Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "consensus support is not present...whether there is active discussion or not." |
This proposal is no longer active, but is maintained for historical purposes. Please do not make further edits to it. Several proposals were put to a vote, but none reached more than ~50% support.
This is a proposal to amend the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding eras. Please discuss the proposal on the talk page. To vote on this proposal, please visit Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise_proposal/Voting. Voting is now closed.
Contents |
[edit] The problem at hand
Recently, there has been much controversy surrounding the use of era designations. Because Wikipedia does not offer specific guidelines on when it is appropriate to use BCE/CE or BC/AD, some editors have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally implement a certain policy. This is not in keeping with the Wikipedia tradition of building consensus and collaborating respectfully with other editors.
As has been shown by previous proposals, there is no consensus to implement either BCE/CE or BC/AD as system-wide standards. Because of this lack of a standard, considerable time and effort are spent rehashing the same arguments over and over again in individual articles as to which style is more appropriate. Although in many cases, this debate is useful and appropriate to have on a case by case basis, it seems that we should be able to reach a censensus on at least some general types of articles. This is, of course, only possible if editors are willing to cooperate in reaching a compromise that makes sense.
I have read through most of the previous debates and the basic argument seems to boil down to these contentions:
- BC/AD represents a Christian POV, therefore its use violates the NPOV policy.
- BCE/CE represents a non-Christian POV, therefore its use violates the NPOV policy.
Let us assume good faith for a moment, and grant that both of these positions may be true, at least to a degree. If we grant that both of these contentions may have merit, the question then becomes: If we have to choose one POV over the other, in what contexts are the respective POVs more appropriate. In non-religious contexts, there doesn't seem to be a definite answer (at least not one we would be able to reach consensus on). In articles about religious topics, however, I believe there are valid reasons to prefer one style or the other. These reasons are probably obvious to a neutral level-headed editor, but in the interests of building consensus, let me explain the logic behind this compromise proposal:
[edit] Logic behind the compromise proposal
BCE/CE for non-Christian religious topics: When discussing non-Christian religious topics, it is often felt that using BCE/CE rather than BC/AD is more respectful of the people who practice that religion. This is ostensibly why the BCE/CE designations were created. Of all the potential uses of BCE/CE, this one should be the least controversial. Many Wikipedia articles already follow this convention: Gautama Buddha, Zoroastrianism, Jewish history, etc. Encyclopedia Britannica also follows this convention. See, for example, their article on Buddha.
BC/AD for articles about Jesus as a religious figure: Since the designations BC and AD specifically refer to Jesus, many people contend that if it is appropriate to use these designations anywhere, it would be in articles related to Jesus and Christianity. According to this train of thought, using BC/AD is akin to saying "before Jesus' birth" or "after Jesus' birth" which would be uniquely appropriate in articles about Jesus, or at least more appropriate than the BCE/CE designations, which some consider disrespectful (or even anti-Christian) in such a context. Regardless, it would be a practical impossibility to enforce a strict BCE/CE style on such articles. A previous vote on this issue limited specifically to the Jesus article failed to yield consensus, giving us the awkward compromise currently on display there. I somehow doubt that anyone is really happy with such an unwieldy solution. Perhaps by framing the issue in a wider context, and offering a reasonable compromise, we can reach a better solution. For the record, Encyclopedia Britannica uses BC/AD for articles related to Jesus, such as Christianity.
Otherwise build consensus for changes: The logic behind this should be obvious.
[edit] The current guidelines
Here are the current guidelines regarding eras from the Manual of Style:
Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, [[1 BC]]–[[1|AD 1]] or [[1 BCE]]–[[1|1 CE]].
[edit] The proposed addition
Here is the proposed addition to the Manual of Style section on eras:
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 articles concerning Jesus as a religious figure, BC/AD should be favored. In all other contexts, consensus should be built before making any changes to the existing article style.
[edit] Addressing concerns
Q: Why does it say "articles concerning Jesus as a religious figure" rather than "articles concerning Christianity"?
A: Many articles that are related to Christianity are equally important to Judaism, for example Noah's Ark or Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus the use of one era style over another would still be quite contentious in these articles. Also, articles limited to Jesus as a historical figure (such as Historical Jesus or Jewish view of Jesus) could go either way since Jesus' role as a historical figure is important to both Christians and non-Christians. The primary article on Jesus and most of its related articles, however, are mostly concerned with Jesus as a religious figure, thus BC/AD are to be preferred.
Q: Isn't this still a violation of the NPOV policy?
A: In the strictest sense, perhaps, but since both styles are considered POV (at least by some), we can avoid a lot of verbal bloodshed by seeking a compromise that is respectful of both groups. I believe this is more true to the spirit of the NPOV policy than a dogmatic approach which fails to seek compromise and consensus.
Q: What is the relationship between this proposal and the one at Wikipedia:Eras?
A: This is essentially a competing proposal, although I think they are theoretically compatible since this one mainly concerns style and the other one mainly concerns behavior. Personally, I think it is more important for the style guide to provide guidance on style. The behavior issue seems rather straightforward and I'm not sure why such an elaborate proposal is necessary to create a non-enforceable behavior guideline. Regardless, I will respect whatever is decided there, and edit my proposal accordingly.
Q: Who wrote this proposal?
A: Kaldari. For the record, I'm an agnostic.
Q: You have confined the use of BCE/CE to non-Christian religious topics. What about articles pertaining to non-Christian regions of the world? Shouldn't authors have the right to decide to use BCE/CE for articles pertaining to China, India, or Persia, for example?
A: Authors certainly have the option to use BCE/CE in articles pertaining to non-Christian regions. In regard to those articles, this proposal merely suggests to build consensus before making changes to such articles, but otherwise makes no recommendation one way or another. As it says in the existing guidelines: Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable. This proposal would not revoke that, it would merely add clarification for which styles are generally favored in articles on religious topics.
Q: How would this proposal affect existing articles?
A: Since this proposal is basically just codifying existing practices, not that many existing articles would need to be changed. The major exceptions are: the awkward dual-use compromise on the Jesus article would be dropped in favor of the original BC/AD usage; and the articles on Hinduism and Jainism would be changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE.
