get agreement on the NPOV/POV thing, we must move on. Hopefully by outlining my thoughts it will help us towards a sensible conclusion.

Readers

To my mind the reader is the most important thing. I, and I think most people, contribute to WP in the hope that what I add will be read. Indeed, any publication (including web-based publication) should put its readers first. I know this view is not universally held, but to me the reader must always come first.

Putting the readers first is always important when considering style and approach - we should use language our reader understands. After all, a class of 14 year olds will not understand a complicated mathematical proof - but they could understand the broad concepts if put to them in plain language. We should also adopt a style the reader likes - this is fundamentally important, as if we don't do that the reader goes elsewhere. After all, why do I read The Times rather than The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian or The Independent? They have exactly the same news in them. But I read The Times solely because I prefer the style.

So who are our readers? That's an important question. I am arguing that we should pick a style our readers will understand, be familiar with, and will like (and I know not all readers will be happy with the same style). Also, we will get a different answer for different audiences - an journal for US academics will necessarily adopt a different style from an English town's amateur historical society.

Our readers are anyone who reads English who may look for encyclopaedic information on the web. A broad mix. Americans, Canadians, Britons, Irish, Indians, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders, Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. etc. the list goes on. Lots of different people with different backgrounds, different ages and different knowledge-levels.

Having identified our readers, we ask ourselves what's the most appropriate style. In this case we know that BC/AD notation is very well understood, has been used as a standard worldwide, and continues to be used as a worldwide standard. Google (which is probably biased towards BCE/CE usage as it will be biased towards US and academic usage here) suggests BC/AD notation is preferred over BCE/CE notation in a ratio of 9:1. The issue isn't even close. There is also the point that many do not understand BCE/CE or like BCE/CE notation. After all, even so much as teaching what BCE/CE means did not enter the English National Curriculum until 2002. Prima facie there is no reason for any English people who haven't studied history under the National Curriculum since 2002 to have even heard of the term. Similar situations persist throughout the world.

Why we are where we are

Up to the recent NPOV/POV discussion, WP had in practice taken the following approach:

• Almost all articles used BC/AD notation (where appropriate)
• However almost all articles on Buddhism used BCE/CE notation (where appropriate)
• A slight majority of articles on Judaism used BCE/CE notation, though a significant minority used BC/AD notation
• There were a very small number of other articles that used BCE/CE notation (certainly under 400, probably lower)
• A fair number of articles that used BCE/CE notation over time changed to BC/AD notation. This was not because of a conscious effort to change, but more because new editors came along and used BC/AD notation (without amending the BCE/CE notation) - and then at some time the notation was made consistent within that page to what was then the majority notation (BC/AD)

It's worth asking why this is the case. It's clearly not because of any whole-hearted campaign by anybody. It's happened naturally. And this must be because that is what our reader-editors use. Naturally. Not to make a point - it's what they are most familiar with, what they understand and what they are most comfortable with. Essentially, where we are now is further evidence of the style we should adopt.

Comparators

We have a number of competitors - Britannica and Encarta are probably the best known. They possibly have slightly different audiences for us in that Britannica's will have a more British slant, and Encarta's will have a more American slant, but they both see their audience as being worldwide - and not too dissimilar to ours. They are commercial ventures, for whom number of paying readers is paramount. It is coincidence that both of those prefer the BC/AD convention.

Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of our readers and our reader-editors are likely to be most at ease using BC/AD notation. (Many may be confused by BCE/CE notation too.) If we want to appeal to as many readers as possible (which, by default, will mean we appeal to as many editors and potential editors as possible) we should adopt the style preferred by most. There is some evidence that on articles connected with Buddhism and some articles connected with Judaism that we should come to the opposite conclusion - and preferring BCE/CE for Buddhism, and allowing a mixture of BC/AD and BCE/CE notation for Judaism.

Proposed way forward

Before the recent dispute, the practice was to allow articles to adopt either style, and to recommend strongly against deliberately changin the style. This approach is the one we adopt on the American v British English disputes, and the one that naturally beds down to what most readers and editors prefer. I have outlined where this approach has taken us above. I strongly recommend that we formalise this approach going forward - it will give our readers what they want and put no impediment in the way of WP growing. Kind regards, and for those of you who made it to the end, thank you for your time, jguk 19:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk says: "[T]he practice was to allow articles to adopt either style, and to recommend strongly against deliberately changin the style." As discussed at the top of this page, this approach has only been "practice" for some. Perhaps you missed my comment above. I will repeat part of it here:

We agree on the need for policy. Meanwhile we have the Manual of Style which says nothing about not changing from one notation to the other. It says that either BC/AD or BCE/CE may be used in an article and that there must be consistency within an article. Because of established Wikipedia policy on consensus, authors of an article must together decide which notation to use. That is current policy. Some do not abide by it, which is the problem.

To continue insisting it is (or was) current practice is arguable and counter productive, IMO. Sunray 19:49, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Controversial edits often lead to edit wars. When a person has their edits reverted by more than one person they should not keep changing it back. Other people should also not change it back, and discussion should take place. The change from BC/AD to BCE/CE is obviously controversial and should not be insisted upon without such discussion. The article should remain in its original state (prior to any argument) while the discussions continue. That is the fairest thing to do. violet/riga (t) 20:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A policy proposal

Like many others, I have read through the options on the Project Page and I'm still scratching my head. So here's a proposal:

• We make the current provisions of the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) a policy.
• We add to it only one thing: An emphasis on consensus on dates and numbers between the authors of a particular article.
• This can be done by a simple statement and a link to Wikipedia:Consensus, thus:
  • "In determining whether to use BC/AD, or BCE/CE, authors of an article will be guided by consensus."

Could we perhaps put this up for vote? It is not a big step from where we are now and we might get general agreement to abide by it.

Ideally, it would be nice to have a guideline as to when a particular form of notation would be appropriate. Such as: "Normally BC/AD is the default position on the English Wikipedia, however, BCE/CE is approprate for articles on non-Christian topics pertaining to non-Christian regions of the world." However, I'm not sure we could get consensus on this. Sunray 19:30, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

The first part of your suggestion is exactly what this vote is about. The second should never, and will never, be accepted. violet/riga (t) 19:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

O.k. Could you please describe how someone would vote if they wanted an outcome such as I've described? Sunray 19:50, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

It depends if you think the discussion should take place before or after the change. If you think that the change should be done and then discussed then you are "favouring the change". If you think that the change should not be done until discussion has taken place (and consensus reached) you should vote for the first variation of "favour discussion". violet/riga (t) 20:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Favouring the change" seems ambiguous to me. What change? I need to think about this. Sunray 20:17, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

"Favouring the change" refers to the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa, and a vote for that means that you think the discussion should take place only if someone objects to the change. violet/riga (t) 20:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

First, we shouldn't rush to vote - only talking will lead to a conclusion we can all live with.

Second, is Sunray saying that under no circumstances should our readers be a concern to us? If not, when should they be? jguk 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Our readers are always our first concern. This is an encyclopedia—a place for learning. There has already been a good discussion about this (see Explaining BCE/CE, above). I agree with violet/riga's point: "... it should be policy to link the first occurance." Sunray 20:14, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Let's stay at the point we agree on - that our readers should always be our first concern/top priority - and see if others agree on that point too. If so, and I hope it will be, perhaps it can form a useful starting point towards reconciliation on this. Kind regards, jguk 22:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Our (potential) readers should never be our first concern. Accuracy should always be our first concern. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The priority is the readers. In WP's case, we quickly come to the conclusion that accuracy is fundamental. This isn't true generally - readers of The Onion or the Uncyclopaedia, for example, do not want accuracy. For something like The Beano, accuracy has no real meaning, jguk 07:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. While the readership is very important, and it seems that everyone is in agreement on that, wikipedia does more than pander to popularity. While many people may not understand BCE/CE, most are also likely not to understand MYA, but that does not mean that wikipedia should avoid using that notation in articles on geology or evolutionary biology. If the use of CE/BCE is in fact a better, more accurate, more NPOV, prettier, whatever standard then it would be appropriate for wikipedia to consider its use, and it needs to be determined which standard serves the purposes of the encyclopedia better. Much of the debate that's been presented on this topic has been derailed in one way or another, starting with the proposal being presented based purely on NPOV issues, but also the many assertions that it's not the "commonly used" convention. Wikipedia is not written in any "common" sort of language; that is, the language used here does not resemble that used by all (or almost all) of us at home, on the street, or on the phone. We have both an great opportunity and a responsibility to do more than just present the reader with the most "commonly accepted" versions of things. If it serves the mission of wikipedia better, it shoudl be used. If not, it shouldn't. siafu 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That most people do not understand MYA most certainly does mean that we have to be careful about its use. It certainly should never be used without explanation, and even then, I imagine there are very few articles that look better with it. Besides, this is diverting us from the main point here, jguk 07:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, this is the main point here. Your claim is that we should be presenting the readers with the notation with which they are most comfortable, in order to please them. I hold that that is not our primary concern. Additionally, the fact that The Onion or the Unencyclopedia are not concerned with accuracy does not bear on this discussion either. The purpose of wikipedia is not to make our readers laugh, not to entertain, but to inform, therefore while accuracy isn't important to humorous publications, it is the first priority for wikipedia. siafu 13:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy is important because we are an encyclopaedia and readers of an encyclopaedia demand accuracy. Our readers look for it, that is why it is fundamental.

However, this is, of course, an aside. This dispute is not about accuracy, it is about style. My point, however, that in my opinion readers should be our primary concern, remains. Kind regards, jguk 18:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case, do you feel that our article about Ockham's Razor should be at Occam's Razor or Ockham's Razor? This is an example of accuracy and style colliding. These two concerns are not necessarily separable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a subject I am familiar with, so am unable to comment. It seems unrelated to the current discussion though, jguk 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, "Of course we're concerned with accuracy, we're an encyclopedia. This is about style." My point is that accuracy and style can conflict with each other. Where they do, accuracy should trump style. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, the accuracy question is a red herring as it pertains to the era name debate. Switching between BC/AD and BCE/CE (or any other era naming convention) does not affect accuracy at all. What does factor into this debate? Some have argued that the choice of era name can be more or less NPOV than another; others dispute that assertion—but at least there is a question of NPOV. And there seems to be widespread agreement that matters of style should factor into the era name question. (Anyhow, it seems that this policy/M.o.S. proposal centers more on how to resolve disputes around era names, not on prescribing any particular era name style.) But I suggest that we drop the subject of accuracy, as important as it may be as a core Wikipedia principle, because it simply has nothing to do with this debate. Alanyst 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I concede that accuracy is not relevant directly, and I may have focussed on it more than was appropriate. What I'm really intent on making clear, however, is that writing to our audience is not necessarily our prime concern. It's important, certainly, but at the same time if one of these two standards serves the principles of the project better, whether it is or is not the most common or most expected by the readers, we should use that one instead of simply following the general status quo. siafu 03:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just say that readability and NPOV and all the other Wikipedia principles are important, and that when they conflict we need to find an appropriate balance? Readability shouldn't be automatically overridden by conflicting concerns, but neither should it be elevated above all else. And which balance should be struck is probably dependent quite a bit on the particular article involved in the matter, so a one-size-fits-all policy to establish a particular standard is likely not to work. That's why I like this proposed policy (or MoS amendment, or hybrid, whatever it is): most of the alternatives provide a way to solve the problem at the local article level, with guidelines on how to resolve disputes without resorting to endless edit wars. It also nicely undermines any era-name POV warriors by forcing them to fight the same battle in many places in order to convert articles to their favored standard, while providing the useful contributors with the power to stop unwarranted conversion as well as to make needed changes. Alanyst 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's argument (his "view stated in full for the first time") basically amounted to the following:

1. Our primary concern is writing to the audience

2. BC/AD is what our audience is familiar with

3. We should use BC/AD

I was taking issue with the major premise of the argument, since it's my view that this is not the case and there are other factors that are more important. For example, I personally believe that BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD, and the readability concern is not such a huge issue (it's not like "Before the Common Era" is rocket science, or like anyone would be offended by it). However, I also hold that it's important for the MoS to choose one of these over the other instead of being agnostic about it; even if BC/AD is chosen I think that's preferable to having both in use. Doing so (using both) is just going to make things excessively complicated. siafu 13:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But that's not going to happen as we saw in the other vote. We aren't going to be able to gain consensus on which to choose, hence this vote. violet/riga (t) 13:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Except the other vote wasn't really designed that way. Certainly it seems that the slim consensus was not in favor of switching over to BCE/CE, but we haven't had a vote wherein the editors were forced to choose one over the other. Of course I'm going to vote here and respect whatever comes out of it, but I needed to be heard (read?) first. siafu 13:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to choose one era naming style as the standard Wikipedia-wide. Clearly there are articles where BCE/CE is more appropriate, and equally clearly there are articles where BC/AD or even a non-Gregorian approach is more appropriate. And there are plenty of articles where it's not clear which is more appropriate (or even whether there is a "more appropriate" choice). So, I think we should strive to avoid declaring a style as "the winner" and instead focus on crafting a policy that allows the question to be resolved at the individual article level while discouraging edit wars. I would be opposed to any policy that required BC/AD or BCE/CE or any other style to be used as the universal era naming standard in Wikipedia. There's no reason they can't coexist. Sure, we want consistency within each article, but even then the editors can achieve a compromise (see Jesus) if choosing just one style is problematic. The important thing is to provide a resolution process for style disputes, not to pre-emptively resolve them. Alanyst 14:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV claim here promotes division

Exactly - in fact to claim that BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD is to claim that those editors who support BC/AD are POV pushers in disguise. Most Wikipedians are very committed to the NPOV as both an ideal and as the practical way to build an excellent encyclopedia. This continued insistence that one style is NPOV and the other is Christian POV: 1) insults one group (as they see themselves as promoting NPOV and some BC/AD proponents are not Christian), 2) does not recognize that both systems are used to indicate the beginning of an era based upon a religious event (wrongfully determined but a fact we can not avoid), and 3) further divides us as Wikipedians. We need a workable style that recognizes the value of both systems and provides a framework for discussion on the relevant talk pages on what is appropriate for each article rather than more rules. Trödel|talk 14:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere am I implying that the editors who use either system are POV-pushers. I referred to the terms only, and not the pople. siafu 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the discussion here has been professional. I still think that is one of the reasons that I, for one, had a visceral negative reaction to the change at the beginning - because I didn't see my view as violating NPOV.

In these heated discussions where the evidence of NPOV is not obvious, it does a disservice when there is a continuous insistance that one view is NPOV and the other is not, not be cause of any intended implication, but because it is a reasonable inference from the discussion that to oppose the view claimed to be NPOV is to oppose a cherished value of the community. People identify themselves with their viewpoint especially if they think it is neutral and to insist that it is not is often viewed more personally. Trödel|talk 16:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ready for the vote

I've gone through and worked on the main page now that it's at Wikipedia:Eras. Are there any last comments, amendments or objections before we open the vote? violet/riga (t) 08:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

While I have yet to be persuaded that BCE has merit, there may be articles in which it might be appropriate. Jehovah’s Witnesses use the term to emphasize their POV. One difficulty with BCE is that few are familiar with it. In their articles, here, the term is expanded. For example in Doctrines_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Creation_and_the_Flood we read: Adam’s creation as occurring 4026 Before Common Era and the flood as taking place in 2370 Before Common Era.. Therefore, I suggest, that in those instances where BCE is used, that it should be fully expanded to assist understanding. Could this existing practice be offered as yet another solution? btw I notice that the line Jehovah's Witnesses find the terms BC and AD objectionable because they imply that Christ was born in 1 BC which used to exist in Anno Domini see [1] has been removed.--ClemMcGann 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that question could be decided at the individual article level, not Wikipedia-wide. The readership of some articles may be familiar enough with the notation that explaining it would interrupt the article flow. Alanyst 14:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that there is confusion about how binding this proposal is: is it a guideline like the rest of the MoS, or is it policy? The way I see it, we're prescribing a new Wikipedia policy on how to resolve disputes arising over changes to the era naming style of an article, and we're not directly amending the MoS itself. If that's the case, then the "Current wording" section of the project page seems to confuse the issue by making it appear that the MoS is being amended. Perhaps the only amendment to the MoS needs to be adding something like "Changes to an article's era naming style are governed by the Wikipedia:Eras policy"? Alanyst 14:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The issues raised in the wording section are even more relevant if what you want to make is a "policy" (which is more formal than the guidelines of the MoS) for the enforcement of those guidelines. But it is a strange interpretation that the guidelines would not be changed by such a policy. Gene Nygaard 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've altered that a little in order to make it a bit clearer. violet/riga (t) 15:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

On reading over some of the comments above, I do not think we are ready to proceed with this. The intent of this proposed policy change is unclear as is its future status. Moreover, and very importantly it is never wise to contemplate policy changes during a dispute (see List of kings of Persia). It is remains unclear from this dispute whether the problem is a matter of policy. It could be that the current policies are entirely adequate if people would only uphold them. Anyone who does not know what I am referring to should read Talk: List of kings of Persia. Sunray 16:40, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

It's not a policy change, it's a formal enforcement of an aspect of the MoS that is currently ambiguous. I really don't know how you can think the intent is "unclear" - it's intended to fix the situation we currently have whereby we don't really know if it's allowed to arbitrarily change between BC/AD and BCE/CE. Current policies do not cover this. As for not updated the policy during the disputes, well I totally disagree - it's the best time as it's fresh in all our minds, publicised and the evidence is all presented well. violet/riga (t) 16:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

We're still dealing with proposed wording which says "the policy" this and "the policy" that. Obviously we are not ready to vote yet.

Even if you perceive it as going into a vacuum (i.e., no current policies apply), which isn't true, creation of a new policy is still a "policy change". Gene Nygaard 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The future status is of course unclear; it's a proposal that may or may not be accepted (and the final result depends on which variation garners the most support). The intent, as I understand it, is to formalize a method of resolving disputes over era name style in an article. It does not add restrictions to which styles may be used in Wikipedia, so it does not substantially change the MoS. And regardless of whether there is an ongoing dispute at List of kings of Persia, this proposal is timely: similar disputes have happened in the past (e.g. Jesus) and we can expect that without taking some action we will continue to see edit wars over the matter in the future. No current policy seems to apply here—3RR only slows down the rate at which reverts are made; NPOV is not universally accepted as applicable to the dispute; the MoS does not suggest how to resolve disputes over style and in any case does not carry the weight of policy, so people are free to ignore it. Wikiquette strongly advocates obtaining consensus before making controversial edits, but it too seems to lack the teeth necessary to quell the edit wars. If anyone can point to a current policy (not just a guideline) that does govern how to resolve style disputes, I'd like to see it. Alanyst 17:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray (at last, I hear you say). I don't think we are ready for a vote - I think it will prove to be divisive rather than reconciliatory. Sunray and I have agreed on one thing before - namely that we should put readers first. Although there is some small opposition towards this as an overriding concept for WP, I was somewhat hoping that others would agree that this should be the principle on which we should strive to reach a resolution on this issue. I think that aspect would be a discussion well worth taking forward, jguk 19:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you want to achieve with waiting, really. I can't see how further discussion will lead to a consensus on which to go for, especially considering that some people haven't even taken part in it. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

We already know the result of the vote as we have just had one, which proved somewhat divisive. I can't see how another one would help. If we can find some common ground, we might be able to discuss a resolution - but if we cut off discussion, we'll only end up perpetuating the dispute. Kind regards, jguk 20:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But this is an entirely different type of vote, being for an update to policy regarding the provision of changeovers rather than forcing one scheme or the other. If we start the vote we can continue discussions and also see where it takes us - it may well lead us to an obvious, consensus-driven decision. violet/riga (t) 20:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, we're not looking to cut off discussion; rather, we seek to localize it. As I have said, what's appropriate for one article might not be (as) appropriate for another, so it doesn't make sense to craft a Wikipedia-wide policy that seeks to impose a universal standard. In other words, we still allow for finding common ground, but that common ground is to be found on each article's talk page when there is a dispute. What about this proposal do you think will be divisive? Alanyst 20:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Most votes are divisive, particularly when held so soon on a subject just voted on, jguk 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the sooner we establish a policy on this the better, and if voting speeds that up so be it. The reason I say this is that things are getting out of control following the failed proposal by User:slrubenstein to adopt a BCE/CE standard last week. Despite the failure of this proposal to obtain consensus, its author and a small group of other editors have initiated widespread editing activities to change existing BC/AD articles into BCE/CE, thus prompting several dozen revert wars on the affected articles. IMHO this behavior is very improper while the dispute is still pending. The adoption of a policy will create a means of solving this problem before it extends any further. Rangerdude 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are doing nothing to move this policy proposal forward. Please try to assume good faith, and if you can't, at least don't bring your accusations here. This page is not a place to discuss editors' behavior but rather to find a way to quell the edit wars surrounding BCE/CE and BC/AD. Let's move on, shall we? Alanyst 22:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's no accusation to note the simple and easily verified fact that since the failure of User:slrubenstein's proposal to adopt a BCE/CE standard, he and other editors have proceeded to change several dozen articles from BC/AD to BCE/CE anyway. Nor is it an accusation to note that these actions have similarly sparked several dozen revert wars between proponents of these changes and proponents of retaining BC/AD. The problem here stems from the lack of a policy, and the widespread revert wars going on all over wikipedia are symptomatic of the need for a clarification...which is why we should start voting if that's what it takes to move this thing forward. Rangerdude 22:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"He [Slrubenstein] and other editors..." Look again my friend. I've been very involved and have nothing whatsoever to do with Slrubenstein or his proposal. I've been discussing Common Era issues for many moons now (having edited that article long before Slrubenstein's proposal). I found the proposal interesting, but did not invest in it. Here's my view of what happened: One editor (SouthernComfort) wanted to change the era notation for the articles on Persia (most of which were imported from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica complete with BC/AD notation). SouthernComfort explained his reasons on various talk pages. When he made those changes he was immediately reverted. I and others (including Slrubenstein) supported him. I cannot infer anyone else's motives, but I can tell you that my actions were taken simply because SouthernComfort's proposal was entirely reasonable and worthy of support. Sunray 22:47, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand, is the wording complete and ready to be voted upon? siafu 23:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said a few paragraphs up the page, there is a an active dispute on this topic. Let's wait until that is dealt with before trying to make policy changes. Violet claims this isn't a policy change and I take her point, however, I do think it would be best to decide this matter when people have calmed down and are clearer on what has happened. There are still issues that have not been dealt with at List of kings of Persia. Sunray 23:10, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

No. Gene Nygaard 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

So the arguments seem to be:

1. There's an ongoing dispute so we shouldn't vote.

   I disagree - those disputes, and future ones, are the reason we're doing this and in order to settle the current ones we need clearer policy.

I'm at a loss about other arguments against starting the vote. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You might start by addressing the issues which have been raised about the wording. After all, it was your proposed wording, and you did (unlike someone else we know) invite discussion on that point before bringing it to a vote. So you, more than anybody else, have an obligation to express your views on those questions and suggestions about the wording. Gene Nygaard 14:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some of the wording could be adjusted before the vote - I for one think options 2 and 3 under Favour the Change are basically the same and we should only have option 3. I have not been bold enough to just delete the option myself especially since I favor discuss first. Trödel|talk 15:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if you believe (as I do) that there is another precedent involved (NPOV), this vote still provides us with the best means of moving forward. Right now, I'm hoping that this will present us with a precedent that can end the stupid edit war that continues, unabated. Clearly if we just continue to argue and do nothing the conflict isn't going to go away. I am also confused by the resistance to this vote. siafu 14:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Alternate option

While I realise that this proposal attempts to specifically remove itself from the NPOV dispute, the choices offered do not leave me an option to vote. Based on my interpretation of the NPOV policy, using BC/AD is not permitted in Wikipedia. I understand that other editors do not agree with this reading of the policy, but I think that an altenative option should exist for people who do not see any of the options as acceptable. Guettarda 20:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that is a very poor interpretation of NPOV, and the vote at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate basically proved that the removal of BC/AD is not a viable option. The whole point of this vote is that we need to choose a compromise. violet/riga (t) 20:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Guettarda could elaborate on his point? If we cannot build on other editor's ideas, this marvelous project could turn into a Tower of Babel. Sunray 23:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

As I stated in the debate about the NPOV proposal, BC and AD assert the deity of Jesus, and thus are incompatible with the NPOV policy. I realise that this was not the interpretation of the majority of Wikipedia editors. Even if it is, as violetriga stated, a "very poor interpretation of NPOV", it is still my carefully considered interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Compromising on NPOV is not an option "NPOV is non-negotiable". I understand that more than half of the people who chose to vote on the NPOV proposal either did not see the assertion inherent in BC and AD as a big deal, or did not think that assertion was incompatible with NPOV. I can agree to disagree with those editors. However, I cannot be happy with a proposal in which all the voting options woudl require me to vote for a proposal which violates NPOV as I see it.

I do not see as a compromise a proposal which offers me no option to which I can in good faith give my assent. This is not a position that I take based on any antipathy to Christianity. I am a Christian. It is based on a careful consideration of NPOV. I am not saying that everyone must embrace NPOV as I see it. I am simply asking for the option of not being forced to vote for a proposal which would, IMO, conflict with the NPOV policy. Is that an unreasonable request? Guettarda 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it is eminently reasonable and I, for one, concur. Sunray 06:44, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

But the point is that there is no NPOV system - BCE/CE is POV-loaded too, so I'm afraid I can't see your argument. violet/riga (t) 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

How is BCE/CE POV-loaded? Sunray 09:17, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've not read through the other vote and seen the numerous explanations? At its simplest, choosing one system over another is POV because it asserts that the one not chosen is incorrect. violet/riga (t) 10:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of non-consensus building absoutist position I was referring to above Trödel|talk

BC and AD assert the deity of Jesus. In a case like this, NPOV policy says that we should describe the assertion, rather than make the assertion. Rather than call this era "the [era] of the Lord" we should call this era "what Christians consider to be the [era] of the Lord". The closest we have to this is CE. The "common" era is the one we are in, the present period of Christian (Gregorian) reckoning...in effect, "what Christians consider to be the [era] of their Lord". Unfortunately I must agree with Trödel to some extent. My position is absolutist - I believe that NPOV is non-negotiable, and I do not see BC/AD as compatible with the NPOV policy. On the other hand, I must disagree with the second part of his statement. I do not see people who disagree with me as POV pushers. I see them as people who either interpret the facts of the situation differently, or who do not see the NPOV policy as absolute. Many people do not see BCE/CE as less POV than BC/AD. At least 17 of the negative votes appear to be based somehow on that idea. Other people believe that common usage is more importance that absolutist interpretations of the NPOV policy. At least 13 people appear to have based their votes on this factor. I believe these to be positions adopted in good faith. I am asking that you consider that my position is also based on good faith. Restricting people to options which they cannot in good faith support is not conducive to consensus building. Guettarda 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I do consider your arguments as having been written in good faith, I did not mean to imply anything different. (feeling stung by the irony of having infered/implied) :) Trödel|talk 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda has argued persuasively that there are good reasons to not proceed with this. I will add another. The "revert war" on the Persian pages is now over and clearly the evidence from those pages is that there is no need for a change. I've reached this conclusion after sifting through all the discussion on all the Persian pages about this matter. The problem is most likely not a failure of policy but rather a failure to correctly apply policy. We have a very good guidline in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). In a vacuum it would not be sufficient. However, when one considers it in light of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia: Assume good faith it becomes entirely adequate as a guide.

What happened on the Persian pages, IMO, was that some people were not abiding by consensus. We do know that pages on Buddhism and Taoism have long since adopted BCE/CE notation by consensus. Five out of the six editors on the pages related to Persia indicated a preference for BCE. It would appear that some people had trouble accepting that as consensus (yet it is, if you read the policy). Let's all work harder at understanding what consensus means and forget this vote. Sunray 16:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Sunray - while it seems that consensus has produced an agreeable result one way or another, it doesn't always work that way. The recent incident on the Jesus article produced a very different result and a lengthy revert war. One side proposed changing to BCE/CE. The other side objected and reverted back. It went back and forth from there and now the article is awkwardly using both. Attempts to establish consensus drew participation from about 40+ editors with no clear favor for either side - opinions were split. This became very problematic because there was no consensus for the change established on the talk page yet proponents of the change went ahead with it anyway both before the discussion was conducted and in spite of it. It seems in cases such as this one a policy specifying use and how to resolve these revert war disputes would be useful. A policy stating, for example, that in absence of consensus it reverts back to whatever was originally used or that if the proposed change is contentious and meets strong opposition, it should not be implemented until consensus is obtained or a compromise is made. Otherwise we get revert wars and revert wars become very bitter very fast. Rangerdude 20:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point. There is no magic bullet, I suppose and consensus cannot solve everything. Moreover, you have to have players who are prepared to abide by a consensus decision, which was not the case in the Jesus page dispute. Sunray 00:20, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Why do you say that “BC and AD assert the deity of Jesus”? Perhaps a millennium or more ago, they did. But why do you think they do so today? Does Thursday assert the deity of Thor? Perhaps once, but now? Does April assert the deity of Aphrodite? I suggest that they are mere curiosities to the modern reader. On the other hand BCE is used deny the Christian deity. It was started by groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. They did so to emphasize their own POV. Few, if any, pause when they read AD/BC. otoh, BCE is novel and unusual (and unknown by some). It will cause the average reader to pause. If Wiki accepts BCE, then Wiki will be perceived by many readers as biased. There is little point in ensuring that articles are written as NPOV, when they have an indicator (BCE), larger than either POV templates, indicating bias. It is my hope that those who favor BCE, will consider the effect that it can have on readers. This is an issue of greater import in some articles than in others. --ClemMcGann 16:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thursday is "Thor's Day". It is not "the day of Thor who is God". We could call it Donnerstag or miercoles, but we don't have another widely used name for it in English'. Calling the time periods "before Jesus" and "since the birth of Jesus" would be NPOV, as is AH, since it derives dates from a historical even, the flight from Mecca. These do not make the assertion that Muhammad was or was not a Prophet of God. "Thor's Day" can be seen as on par with "MLK Day", only with much longer usage and the lack of an alternative in English.
• I see BC and AD as asserting the deity of Jesus. The argument that the passage of years has diminished this meaning to the point where that meaning no longer exists is a valid one. I don't agree that this is the case, but I concede that it is a subjective judgement. I wish the argument was only about something as simple as this, because we could probably come to consensus on this.
• Wikipedia cannot change endorse Christianity. Guettarda 03:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thor was/is a god. Calling Thursday after Thor was/is to honor Thor. It was for that very reason that the early Quakers numbered the days and the months rather than using pagan names. Similarly, the French revolution renamed the months to “eradicate superstition”. --ClemMcGann 15:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, you seem to be wanting everything in BCE/CE. While I accept that as your preference I don't see how adding it as an option will help build any consensus. The other vote proved without any doubt that BCE/CE should not entirely replace BC/AD. To me that's the end of that choice. It'd be just like us enforcing BC/AD on every article - something you'd oppose just as much as others oppose BCE/CE. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Violet, I think you are misreading what Guettarda is saying. He states his absolutist postition that the use of BC/AD is POV, but recognizes that others have different understandings. He then concludes: "Restricting people to options which they cannot in good faith support is not conducive to consensus building." Sunray 17:41, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Here is a short summary of why I think that using BC and AD is a Neutral Point of View. As stated above, the objection based on NPOV is predicated upon the position that "BC and AD assert the deity of Jesus." In order for the latter to be true the reader must know/believe/do the following:

1. Know that BC and AD are abbreviations (as opposed to words themselves)
2. Know what the abbreviations have historically stood for:

   AD for Anno Domini

   BC for Before Christ

3. Know the definition of the word Christ and Lord
4. Know that the Christ and Domini refer to Jesus
5. Believe that the use of the words Christ & Lord make an assertion about Jesus
6. Think "before Christ" and "Year of [the] Lord" each time they see the abbreviations

This is just not what I think most people do when they see the abbreivations, they just pass them by. Since no assertion of divinity is normally made when the BC and AD are referenced they are NPOV. In fact the most frequent use of the word Christ I hear is usually because my officemates just lost some work on their computer and even though they are being clear in using "JESUS CHRIST." It is not reasonable to assume that they are asserting that Jesus is the Christ.

For me the abbreviations, like symbols, have the meaning that each of us give them. Thus I can easily think BC means Before Common. And then there really is no need for AD or CE except in unusual circumstances where it is not clear that the current time period is being referenced. I really don't see the abbreviations making any kind of assertion at all. Trödel|talk 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It doesn't really matter if "most people" ignore abbreviations. We can't misspell words simply because most people don't know how to spell. We cannot use common malapropisms. Ignorance of our readership is not grounds for "getting it wrong". Words mean what they means regardless of whether the reader understands that meaning or not. Guettarda 04:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

But there is no NPOV implications for using a word whose etymology we may not like if the current meaning does not assert the etymology. AD and BC are words with their own meanings. Trödel|talk 15:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The point here is that "BC" is just a date marker. It has no other meaning than that. You are right in that that is all it means, regardless of whether the reader chooses to misinterpret it or not. Consider, for instance, the sentence "Julius Caesar was born in 100 BC". That sentence just imparts knowledge about Caesar. It does not mean "Julius Caesar was born in 100 BC and Jesus is the Christ", jguk 07:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It says exactly that - Julius Caesar was born 100 years before the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Guettarda 15:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Where, Oh where, can you see the word "Messiah"? -- Posted on Monday, in honor of the Moon God, in the month of May, in honor of the Mother Goddess, Maius; a title passed on the Mary, Queen of the May. ClemMcGann 15:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Christ is Greek for Messiah. "In honour of the Moon God" says that the day is named in honour of the Moon god, much as July is named in honour of Julius Caesar. Not the same as saying that the Moon God is God; similarly, the Senate's elevation of Caesar to god-hood does not mean that he is God. Guettarda 19:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And I thought that Christ was Greek for ‘anointed’. Actually does ‘messiah’ actually mean ‘God’. The Jehovah Witnesses, who were early users of BCE/CE, if not its inventors, agree that Jesus was ‘messiah’ but deny that he is ‘God’ – hence their use of BCE/CE. It is a term to emphasize a point of view.

On the other hand how can you say that to honor the Moon God is not claiming that there is such a God? How can you say the Senate's elevation of Caesar to god-hood does not mean that he is God. If the seanate did not mean that Caesar was a God, then what did they mean?

The reality is that once upon a time, a long time ago, these terms did refer to various deities, including the Christian deity. Except that May got directed to Mary. But now these are all just historical curiosities. Many, if not most, are no longer familiar with their implications.

On the other hand BCE/CE is new, its novel, its unusual, it needs explaining. That leads to a question – why? And the anwer is that is exists only to promote a POV --ClemMcGann 20:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Christ is Greek for Messiah (although, to be honest, I know it only from Church or biblical commentaries, not from any knowledge of Greek). Messiah is not God, but the claim that Jesus is/was the Messiah is equally controvertial. Muslims see Him as a prophet, and Jews as not even that. The Messiah is the specific Promised One. The idea of Jesus being God first appears in Paul's epistles. BC says "before Christ". Jesus' being "Christ" is an opinion, it can't be taken as a neutral fact, and thus is not NPOV. Of course, you can argue that the passage of time and common use has diluted it to the point where the meaning of BC and AD is lost. I would accept the dilution argument with regards to days of the week or months of the year, although I would be inclined to see them as "named after" such-and-such...I don't see the dating system as "named after" Jesus, but rather centrally based on His life and directly referencing his God-hood. AD presupposes that Jesus is a Living God, not a dead prophet or rabbi. The dilution argument for Thor or Tiw has the added weight that few people worship them, and there is no (or almost no) continuity of devotion. They have become "Small Gods".

I am not especially attached to BCE/CE. I think it's the best established alternative system, it's widely used academically, and it has the advantage of keeping dates recogniseable. I wouldn't want to use BP, or Unix time. I have no problem with using BC/AD, I have no problem making the assertion that Jesus is God - I just think it conflicts with the NPOV policy, and given that NPOV is one of the few non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia, I don't see how we can use it. Guettarda 21:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

So, it would seem that even we are uncertain of the meaning of and implications of the term ‘Christ’. The average reader is equally unaware of the significance of BC/AD. No doubt, over a millennium ago, it could be termed as POV, but then that pov was universally accepted. Just as a millennium before that the deity of Thor was accepted. The vast majority, if not all, of those using the conventional BC/AD are just using a date; they are not proclaiming the Christian deity. Its use is just too widespread to maintain such a theory. On the other hand, this novel BCE is used by groups who specifically want to emphasize their denial of that deity. What we have here is an attempt at mass deception. There are those who wish to promote their own point of view. Perhaps for noble reasons, they want (as the French revolution did when it renamed the months) to suppress superstition. Like big brother in Huxley’s novel we rewrite history. They maintain that BCE is NPOV. They assert that it is preferred in academia. That may sound sweet, reasonable and plausible. However it is and remains a deception. A small minority, some promoting their POV, others mislead into following them use BCE. Try Google on some of the terms which have seen edit wars here: kings-of-persia bc has 4,000 hits, while kings-of-persia bce has 364 hits, starting with the wiki article. diamond bc has 966,000 hits while diamond bce has 56,600 hits. BCE is, by any measure, unusual. There is no evidence that AD/BC is, today, used to assert the Christian deity. There is evidence that CE/BCE is used to deny that deity. I have yet to see any evidence that BCE is preferred in academia. There is no advantage in such a change, only confusion, doubt and bias. There will be no point in maintaining a NPOV policy. If Wiki is to adopt CE/BCE it will be effectively placing a warning of bias larger than any neutrality disputed template in the eyes of many readers.--ClemMcGann 10:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Christ: Christ, from the Greek in english known as Χριστός, or Khristós, means anointed, and is equivalent to the Hebrew term Messiah.

Google usage is not grounds to overrule the NPOV policy. BC asserts that Jesus is the Messiah. That's what the words say. AD says He is God. So to say that "There is no evidence that AD/BC is, today, used to assert the Christian deity" is absurd. It says that the person born ([around] Year 1 (a) is the Christ and (b) is God. That person happens to be Jesus of Nazareth whom we Christians believe to be God. The argument that readers don't know what words mean so we can use them to say whatever we want makes no sense. And, yes, NPOV is deeply revisionist. It's an extremely radical idea. History is always written by the victors, language is controlled by the dominant group. NPOV says that's not the way to go - we present both sides, we report rather than assert. It doesn't matter if Brittanica asserts that Jesus is God, it doesn't matter if Brittanica takes a highly Western-centric view on things...we cannot.

Wikipedia cannot endorse Jesus as God, nor can it deny that He is. BCE/CE is the best system to do that. You may see it as a conspiracy to deny Jesus as God. You are entitled to your view. Without any evidence beyond your view, Wikipedia cannot work from that assumption. Regardless, if we discard BCE/CE we need an alternative which conforms to our NPOV policy. We cannot discard NPOV. So we need to conform to NPOV, not conform NPOV to our view of the world. Guettarda 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many people believe BC/AD is NPOV, and that's the underlying problem here. We will not be using BCE/CE as a chosen standard any time soon (just like we won't use BC/AD as a chosen standard) and the whole point of this discussion is to reach a compromise. Arguing over the relative merits is just distracting from the issue. violet/riga (t) 15:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed with your response. When AD/BC is used, it is not asserting the Christian deity. I wrote that "There is no evidence that AD/BC is, today, used to assert the Christian deity". If you disagreed then I would expect to see some such evidence. Yet your reply is “is absurd”. How you can extrapolate from the use AD/BC to claims of divinity, is beyond me. On the other hand the evidence that BCE/CE is there to promote a point of view is illustrated by its use by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As you say “language is controlled by the dominant group”. So, even that fact, which used to be on Wiki, has been excised. I used to Google example to illustrate that BCE/CE is novel, new and unusual, as well as to question the assertion that it is preferred in academia. I am disappointed in that you pay lip service to NPOV while, in reality, rejecting it. Using AD/BC no longer endorses any belief. BCE/CE does. You say that “The argument that readers don't know what words mean so we can use them to say whatever we want makes no sense.” But it does, because the meanings of the words have changed. English is a dynamic living language. You had to look up definitions to conclude that BC (once) implied deity. Perhaps it one did. But if you have to research the term, it does not do so today. You said “You may see it as a conspiracy to deny Jesus as God”. I wrote: “Perhaps for noble reasons, they want (as the French revolution did when it renamed the months) to suppress superstition.” I see this as an effort by some administrators to promote their own agenda; to put a stamp which conforms to their own point of view on Wikipedia. Given that they won’t take no for an answer, they will probably succeed. Then it will not matter how neutral any article is. If it has a BCE/CE, that will indicate bias to readers. So much for the empty words “we need to conform to NPOV”--ClemMcGann 16:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments are contradictory. You say that "Using AD/BC no longer endorses any belief". Then you turn around and say "BCE/CE, that will indicate bias to readers". If BC/AD is not a Christian POV, then the absence of it cannot be an anti-Christian POV. It can't be both ways.

As for your statement: "How you can extrapolate from the use AD/BC to claims of divinity, is beyond me." - it comes from the word Domini. BC/AD are arranged around the birth of Jesus (roughly). Domini applies to Jesus. Anno Domini means "the year of the Lord". That Lord is Jesus. Thus, Jesus is Lord. So if I say that this is AD 2005, I am saying that Jesus is God. That is not an NPOV statement. If I say 54 BC I am saying 54 years before the birth of Christ. Again, the Christ is Jesus. To say that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah, or Annointed one) is to say that he is the promised one in the Bible. It doesn't say that he is God, but it does say that he is the Promised One. Since many Jews are still awaiting the Promised One, the statement that Jesus is the Christ is not NPOV. To say that there is a Promised One at all requires that the Bible is true and that there is a God. Not NPOV statements.

You said: "I wrote that "There is no evidence that AD/BC is, today, used to assert the Christian deity". If you disagreed then I would expect to see some such evidence." You are asserting that the words do not mean what they said. I cannot be expected to prove a negative. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your position. The default position is that words mean what they mean. The idea that common usage has devalued them to the point where they no longer mean what they say is a viable argument, but I do not recall anyone providing any evidence of this. An assertion must be backed up with sources. Otherwise we just have the established meanings of words. I would love a compromise - but it must be based on facts.

We are faced with an inflexible rule in Wikipedia. NPOV is non-negotiable. That is the core of Wikipedia. That idea will offend everyone at some point in time. Here, it offends many people. Maybe BCE/CE is not the best alternative for dating. Without some evidence that BC and AD are compatible with NPOV I am forced to oppose their use. The only other alternative is to modify or discard the NPOV policy. We cannot allow exceptions because some people find the alternative offensive. Guettarda 19:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is precisely because we have the NPOV policy that we should always use BC/AD. This is the notation most commonly used - by a long, long, long way. It's not even close - 90%+ of English-speakers in the world would use BC/AD over BCE/CE. So we should use it - and if anyone asks why, the answer is that we use it because it is the most common notation used by the vast majority of English-speakers. (And this carries with it the implication that should general usage change, so will we.) We do not use BC/AD because we are making a point - we use it because we are not making a point.

Compare that to the situation if we adopted a lesser common notation system, such as BCE/CE. How do you answer the "why?" question without expressing a political opinion? Why have you decided that an expression that has a Christian etymology is bad? Should we exclude every word with a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh origin? What about words with mediaeval Norse, Roman or Greek religious meaning?

The point is that as soon as you diverge from using the most common terms around to describe something, you open yourself up to the question - why? You also mention that we shouldn't be concerned if some people get offended by adopting a NPOV approach (and here it is clear that BC/AD is the only NPOV approach). Isn't it about time that those who have taught themselves to be offended by BC/AD when they know full well that those using it have no intention to cause offence decide to teach themselves that it is not offensive after all? jguk 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wikipedia cannot assert that Jesus is God. It has nothing to do with origins, it has to do with the meanings of the words. Can someone who believes that the words have lost their meaning through common usage provide some evidence of this, some reputable source that addresses that? The NPOV policy does not allow us to use something that is POV simply because it is widespread. If this were 1930s Alabama (2005 Alabama??) we could not assert that blacks are inferior even though most people thought so. Common usage is meaningless if it is POV. It isn't about references - BCE/CE still references the birth of Jesus. AH would be NPOV because it is based on an even that is not contentious (the flight from Mecca is not POV, Muhammad's being the final messenger of God is).

You say "and here it is clear that BC/AD is the only NPOV approach". I find that statement baffling. How can the assertion that Jesus is the Messiah/Jesus is God possibly be "the only NPOV approach? How is Unix time, BP, etc., are NPOV - they just are too uncommon to be useful. BC/AD is among the most POV of the available options. The only question is whether or not that POV has been diluted enough through common usage to just barely slip under the NPOV filter. Guettarda 20:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The NPOV policy does not allow us to use something that is POV simply because it is widespread." You're simply wrong. Everything we use is a POV of someone or other. That's precisely what we do use. NPOV does not mean "be neutral, never use anything that is biased". It means "represent all views fairly without bias on your own part". You are, of course, pushing your own bias: which is that "BC" says that "Jesus is god". This is very much a minority view (Jguk's point) and is simply not tenable given BC's wide use by nonChristians. BCE is not to my knowledge much used outside the States. Are all the rest of us pronouncing the godhood of Jesus? Hardly.

I don't think this issue can be resolved by a vote. The most reasonable solution, I think, would be to use "BC/BCE" where appropriate, because this recognises both views, which is what NPOV demands. Also, AD 2000 should not be used. 2000 AD/CE would be fine. I'd say AD is just as commonly written after the year these days -- precisely because those using it do not know that it is supposed to be read "in the year of our lord..." and do not recognise a solecism in postpositioning it.

But what does reason have to do with it? Grace Note 03:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can nit-pick over what may be imprecise wording, but the point still stands - common usage does not make something NPOV. There are two elements - one of which says that we have to represent all views fairly (which would necessitate that we include dates in all dating systems). The other element of the NPOV policy is that Wikipedia cannot endorse a POV. To use BC and AD is to endorse a POV. Which violates the NPOV policy. Which is non-negotiable. Therefore we cannot use BC/AD.

My POV, as you call it, is that words have meanings. Since this is a written document which needs to stand on its own, without someone standing over the reader's shoulder telling them what we really mean when we say "X". Thus, we cannot say "X" and mean "Y" because we know that everyone reading it will know what we mean. The point of Wikipedia is the be the free encyclopaedia available to the impoverished school in Africa. We need to approach metaphors with caution, because we are dealing with a situation in which not all our readers will share our cultural backgrounds (as if we don't have enough problems like that already).

You say: "The most reasonable solution, I think, would be to use "BC/BCE" where appropriate, because this recognises both views, which is what NPOV demands." BC asserts that Jesus is God. BCE is more like saying "some people believe Jesus to be God". The former is against the NPOV policy, the latter complies with it. Where is it appropriate to break the NPOV policy, pray tell? We are supposed to describe the POV, not endorse it.

You are arguing that BC and AD no longer mean what they say. Can you provide any referenes in support of your position? If it is the case that BC and AD are diluted by common usage to the point where the words have lost their meaning, then someone must have written about it. If this is a "done deal" as you are asserting, then there must be literature which supports that point of view. Surely, if you are appealing to "reason" you must be basing your position on facts and not simply on your POV? Will you please share with the rest of us these references upon which you have based your reasonable position?

But what does reason have to do with it? - really, that's highly insulting. My position is based on two things - compliance with the NPOV policy, and the assertion that words mean what they mean. How is that not reasonable? Guettarda 04:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Words mean what they mean? Does a beautiful day make you feel gay inside? Do you enjoy watching the geeks perform at the circus? If you have a stoic expression, do you look like Zeno? Do you converse with everyone you meet, and do you find satisfaction in such intercourse?

Note that in order to communicate the obsolete meaning of those words I had to expressly use a context for each that jarred with modern usage so you could use the correct interpretation. Used in a neutral context ("a gay man", "a room full of geeks", "stoic behavior"), the terms take on their modern meanings, just as BC/AD in a neutral context take on the meanings of "before the current era began" and "after the current era began". In order to express a POV in BC/AD, I would have to use it in a manner that distinguishes it from how it is normally used.

Insisting that BC/AD still communicates a Christian POV is like insisting that the gay rights movement must be concerned with defending the rights of all people to be cheerful, or that a computer geek must perform bizarre acts with electronics at circuses, or that a stoic man must be knowledgeable about Greek philosophy. You're free to do so, of course, but you can't expect everyone to be such a strict constructionist about everyday words, and you certainly shouldn't ban terms that are POV only when their modern usage is ignored. And we shouldn't be surprised if nobody has written a paper about how BC/AD is now a neutral term, simply because of the obviousness of it. Do you think I could get a paper published about my discovery that "gay" now means "homosexual" or that "geek" now means "socially awkward technophile"? More to the point, can you show evidence for your claim that modern usage of BC/AD retains its original meaning? (Not just that some people interpret the original meaning, but that it is the predominant meaning.) Alanyst 20:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, but in a sense you support my request for references. There's a lot published on the shift of meaning of gay (not so much on geek, I was not aware of the original meaning). At the same time, these illustrate shifts in meaning. BC/AD is a dilution rather than a shift. And don't get me wrong, I buy the dilution argument as true, I am just unconvinced that the meaning is sufficiently diluted to the point where it could be considered a shift in meaning.

Of course, I suppose to be consistent I should question whether "gay" as a synonym for "homosexual" is NPOV. Ah, great, force me to choose between my political beliefs and NPOV. Nice corner you have painted me into! :) Guettarda 21:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just have to applaud the excellent contribution of Alanyst above – beautifully put. violet/riga (t) 21:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ideal Solution

Ideally, this could be solved technically with code changes to the Wiki software. Dates (and other units) would be typed in a notation that allows them to be displayed differently based on a user's preference.

For example, the raw text "Julius Caesar was born in ||100 BC||" would be displayed either "Julius Caesar was born in 100 BC" or "Julius Caesar was born in 100 BCE" depending on how you configure your user preferences. Similarly "||100 kg||" could be rendered either "100 kg" or "225 pounds" (or even "100 kg (225 pounds)").

Just throwing that out there. I know I'm not contributing to the debate for which this page was intended. BeavisSanchez 19:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can get a developer interested in doing this, let us know - it would solve a lot of problems! jguk 14:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a software developer with lots of php experience. I might be willing to do this, but I have no idea who to talk to. So if you have any access to the powers that be, let me know (on my talk page). BeavisSanchez 23:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone with appropriate experience/knowledge willing to help me draft a submission to Bugzilla to request this software feature? --Theo (Talk) 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion

Just wanted to thank everyone for the discussions going on here - I really think that we can come to some sort of happy compromise when this all goes through. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting may be ok for candidates, unacceptable for issues

The proposal now says that it will use approval voting. That is a method some find acceptable for choosing a candidate—usually a person running for a job, but as the article points out, it could also be used in choosing a place among candidates for a state capital. Even in those situations, this type of voting is used only in a very small minority of cases. In any case, it is used when the choice is among discrete objects. We do not have discrete objects here.

It is wholly inappropriate as a means of setting policy. No legislative body uses "approval voting" to pass its laws. No business uses "approval voting" to set its rules and policies. No organization amends its by-laws by "approval voting".

We should not set policy by choosing the lesser of 16 evils.

One of the biggest problems is that the options presented here are not mutually exclusive. We could come up with an enforcement policy that includes elements from more than one of these options.

It is especially bad in this case, where as it stands now Violetriga has created four different categories, and two of them with no subcategories, but two of the other categories are divided into three and four subissues, each siphoning off votes from the other. One of the additional problems is that, no matter how well you explain it, this is unfamiliar voting that some of the voters are not going to understand.

It might serve a useful purpose in a straw vote to see where we go from here. It might point the way to writing a clear, fleshed-out proposal for policy (rhat than the one-sentence summaries we have so far). I could accept using this for a straw vote for this purpose; I will fight tooth and nail against using this procedure to set policy.

If it comes to a policy-setting vote on this basis, the safest option for anyone who disapproves this type of voting for this purpose is to vote for no change, and to vote only for no change. Otherwise, your vote may only help to pass something totally unacceptable to a large majority of Wikipedia editors. Gene Nygaard 12:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with what you're saying. The option that gets the most votes is clearly the most favoured choice and is the one to go with. The choices represent all the best possible solutions to the problems. There are different variations because it enables people to choose their preferred options, and they are grouped together simply because they are similar. violet/riga (t) 13:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting is entirely inappropriate when we are going for consensus. It ends up being divisive. It was a complete nightmare on Whig's vote on prefixed styles, when it seemed only he understood how to interpret the result. He also selected a method that (according to the WP article on it) means that by voting for your preferred option you can make it less likely to win. We really should avoid this voting method and leave its use to vote-fixing politicians, jguk 14:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how it would be divisive or difficult to understand. People vote for all the options that they don't mind being implemented and the one with the most votes wins. If either of you have a better way forward then you are free to suggest it, but for now it seems that you must both be happy with current (non)policy. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Do approval voting to narrow the choices down to the top 2 vote-getters then do a widely publicized vote between them for the final policy. Or narrow it down to one highest vote-getter and do a yes/no vote on its adoption.Rangerdude 17:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I always understood that we sought to determine policy by consensus. It would be better to continue discussion rather than voting - but a vote should be a simple yes/no for each proposal with 80%+ required to demonstrate a broad consensus, jguk 19:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be consensus work done here as applicable, but sooner or later it's going to require a vote of some sort. There are simply too many people who are taking absolutist positions on this issue and thus will never be in consensus with those seeking some sort of middle of the road solution. Some editors have repeatedly stated that they want nothing other than a complete adoption of BCE/CE, which failed miserably to obtain consensus when proposed yet still has proponents. As long as we have absolutist positions like that in either direction there will be an impediment to obtaining a moderate solution, such as a policy stating that the original dating system used should be retained unless clear consensus exists for a change. Also, I don't object to a high threshold for that vote either - 70-80% range is good. I just see approval voting as a way to narrow down the alternatives some, which moves us closer to where we could potentially obtain an up down vote on something with 70-80%+ consensus as the threshold. Rangerdude 20:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this discussion -- primarily because I had to make a determined hunt for it in order to join in. And there are some issues that desparately need to be considered before a vote is taken -- my apologies to everyone who has worked hard on this & thought the chore was done.

• I believe that the policy concerning choice of Era in an article needs to be changed, & acknowledge that the choice of Era may be changed & how. However, there may be Wikipedians out there who do not agree, & will only accept changing from one to the other only to make an article consistent; has anyone determined if they exist, & how fierce their opinion on this matter is?
• This is a controversial issue, like it or not. Slrubenstein's proposal brought out something like 160-170 votes, the most I have seen on Wikipedia on any one topic. Unless this gets a wide amount of imput, there will be a number of Wikipedians who will refuse to accept the results of this vote -- no matter what the results are. This vote needs to be advertised to as many people as possible.
• A vote should move us towards a consensus -- not away from one, which is what it appears this form of approval voting will do. We have 7 different choices, which will only split opinion, & unless one gains a 50%+1 majority of the vote, we'll end up right where we started, with a number of differing opinions.
• Couldn't the vote be set up to determine each point? For example, up or down on (1) respecting the original author's choice, (2) whether a consensus is needed to change the original author's choice, (3) one proposal to define this consensus, (4) another proposal to define this consensus. That way, if different points pass or fail, we at least know what people agree on, rather than which factions are the smallest & can be most easily ignored. -- llywrch 21:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that, although consensus on an option would be nice, I doubt it will come. That's why I favour discussion so that we can come to a modus operandi, jguk 22:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

A simpler proposal

Why don't we just codify what everyone can agree on and move on. It's just a style guide for Pete's sake. Here's what I propose we add to the guideline:
The use of one era style over another can often be controversial. In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD. In other contexts, consensus should be built before making any changes to the existing style.
Simple, (mostly) uncontroversial, and to the point. Kaldari 05:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simple - there is nothing that everyone can agree on. Some of us believe that BC/AD violates the NPOV policy. Other people believe that not using BC/AD would violate NPOV. So something resembling the status quo is not uncontrovertial (or there wouldn't be very much debate here and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate). Guettarda 05:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because where does the BCE/CE favouring stop? There would be so many gray areas that the arguments wouldn't stop. violet/riga (t) 08:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The BCE/CE favouring stops where consensus breaks down. Judging by the recent Request for Arbitration against Jguk and by the fairly consistent use of BCE/CE in articles about non-Christian religious topics, I believe that there is a rough consensus on using it in that context specifically. But maybe we should put it to a vote. Kaldari 15:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting consensus is no easy matter, and what constitutes as a consensus is debatable. What, for example, would List of kings of Persia come under? violet/riga (t) 15:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of at least most of the arbitration case against Jguk (I'm looking at this broadly) is that it is not based on which style is appropriate where, but his aggressive campaign against BCE/CE in general.

Also, I think it's still early for a vote. I don't feel strongly about either style, but I think the best way to proceed is for a wide discussion of:

1. Is any change needed concerning overall policy/guidelines/whatever about the style?
2. And then, what change would be most acceptable to the most people? Maurreen 16:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen has given a pretty good summary of the situation. I concur with her that we must first determine whether any change is needed to current policy/guidelines about eras. Sunray 16:32, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I think that the edit wars and RFAr have shown that there's a need for a better wording, if only to state that it may be controversial and may need discussion (favour discussion variation 2). violet/riga (t) 16:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)