Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please discuss the present proposal on the article main-page. Feel free to use this space to present and discuss alternate proposals

---

Contents 1 New proposal possibility 2 Keep an eye on the contribs 3 Page move 4 Renaming this discussion 5 Let's implement a preference-based solution today 5.1 Technical proposals 5.2 Discussion on usefulness/issues arising 5.3 Bad idea 6 Votes for some middle ground 7 Comment concerning deletion of other page 8 Why is this page protected? 8.1 Why is this page weird-looking? 9 Preferenced-based date convention display implemented 10 When does this vote end? 11 Vote no 12 Personal attacks 13 Alternative options 14 Move to close 15 Anglocentic nature of BCE/CE 16 Meta-thoughts 17 Changing between the two 18 This debate is a waste of time 19 Compromise vote 20 Policy not needed 21 Another Way of Looking At It 22 Strongly in favour of BCE/CE 23 Interesting Point on BCE/CE

[edit] New proposal possibility

Slrubenstein (do you have a name I can call you?), I see you've put a lot of work into writing and sourcing your policy proposal, but I just don't see this going anywhere, primarily because most people care very little about this "issue", and in fact, regard your "beef" with it as either hyper-sensitivity or hystrionics. Please comment on a modification of your policy proposal as follows:

• Let editors use whichever they want in the articles unless
• It makes no sense, in which case switch to either BC/AD or B/CE or else even to using both, if appropriate
• In the case that there are conflicts within the same article, and neither system is preferable from a "logical" standpoint, use the form originally used when the article was created, or the form used with the first mention of a date, go with the BrE/AmE policy.

I realize this isn't going to make you like it, but I think it's something that will ultimately win more support from other wikipedians. Tomer ^TALK 03:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think using both would be reasonable, as the POV of BC/AD is, in my opinion, irrevocably entrenched in our concept of time, so even if it passes, the POV is not gone. Mgw 04:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You (anyone) can call me Steve or SR (I kinda prefer SR only because it was what I used before I registered and took on a username). Tomer, if I understand you, you are simply returning to the agnosticism of the Style Manual, and not commenting on NPOV. I think this is the status quo, but if I am mistaken, please do tell me how/why. Before I reiterate my objections, I want to make it crystal clear that I do think there is a place for BC/AD in Wikipedia. IF Mgw means that all articles should use both BC/AD and BCE/CE simultaneously, although I concede that there may be some circumstances when this would be appropriate, I think they are rare and as a general practice would oppose this. If, however, Mgw means that on some occassions we should use BC/AD and on others, BCE/CE, I agree wholeheartedly. The question is, when to use one and when to use the other? If I understand Tomer correctly, he is suggesting that this question be answered on an ad hoc basis.

If I thought everyone were as committed to our NPOV policy as I am (and yes, I also mean if they understand NPOV as I do), I would have no problem with this. NPOV should be a general policy people can use to make decisions on an ad hoc basis. However, much of the opposition to my proposal (and remember, the big dispute on the Talk: Jesus page started with a change by JimWae) convinces me that many people do not understand or care about NPOV. I realize you may think my understanding of NPOV is eccentric. But here is what convinces me: many people oppose the proposal because AD/BC doesn't bother them. Okay, they have a right not to be bothered by AD/BC. But to make that a reason for not using another term is — and I am certain I am correct in this – fundamentally incompatable with our NPOV policy. The basis of our NPOV policy is that not everyone feels the same way. This necessarily means that it doesn't matter that you are not bothered by something; what matters is that someone else is. I think this is the very essence of NPOV, to recognize that one's own feelings are not shared by others and thus cannot be the basis for making decisions concerning NPOV! Yet in many, if not most of the arguments in favor of keeping BC/AD, this is the ultimate reason people give. So I have very serious doubts about the committment to NPOV. Jimbo says it is an unconditional policy, and everyone pays it lip-service. You know what? I think most people follow the policy because most of the time it is easy to follow the policy. I think here we have stumbled upon a situation where many people truly find it hard to follow the policy, because they cannot understand why someone would object to BC/AD as POV. But this is precisely the test: to accept that your position is POV even when you cannot understand why others do not share it. If someone cannot make that leap, then our NPOV policy is in jeopardy. That is why I make this proposal: to bolster our NPOV policy in a situation where many people find it hard to follow the NPOV policy.

So, when do I think BC/AD should be used? Since BC and AD express a Christian point of view, they should be used whenever a Christian point of view is being expressed or described. Now, here is a very minor example to illustrate my point. No one probably noticed this, but when I was changing BC to BCE and AD to CE on the Jesus page, I never changed the use of "AD" in this passage:

Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christi Natum", or "before birth of Christ"), and assigned AD 1 to the following year

because it seemed evident that it was a specifically Christian view that was being described. Grace Note still doesn't understand why I object to BC and AD generally there, since the whole article is about Jesus (note: I do accept the current compromise) — Grace Note does not understand that an article about Jesus should not be written from a Christian point of view, but from a neutral point of view. And any time we are writing dates from a neutral point of view, I think we should use BCE and CE. Again, I must repeat: any time a Christian point of view is being presented or described, we should use BC and AD. Well, I am sorry if I am repeating things I wrote elsewhere. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your proposal, Tomer, so I wanted to respond fully. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

OK SR, much shorter...thank you. :-) I don't think you're eccentric, nor do I particularly think your POV wrt NPOV is particularly eccentric. I do think, however, that your proposal is viewed as being so, however, precisely because, as you observe, "people aren't bothered", or as I observe, "people simply don't care". We share the view that it's presently 7 Iyar, 5765, as well as that it's (here, at least, May 15, 2005 (ok, so May 16 pretty soon))...and this works fine for us...but only because your conception of history is relative, not absolute. If we were to require an absolute measuring system to comprehend history, we would truly be in a pickle, and people would start to care a lot more about this issue. As it is, we think of history in comparative terms. As long as we have a measuring stick, it doesn't matter that we agree on what the units are, so long as we agree on what they encompass. Some people have said we should view the BC/AD vs. B/CE thing as analogous to BrE vs. AmE, as they are analogous. I don't agree with this view. I think the BrE vs. AmE thing is analogous to using Centigrade vs. Fahrenheit or meter vs. yard. BC/AD vs. B/CE, however, is more analogous to using Centigrade vs. Celsius, or Kelvins vs. Celsius (which I guess, actually, is more like arguing AM vs BC/AD, but that minor point aside...). Like I said, new dress, old shoes. We could propose that everyone adopt our system (which is kind of like arguing the merits of Rankines vs. Kelvins...), but I rather doubt we'd get much support.  :-p When you said I'm proposing ad hoc determination of the appropriate dating system, that's not actually quite correct. I'm advocating a policy that permits ad hoc determination of the system, but does not necessarily accept that ad hoc determination. Tomer ^TALK 05:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood you, though perhaps we are not that far apart. I agree with most of what you say up to the celcious centegrade bit, I do not think I agree with the analogy. Ultimately, I do wish people had the option of dealing with this on an ad hoc basis. But as long as I believe so many people really misunderstand or really are not committed to NPOV, I will believe the NPOV policy needs reenforcement... Slrubenstein | Talk 05:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, kind of the opposite thing happened in my Celsius/Centigrade analogy, and because of that it's a bad example...in fact, perhaps it should be called an antilogy.  :-) What we know as Celsius was renamed in honor of its inventor, who called the system "centigrade". I still think we should use Fahrenheit and Rankines rather than Celsius and Kelvins tho. :-) Just more of my POV (I hate the metric system). (And I know the difference between mass and weight! :-D) Tomer ^TALK 05:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

How does the Slrubenstein proposal affect use of historic documents? Does it mandate reversions (revisionism) or disclaimers to comply with Wiki policy? Nobs 17:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Whilst - as an atheist - I have a lot of sympathy for Slrubenstein's proposal, I am afraid that I feel that both forms may be used as alternatives provided that the reader understands them. Dating systems are conventions, culturally and/or religiously imposed. By the logical extension of using BC/AD in articles relating to Christianity, should we then use the Judaic dating system for articles about Judaism, or the Mayan dating system for those articles and so on? This would rapidly degenerate into nonsense. Keep to reasonably global accepted/recognised dating systems and use them alternatively where appropriate. --Rogertudor 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep an eye on the contribs

With all the edits going on, it appears that some comments and votes are overwriting others. I haven't taken pen and paper out to make sure what all is happening, but I did add back in one vote that was deleted by User:ran. Tomer ^TALK 06:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I moved this page back to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate as the move away was incompletely done (talk page got left behind) and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion regarding this move. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The talk page should have been moved, too. I'm sure the box was checked. You just didn't give Wikipedia time to catch up, before you changed it. Gene Nygaard 08:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming this discussion

This discussion reflects Gene Nygaard's attempts to vandalize this page. I wrote this proposal, I proposed this proposal, and my proposal makes an NPOV argument. No one has to agree with this. There is room on the proposal page for critical comments, and room for votes against the proposal. If you disagree with my proposal, you are absolutely free to express your reasons and vote no. But it is an act of vandalism to delete my name, when this is my proposal. And it is an act of vandalism to remove "NPOV" from the title of the proposal merely because you disagree. Do not vandalize the proposal itself. Express your opposition in appropriate ways, provided for.

Now what is the point in characterizing this with slrubinstein's name? This has been quite an extensive discussion with having to note the progenitors ID in the title? I'm disturbed by the implications of a move by someone who has characterized slrubinstein on these pages as a "bastard." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope you've noticed that I was spot on in characterizing this as "Slrubenstein's proposal". He has made it so abundantly clear that this is a one-man dog and pony show in adding a whole boldfaced paragraph at the beginning of this section, and in several other comments as well.

Note also that normal Wikipedia renaming rules do not apply, because User:Slrubenstein is holier than we are. At least, that's what he'd have us believe. Gene Nygaard 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Just attempting to "unstack the deck" a bit, mainly by removing the presumption that this has anything to do with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

Note that it is indeed the User:Slrubenstein proposal. It is only his framing and characterization of the debate which does not get changed. Others are relegated to the sections he has devoted to comments or voting. Gene Nygaard 08:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Every proposal usually starts with someone. There is no proposal on the same topic on the board by somone else. This is a not unreasonable discussion about a matter of current academic interest. As I said, I'm not really worried about this NPOV issue, but it is there. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

But it is only User:Slrubenstein who gets to edit the introduction and the framing of the issues; the rest of us get relegated to the areas he has dedicated to comment and voting. Gene Nygaard 08:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein initiated the proposal. So far, 38 people agree with his proposal; therefore, Nygaard, your suggestion that "it is only his framing and characterization" as though to relegate this proposal's meaning to nothingness is unreasonably counter to the principles of collaboration. Adraeus 08:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Not when the deck is stacked by the title which implies that it is an already established fact that this has something to do with neutral point of view, and by User:Slrubenstein's characterization of it as a "Defense of BC/AD" (vs. "Criticisms of BCE/CE"), and by his characterization that "Those who defend BC/AD claim it is NPOV for one or more of four reasons" which by its very nature excludes those of us who have been arguing all along that it has nothing to do with NPOV in the first place. If he wants to argue about "culturally neutral language", fine, but that is something entirely different and he is unlikely to find a whole lot more support for his argument in that case.

Of course, the reason for User:Slrubenstein's deceitfulness was made very clear by him in another part of his framing of the issues:

"More importantly, those of us who reject BC/AD are not doing so on the grounds that it violates our style manual (which is not a “policy”), but rather on the grounds that it violates our NPOV policy. These are simply two different issues. Moreover, NPOV trumps style. According to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style "

Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules.

"According to Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, however, "

NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

"In short, the argument on the basis of style must be rejected out of hand."

All opinions are not going to be fairly represented under these circumstances. Gene Nygaard 08:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gene, it's one thing to disagree with SR and quite another to call him deceitful. He's clearly proposing this in good faith, and has put a lot of work into the argument. The discussion is taking place within the context of our NPOV policy, and the main issue for most voters is whether a change to BCE/CE would be more NPOV, so there's no reason not to reflect that context in the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

In case it isn't already obvious, let me make one point clear: I do not "claim it [BC/AD] is NPOV". Nor do I claim that BC/AD is contrary to the NPOV policy. I claim that using BC/AD has nothing to do with the neutral point of view policy. I make no claims whatsoever with respect to NPOV, other than that it does not apply. Note further that Slrubenstein was well aware this when he framed the issues; it could not possibly have been just an oversight on his part. Gene Nygaard 08:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Then you're not defending BC/AD are you? Adraeus 08:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I am. But it is a style issue, and only a style issue. Gene Nygaard 08:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well if it's only a style issue, then Wikipedia should consider going where the academic community is going as a matter of style. I don't think the voters here are stupid, can't perceive what the distinctions between AD and CE are, are are being led by the nose by slrubinstein. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard writes,

I claim that using BC/AD has nothing to do with the neutral point of view policy. I make no claims whatsoever with respect to NPOV, other than that it does not apply. Note further that Slrubenstein was well aware this when he framed the issues; it could not possibly have been just an oversight on his part.

What on earth can he possibly mean by this? Yes, he claims that BC/AD has nothing to do with NPOV. And yes, I knew when I wrote this proposal that Gene Nygaard claims that BC/AD has nothing to do with NPOV. So what? This is not Gene Nygaard's proposal. It is my proposal. And I claim that BC/AD do have to do with NPOV. And Gene Nygaard knew that I claim this. Gene Nygaard disagrees with me, that is all. Fine, he can explain his reasons here on the talk page or/and in a discussion section, and he can vote "no." But he cannot tell people that I think just like him, he cannot tell people that I believe whatever he believes. You are damned right it was no oversight that I named this article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. I named it this because I claim that it is an NPOV issue. My whole proposal hinges on its being an NPOV issue. I provide many arguments as to why it is an NPOV issue. That is because it is my position that it is and NPOV issue. Did I know Gene disagreed with me when I wrote this? Yes. Did I care? No. Why should I? Gene is free to disagree with me. What I find so bizarre is that Gene cannot accept the fact that I disagree with him. What else is the point of this particular discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's implement a preference-based solution today

How powerful is CSS? In particular, can we replace text with other text based on CSS class/id values? (Admittedly you won't guess this is possible from the 'S' in CSS). If it is possible, we should implement a preference-based solution today.

In this solution, the templates {{BCBCE}} and {{CEAD}} would resolve to either "BC" or "BCE" and "CE" or "AD" based on values in your monobook.css.

One idea that occurs to me is that the preference you do want should be the same colour as the normal text and the preference you don't want should be the same colour as the background (i.e. invisible). The only problem with this of course is that you create some blank space around every AD/BCE/CE/BC instance... so obviously keen to learn of better ways of doing these things... Pcb21| Pete 09:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technical proposals

It's no good having a template {{CEAD}} that simply expands to "CE" or "AD" as appropriate, because AD precedes the year and CE follows it. You need something that expands to "year CE" or "AD year" as appropriate. And any general solution needs to be able to work with date preferences. Gdr 13:42, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

That's no issue at all - have {{CEAD| Year = 55 }} expand to <colour = AD colour>AD<colour><colour = Normal colour>55</colour><colour = CE colour>CE</colour>. Where "AD colour" and "CE colour" are defined by the CSS (i.e. equal to background or foreground colour depending on preference.. Any other issues? Pcb21| Pete 14:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Using color wouldn't work because the text would merely be invisible, not absent. Gdr 14:24, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

As I said in the first message to this thread...

"The only problem with this of course is that you create some blank space around every AD/BCE/CE/BC instance... so obviously keen to learn of better ways of doing these things..."

Unfortunately no-one so far has been able to say "yes there is a better way..." or "no, there is no CSS way to achieve what you really want". In fact I have been learning about CSS myself, and believe we can work around this problem by making the font size for the invisible bit really really small, so there won't be a ugly gap. Pcb21| Pete 14:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

How about <span class="ad">AD </span>(year)<span class="ce"> CE</span> with in the CSS

.ce { display: none; }

.ad { display: inline; }

as people wish? People who want CE will get

(year) CE

and those who want AD will get

AD (year)

Sound OK? Alphax ^τεχ 15:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks Alphax, that will look just right. Pcb21| Pete 15:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on usefulness/issues arising

I don't know about the technical aspects of implementing any user selectable preference, but it does occur to me that one will need to be careful to avoid conflicts in cases where the article itself is discussing the difference between AD/BC vs. CE/BCE and hence both versions need to appear in the text to be understood. Dragons flight 10:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Such articles must not use the templates that implement the prefernce. They must have the required text typed in directly to avoid confusion. Pcb21| Pete 10:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what <nowiki> is for. (hahaha! I'm an HTML god! I did that right the first time through! :-D) In any case, using {{BCBCE}} or {{CEAD}} (how cumbersome) would only be relevant where you're trying to ensure that the reader can have it how they like it. When discussing the difference, you just simply don't use the template. Tomer ^TALK 10:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re cumbersome: We can actually have templates {{BC}} and {{BCE}} (etc) that have identical implementations. The article writer can choose which they like, as the reader will never seen them. This reduces cumbersomeness. Pcb21| Pete 10:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That's Solomonic. However, which version will be the default? If we're intent on fighting, we can fight over anything. And think where this might lead. Any time we have a nationality or ethnicity, we can have one clean version and one epithet version. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Have BC/AD as the default, as we all agree it's the most common. I'm intrigued tho...where do I sign up for the epithet version of wikipedia?  :-p Tomer ^TALK 10:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD isn't the most common in academia. Since Wikipedia is aspiring to academic credibility, I'd vote BCE/CE default. Adraeus 10:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed the issue then becomes the default value. But I hope the vote on that would be cleaner than the current one. It would be a straight fight between "display BC", "display BCE", "display both". The current vote has a wider set of issues. Pcb21| Pete 10:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooooh yes! Let's vote!

VOTE YES

VOTE NO

VOTE "I DON'T CARE, LET'S JUST GET GOING WITH THIS ALREADY"

1. Tomer ^TALK 10:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would propose a third system, a Wikipediacentric dating system, which could be converted client-side to either BCE/CE or BC/AD. Adraeus 10:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Here we are looking for solutions that use only templates and CSS, rather than software changes. Does this fit with what you have in mind? Pcb21| Pete 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The Third System(tm) would need to be server-side just like the dates, which are formatted client-side via preferences. Adraeus 13:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

WTH is CSS? Gene Nygaard 14:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

CSS stands for Cascading Style Sheets. Basically is is code used on a web page that is used to describe its presentation and overall look. CuteLittleDoggie^{Let's play!} 14:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get an example for people who don't understand this kind of thing? like me. --Silversmith 15:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically it is code used to describe the colors, fonts, layout, and other aspects of the look of a web page. One example used here on Wikipedia is the skins setting on your preferences menu. Essentially, each skins' look and layout is generated based on a particular CSS file. There is also an option for users to customize fonts, colors, positions of links in the margins, and other layouts by saving their own CSS file. Instructions for this is at m:Help:User style, along with some CSS samples. However, I am not sure that CSS can do what you guys are proposing. See ya later... CuteLittleDoggie^{Let's play!} 18:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad idea

Any solution that involves templates and/or CSS is a terrible suggestion. Frankly, it's a bad solution because it would require so much work to re-code the articles to make every year occurence fit this model, and because there is a serious negative server impact when you use templates on more than a very small percentage of pages. This, in short, can never be our long-term solution. I would suggest that the developers be asked to provide an automated solution, just like the date formats (m/d/y) are a user preference today. -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be our long-term solution, and that a feature request be made to the developers. The developer/sysadmin team have an awful lot on their plate, so this is unlikely to be a priority for them. With that in mind, I think "terrible" is way too strong a word:

1. "So much work to re-code ... every year" - No. If there is one thing Wikipedians are good at it is making lots of trivial edits to articles. Particularly with bots. And of course it wouldn't be "every year" - a very large proportion of years do no need or have a disambiguator of these sort. Furthermore if the server side solution is implemented like the date thing was, all the instances of AD/BC/BCE/CE would have to be linked anyway - and I bet most are not at the moment.

1. "Negative server impact .. templates on more than a very small percentage of pages" - Well server-side preference-based processing will also have a negative server impact. We would need expert advice about which would be greater. What is a "very small percentage"? What percentage of page would need these templates?

In short, your arguments against using this, particularly in the short term, are not strong so calling it a "terrible solution" is unduly harsh. Pcb21| Pete 07:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree it's not a good idea... it's too confusing for new users, for one. And it does add to server load. And it's too complex for what many people consider a mere matter of semantics. Radiant_* 11:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • Confusing for new users? BZZT, wrong. New users just use the default style sheet and don't have to do anything. As they become more experienced, they can change their stylesheet using some easy-to-follow instructions. Pcb21| Pete 10:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Does add to server load? A server-side preference based solution will have to do a preference lookup on every page this matters. The template solution only has to include text - a cheaper solution.

• • "Too complex for a mere semantic issue." - I think the megabytes of discussion on this issue from hundreds of users show that that this is not "mere semantics" at all. Pcb21| Pete 10:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it's not a good idea. It's what we call a hack—an inappropriate use of templates and CSS. If this hack becomes widespread, you're going to end up shooting yourselves in the foot. —Sean κ. ⇔ 21:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for some middle ground

This sections seems to have disappeared completely from the project page, unless someone can show where it is? So I've copied and pasted it here from the history. --Silversmith 15:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Why does this have to be an either/or vote (which look like the vote is going very roughly 50/50 anyway, so there is going to be no Wikipedia:Consensus)? My personal opinion is that the policy should be similar to what the Manual of Style says for British English vs. American English. For articles where it makes sense, such as those on Christianity and all its various branches, permutations and subtopics, the dating should be BC and AD (an abbreviation for Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ")). Elsewhere, it should be editor's choice (with links to BCE and CE when they are used), with no edit wars over the issue. BlankVerse ∅ 13:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

1. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article". This is a compromise similar in sprit to the spelling compromise. Gdr 13:05, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Exactly - the current status of using what is appropriate for the article by the editors of that article is middle ground and what this proposal is trying to overturn. Trödel|talk 13:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

All you are arguing, BlankVerse ∅ , is that this isn't an NPOV question and that we should keep the current policy in the Manual of Style. Why don't you just vote against the proposed change? Gene Nygaard 13:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not really an either/or vote, as voting oppose will stay with the current system, which allows for both. The reason we are really having this debate is because of the revert war on Jesus. I haven't voted as yet because my preference now is for doing the same for AD/CE that we do for the dates, Ie. user preference, which Angela and Chameleon have both suggested. Until we do something like that, I'm sure there will continue to be disputes and revert wars. --Silversmith 13:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody's put their finger on it yet, let me help: the problem is, who determines what is a Christianity-related article? If you take the time to wade through Talk:Jesus, you'll see that on more than one occasion, this issue comes up. Those who say the article deals with Jesus, the central figure in Christianity, as opposed to those who say the article deals with Jesus, some guy who supposedly wandered around Iudæa and the tetrarchy of the Galil and Peræa some 2 millennia ago. In fact, issue is brought against the very name of the article, by those protesting the fact that it was moved to Jesus from Jesus Christ. Tomer ^TALK 17:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment concerning deletion of other page

Last night, someone created a duplicate page. Several people complained to me that there were severe problems with that page: the proposal itself was duplicated, as was much of the discussion and votes, and much of it was mixed up. First, I tried to fix this by deleting duplicate text. After several tries and several failures, I stopped and protected the page so that no one would add more material, further confusing things. I have just gone through a comparison of the the two, and transfered any new material in the duplicate page to this page. Let us keep things on one page, and let us keep it properly formatted. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, great idea, except that the entire history has been lost!!! Not to mention one of the votes is missing, and without the history it can't be determined why, when, who or how. I've put in a request for the history to be undeleted. It should never have been deleted, it should be retained as a record. --Silversmith 18:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Not only has the history been lost, but now there are broken links to the other page all over the place. SR is getting worked over and over-worked methinks. :-/ Tomer ^TALK 19:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I put the redirect back in, but the history is still, unfortunately, gone. (Hopefully I didn't wipe it out completely by my having put in the redirect...shoulda thoughta that beforn...) Tomer ^TALK 19:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to undelete that page, redirect it to the correct namespace, and then clean up all the changes that Gene Nygaard made to the proposal, or that unintentionally ocurred in the process of his redirecting the page (e.g. most of the text duplicated and mixed up), be my guest. As I said, before I deleted it I spent well over an hour trying to fix it, to no avail. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page protected?

Why is this page protected? How can people vote? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A reasonable question --ClemMcGann 20:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It was protected because there were problems with the text: most of the proposal and discussion was duplicated and mixed up, making it way too long and impossible to follow. I protected it when I was trying to fix these problems; when I fixed 'm, I unprotected it.

[edit] Why is this page weird-looking?

On my watchlist, that is. El_C 21:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's fixed now. El_C 21:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preferenced-based date convention display implemented

I have implemented the preference-based date convention display using user style sheets and templates. Thankfully the suggestion Alphax makes works very well.

Please see User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page for the lines to add to your User:YourUserName/monobook.css page to change the display behaviour of dates wrapped in the {{BC}}, {{BCE}}, {{BCEBC}}, {{AD}}, {{ADCE}} and {{CE}} templates.

Please note at the current time, this has been implemented as a way of getting feedback, and is not to be used on real articles whilst in this "beta" period.

Pcb21| Pete 19:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When does this vote end?

I'm sure that this is probably been mentioned somewhere but I can't be bothered reading through 200kb so I ask here: When does this vote end? Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• It might as well end now - if this is to be policy it'd require at least 75% support, plausibly more. It'll never reach that. Radiant_* 11:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Then what will happen to the articles which have been changed by User:Slrubenstein from BC/AD to BCE/CE, such as Cultural and historical background of Jesus ?? --ClemMcGann 13:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• They'll get changed back. Sam Spade 13:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why would they get changed back? Wikipedia has always allowed the use of CE and BCE in our articles. Even now close to 45% of our voting users want to make this the default and official useage. Why would a No vote on Steve's proposal suddenly ban this useage and cause people to revert all such academic useage? I can think of no reason, and no one should want to do so, unless they want openly do this to send a message to all non-Christians, and this would be grossly offensive. A full revert on this can only stem from a desire to push the Christian faith on non-Christians. RK 17:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how such things should be handled. However, I think I should bring up that if someone is allowed to change every page to BCE/CE and no one allowed to change it back, how is that different from this policy being enacted? Fieari 18:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how long the vote remains open on a policy change (see Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy), but I'm sure it's more like weeks than days. As for altering articles - in the absence of a policy, I don't see that edits should be reverted. That's a matter for the editors involved in a page. Guettarda 19:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of having this discussion and vote if User:Jayjg and User:Slrubenstein just go around changing instances of AD/BC to CE/BCE ? just look at the recent hisory of Cultural and historical background of Jesus and I thought that User:Slrubenstein said that he would step aside for a while? --ClemMcGann 21:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing as it stands says we have to use AD/BC. On the contrary - my reading of our NPOV policy says that we should already be using BCE/CE, or some other less POV system of dating. Even if you disagree with my reading of NPOV, there is nothing wrong with using BCE/CE. It's a widely used, relatively neutral system of dating. Like any other change to the structure of an article, you can enter debate with your fellow editors and try to come to a consensus on the appropriate page. That has nothing to do with this attempt to clarify NPOV. Guettarda 22:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If we were to go with the American vs English spelling system, then an article that is written in a particular style stays that way, unless there is a good reason for it not to, i.e. it's an article about America or England. So, if this vote doesn't go the BCE way, then articles should stay with their original usage, unless good reason not to is argued. Of course, revert wars should be avoided and perhaps reaching compromises like on the Jesus article is a good idea. --Silversmith 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile User:Slrubenstein continues to change dates from AD/BC to CE/BCE. He is now mapping 200CE to 100AD! I assume that the article is referring to the Council of Jamina which (if it actually took place) was in the year 92. See Bible#The_canon_of_Scripture The date 200CE maps to 100AD. --ClemMcGann 00:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the history, he didn't change Bible#The_canon_of_Scripture to BCE/CE, it already was that way. 200 is also a figure many scholars use, and as you say, the council may not have even taken place. Please be sure before you make statements that he can't even respond to if he is to stick to staying away. --Silversmith 00:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Go to Bible#The_canon_of_Scripture It reads: For Jews, it is commonly thought that the canonical status of some books was discussed between 200 BCE and around 200 CE, Now click on the 200CE and you will get 100AD. Perhaps CE and AD do mean something different, after all? --ClemMcGann 01:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have altered the date. Now if you click on 200CE you get an edit, (the link is red). However it used be 100. My understanding is that 100 is correct. There may have been a Council of Jamnia (also known as Jabneel) in 90 or 92. There certainly was a centre of learning there from at least the fall of Jerusalem. All texts which I have read hold that they, then, defined the extent of the Jewish Bible. I am of the opinion that 100 is a more appropriate date than 200. I am unaware of any discussions between Jews canonical status of the books of the Bible between 100 and 200. --ClemMcGann 12:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that is a good idea, Guettarda. Keep it open for months. That way any new calls for votes will be objectionable as being out of order.

Your other comments about reversion are total nonsense. It's just like a page with consistent, established American spelling. A "spelling correction" to British English in that article is subject to reversion. That is a matter of our style guidelines. This proposal calls for a change; not agreeing to it doesn't been our old policies and guidelines vanish into thin air.

Furthermore, the people doing the reversion would be, by definition, those "editors of the page" you want to leave it to when you say "its a matter for the editors of the page". We don't register to be editors of a page; and no one person or group of persons "owns" a page to the exclusion of others.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with "clarifying NPOV". That policy has to do with different problems entirely. The NPOV policy has nothing to do with classifying A as an evil, bad-ass point of view which we need to avoid and cannot use on Wikipedia, and classifying B as a wholesome, good point of view that will make you a better person, and the only acceptable for a Good Wikipedian to express something. What neutral point of view deals with is two (or more) conflicting points of view, and ensuring that both of them are presented, without calling one of them wrong, fairly (but also without giving undue emphasis to a minority point of view. This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with that policy. Just go read the policy, Guettarda, don't be led down a false trail by Slrubenstein's mischaracterization of that policy. Gene Nygaard 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you think I am that stupid, Gene. I read the NPOV policy, long ago, and many times in between. It's self-evident that AD is POV - if I could figure that out when I was 10 years old, it really isn't that difficult an idea to grasp. To say that it is AD 2005 means that it is the 2005th "Year of Our Lord". NPOV says that we should not say "X is the case", we should say "considered by X to be the case". AD is saying "We are in the time of our (risen) Lord". CE says "We are in the Common Era", which is shorthand for "the time that Christians consider to be the time of their (risen) Lord". Similarly, BC means "Before Christ" and Christ means Messiah. If it was "Before Jesus" that would be NPOV (though I wouldn't vote for that abbreviation). BC means "Before the time of the Messiah". The NPOV alternative would be "Before the time of the person that Christians consider the Messiah".

This doesn't fall into the "presenting alternative views for balance". That would require that we list dates according to the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Chinese, Mayan calendar. Calling this year 2005 or 1425 is just a matter of naming, and the gregorian calendar is more widely used in the English-speaking world. That's not the same as BC/AD. Guettarda 22:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think you were stupid—before. Had I done so, I wouldn't have bothered pointing out the inconsistencies in your points about "leaving it to the editors" and that this is an NPOV issue.

"NPOV alternative": That is a concept foreign to NPOV policy.

Names of things often had a gender bias, a cultural bias, or whatever. NPOV doesn't address that; it deals with the opinions and facts and interpretation of the facts about the subjects under discussion in an article.

At least we agree on one thing: the use of the Roman calendar does not fit under NPOV policy, and it does not fit under your interpretation of NPOV policy. You almost hit on the truth in your last paragraph—this doesn't fall under "presenting alternative views for balance". That shows it has nothing to do with that NPOV policy, because that is what the NPOV policy is all about. Since it is instead a matter of style, we choose the one which will be generally understood, and in some cases others relevant to the discussion at hand. But note carefully if it were covered under your idea of what NPOV policy should be, then we would only need to use any one of them, but we would also need some supposedly good, your-interpretation "neutral point of view" names for them, so that we wouldn't have to believe that Yahweh created the world 5765 years ago, and so that we wouldn't have to give any significance to Mohammed's hegira, etc.

Did you notice that when Slrubenstein talks about years like 5765, he never identifies the calendar with "A.M." or in any other way? Perhaps he figures that since he is using the "real" calendar, it doesn't need to be identified; but I think that mostly he is hoping that people will not notice that this calendar also expresses one of those evil, culture-centric points of view. What can we do to solve that problem? Write out "when the Jews believe that Yahweh created the world" every time we use those dates? Is there another alternative? Of course, he doesn't need to worry about distinguishing A.M. from "before A.M. 1", since nothing could happen before Yahweh created the world.

Getting back to your arguments about AD/BC, an apt example is the fact that the Quakers (Society of Friends) use "First Month", etc., so that they don't have to honor that two-headed Roman god from which "January" gets its name. That is exactly the same thing as what you are arguing about in regards to AD/BC vs. CE/BCE. If the NPOV policy had anything whatsoever to do with tagging names as a good, "neutral point of view" and as a bad and unacceptable "non-neutral point of view", then we have an alternative, good, already established NPOV alternative for the names of the months, and we therefore must use that system. But of course, that doesn't apply, because this situation is not what the NPOV policy deals with. — Gene Nygaard 13:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Gene, your continued impugning of the character and intelligence of User:Slrubenstein is unproductive, and frankly, it's becoming incredibly annoying. You have consistently tried to turn his call for comment into a platform for attacking him. You have been asked to stop by several people. It's one thing to not apologize for your behavior, but when it's been pointed out to you that what you're doing is a violation of SET IN STONE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES, it's quite another to continue.

As far as Slrubenstein's "talk[ing] about years like 5765" and not putting a tag on it, there is no tag to put on it. Tagging it with anno mundi would be an implicit recognition of a POV that is not only unique to Judaism, it is a minority view within Judaism. Just as with using 2005 is a convention, so is using 5765. More to a real point however, Slrubenstein has CONSISTENTLY stated that his statement that this year is 5765 is his personal POV. At the same time, he has consistently stated that saying 2005 AD is explicit endorsement of a POV. I would say that even saying 2005 or 2005 CE is a POV, and there's really no good way to NPOV the whole dating thing, so we're kinda stuck with what works. The only RELEVANT discussion here is whether or not BC/AD is more or less or equally POV as B/CE or no marker at all. Enough already with the red herrings, argumenta ad hominem and straw men. Tomer ^TALK 16:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

You couldn't be farther from the truth. Lack of jurisdiction is always in order. This does not fall under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Those of us who believe that have every right to vote against Slrubenstein's proposal (and he has many times over made it quite clear that this is his circus) on that basis alone. That is, in fact, the most RELEVANT discussion here. Gene Nygaard 04:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There are, of course, roughly a zillion other issues in the rambling proposal, every one of which is a RELEVANT point of discussion here. Gene Nygaard 05:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to attack other wikipedians. Before you launch any of your vitriolic invective against me, you might pause to consider that I actually agree with the small percentage of your "rambling" that actually addresses the issue at hand. Tomer ^TALK 15:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

[In answer to Gene Nygaard] From WP:NPOV#The_original_formulation_of_NPOV

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

This statement presents two alternatives - one that is POV, and one that is NPOV. Hence, there is such a thing as an NPOV alternative. In keeping with this example (which, I realise, is not the totality of the NPOV policy), we must select the neutral alternative way of stating dates within the western system of dating - we must say that we are in 2005 of what is considered to be the time of our Lord. To say 2005 alone is fine. But to say AD 2005 is POV. If you need to distinguish +2005 from -2005, you can say 2005 in the time of Our Lord, or you can say 2005 in what Christians consider to be the time of their God. One is POV, one is NPOV. How could anything be simpler? Guettarda 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• The point I was trying to make is that some people seem to have trouble sticking to that subject, which is the only one of any relevance in what is now surely a megabyte of rambling text. Tomer ^TALK 17:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - I was answering Gene Nygaard, not you Tomer. I agree with what you said. Guettarda 17:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote no

Implementing this via the CSS display property is a bad idea, because the wikitext then makes no sense without the CSS information. If you use a browser that does not support CSS (e.g. text-only browser, maybe also web-page readers), or any other program that tries to process Wikipedia data, it will get "year AD CE" (or the other way around), which doesn't make sense.

The proper solution would be do have the preference integrated with the date format preference.

--K. Sperling 01:46, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

No-one has ever said that a full server-side solution wouldn't be better, but that is vapourware for the forseeable future. Text-only browsers have bigger problems with Wikipedia than this would be. Pcb21| Pete 07:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Any page on this issue somewhere else (not aware of one)? "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." ([1]) Are we going to do well on this if we cut out text-only browsers? I suppose it shouldn't matter, but I don't know. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Good point, Sperling. Support lynx! Radiant_* 11:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

GMaxwell has accused me of vandalism because I deleted a personal attack posted by RJII, where he wrote: "Good riddance," under Steve's post about withdrawing from the discussion. I deleted this in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, because the comment was not attached to, or posted in order to explain, RJII's vote or his position on the isssue. Whether you agree with Steve or not, it was decent of him to withdraw in case he was polarizing the debate, and that shouldn't be used as an opportunity to attack him, especially as he now can't defend himself by responding on the page. RJII has a gripe against Steve over another issue, and is prone to making personal attacks anyway.

I can't understand why the discussion has deteriorated in the way it has. This isn't a personal issue. Some people believe BC/AD is POV; others disagree, so the way to proceed is with a poll and a debate about the issues. But instead, a small group of editors seem determined to turn the debate into a series of slurs against the proposal's author, which is very surprising, as Steve is a respected editor who made this proposal in good faith.

GMaxwell, I'd appreciate it if you'd retract your accusation of vandalism against me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

A "respected editor"? Please. The guy launches bogus arbitration cases against people when he can't get his way in editing. I, and many others, don't think he's a value to Wikipedia, and in his final statement he says that this whole thing wasn't meant as a poll but just meant to stir up controversy. What a waste of time. I say good riddance. RJII 18:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur completely. Before this proposal was initiated the same guy spent several weeks at Talk:Jesus pushing the exact same garbage and insisting that he get his way even though he could not build a consensus behind his position over there either. This supposedly skilled and "respected" editor got suspended a couple times for 3RR violations when he kept inserting the proposed BCE/CE system even though a discussion was still pending with nothing even remotely near a conclusion. As evidenced on this proposal as well, he has a bad habit of berating and attacking almost any individual editor who comes along and disagrees with his position. Just look at the votes section where he made personal responses to about half of the 80-something votes against his asinine proposal. Editor can't even cast a simple vote against his position without risk of being berated moments later by User:Slrubenstein who evidently sits at his keyboard hitting the reload button in hopes of somebody/something he can rudely respond to. While it is true that wikipedia frowns upon personal attacks, as far as I'm concerned this particular user is one of the most flagrant abusers of that policy and thus has forfeited any claim to protection under it. Rangerdude 18:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I see him as a repsected and valuable editor, and I'm far from the only one. Which is in any case irrelevant. El_C 20:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think SLR's editorial abilities (good or bad) have anything to do with this. The comment was unnecessary, removing it wasn't a big deal, and certainly wasn't vandalism. If anyone has a problem with SLR I suggest they go and talk to him on his talk page instead of making a horribly long article even longer. It's so sad that because we are on the net we form opinions of each other that are probably completely different to the ones we would form if we met in life. oh well.:/ --Silversmith 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You already said "good riddance", and as noted above, it seems to be a violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. It would probably be a good idea to stop going down that particular road. Whether the initiator "meant" for this to be a poll or not is not easily debatable, and particularly irrelevant, given that we can use it as a poll regardless. Rather than respond to what you see as "bogus" with more invectives, it would serve everyone better to move beyond it and try to be productive. siafu 18:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted my response to a deletionist, probably because I described his/her argument as "idiotic". The removal of my comment was unsurprising as most Wikipedians, including the entire ArbCom, can't tell the difference between criticism of a person and criticism of an argument. Adraeus 18:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is idiotic. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My cat concurs. ;) El_C 21:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

LET'S VOTE!!! Tomer ^TALK 22:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative options

List alternative options here!

Please add alternative options to that page and vote accordingly. Remember to change your vote on the main page. Adraeus 18:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What's this nonsense about changing your vote on the main page. The main vote is up or down on the Slrubenstein proposal to change current policy. Alternatives have nothing to do with that. Gene Nygaard 03:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

abstain: to refrain from voting to make a strong public expression of disagreement and disapproval usually of the major or popular options. Adraeus 14:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The options are, as the headers on the vote page tell us, and as they should be:

• Votes in favor of the proposal
• Votes against the proposal

1. It is the proposed change in policy which gets voted on. That is what should get voted on.
2. What's to "show disapproval of the options" nonsense? If you disagree with those options, you are of course free to choose to abstain. That's fine. Just don't tell other people that they are required to follow your lead.
3. What does abstaining have to do with your original call for people to remove their votes on the main issue in the first place? As you point out, abstaining is a choice the voter makes, not something imposed on the voter.
4. Your proposed software-change preferences alternative is something totally independent of the main vote here. It could be implemented now that this vote has failed (something even Slrubenstein admits in his RFAr against Jguk, even if he won't do so here). It could be implemented even if Slrubenstein had achieved consensus (which is not a simple majority) on his proposal. It has no bearing whatsoever on the vote here. It does not affect in any way the question of how people vote here. Gene Nygaard 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. That's all I'm reading from you, Gene. I suggest you try not to be such an asshole. Adraeus 17:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I second. Tomer ^TALK 18:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to close

This has gone on long enough, and it is bleedingly obvious it will not reach anything remotely resembling consensus. I say we close the debate as a rejected proposal. Proponents should, if they wish, get together on some talk page and create a succinct new proposal for discussion. Radiant_* 13:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, there are policy proposals at Category:Wikipedia proposals that have been around since 2003. There is no need to make this proposal disappear. Obviously, nothing concrete has come out of it yet (in under a week) and nothing concrete might come out of it for a long time. But there are dozens of proposals by other people that are well over a year old and no one wants to delete them. Why delete this? Wikipedia is not paper, it doesn't hurt anyone. Leave it for anyone who is actually interested. And the fact that it exists does not constrain you or anyone else in any way. If you want to create your own proposal, just go ahead! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur on closing this as well. From the votes and the discussion it is painfully obvious that User:Slrubenstein has failed to produce even a bare majority, much less a true consensus, behind his proposal. He further seems to have great difficulty comprehending the fact that other people can and do disagree with his position on a number of perfectly valid reasons, hence his treatment of other editors who vote against him. We're approaching 200 different participants, and if a consensus for this policy hasn't emerged by now with that many editors taking part it never will. Rangerdude 04:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Show me one that has been around since 2003 that garnered over 80 votes against it in the first two days. This is a failed proposal. Gene Nygaard 04:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood? Steve appears to be objecting omn the grounds that the proposal will be deleted. I thought that failed proposals were simply flagged as "failed". If Steve is correct then I would prefer to keep it open; if the discussion is preserved then I think that it should be flagged as "failed". --Theo (Talk) 12:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Theo, please look here (where my proposal is listed) [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]] and tell me which ones are marked as "failed?" None are. Yet you could say that most of them have "failed" in the sence that they did not become policies? Or is it that they have not yet become possibilities? There is a big difference between these two questions, and it is this difference that is at stake. To say it has failed is to say it is over. To say it has not yet been adopted means that any wikipedian can still consider it. I think the crucial thing here is that Wikipedia is an ongoing project. Nothing is ever "finished" or "completed" or "done." Everything is still "alive," even if it is relatively inactive. Even if Gene and Rangerdude do not want to delete this page but just mark it "failed," they are asserting that the process is over. This is wrong. Nothing at Wikipedia is ever "over." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve, Your citing of [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]] does not make the point that you wish because it says "Rejected proposals should not be listed here; instead, check Category:Wikipedia rejected policies". It does however confirm that rejected (and I withdraw the adjective "failed") policies are not deleted. I duly checked and found that it contained 27 policies. So, some policies are rejected. And this one appears to be such a rejection: with 80 opposers it would need an unprecedented swing of opinion to be accepted. In very broad terms it requires some 200 more people to support it with no significant additional opposition. Even if it were possible to drum up that level of support, an opposed constituency of 80 people is probably enough to indicate that there is no consensus. As far as I can see, this argument has been lost; although that does not prevent another argument on the same topic being successful were it phrased differently. --Theo (Talk) 16:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That said, I don't see a particular need to rush this process to its end; there's no harm in leaving it open for now, and allowing others to express their views. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg. Of course I agree with you. Theo you are correct about the "rejected" category, and I appreciate your pointing that out to me, but as Jayjg points out, why rush things along? This is clearly marked as not being an actual policy, so I see no harm. Remember the articles at the "think tank" are most definitely not "accepted policies." No one argues that this proposal belongs in the "accepted" category. The question is, which of the other two categories does it belong in? Here is a proposal that is still in the think tank that was first propossed in 2003 [2]! Here is one that was proposed in 2004, and now has a tag saying it is "inactive" but has still not been placed in the "rejected" category: [3]. There are several proposals that have been in the think tank for five or six months. Here is my proposal for this page: keep it active in the think tank until three months have elapsed. If at that time there has been no more discussion, use the same heading as the one used on Wikipedia: Confirmation of sysophood for at least another three months. I think this is reasonable. NPOV is always an issue that comes up, and BCE and CE come up on particular pages periodically. So it certainly seems reasonable to me that this proposal has as much "historical value" as the one on sysophood. As I said, many proposals are active on that page for several months. I suggest that when six months have elapsed if there has still been no activity on this page, it then be transfered to the "rejected." Given that Wikipedia is an ongoing project, I think this is reasonable. I see no harm in it, since it is clearly identified as a proposal that has no force as a policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see the point in closing it so soon; it's only been up for five days. Six months would seem reasonable before moving it to the rejected page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Haha. If any of you want to waste your time debating this for "six months", feel free. RJII 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a six-month debate, only that it be left up for that time; or three months, but to close after five days seems hasty. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

So - if we close this and consider it rejected, does that mean that we have to move WP:NPOV to "rejected policies"? I have yet to see any way to reject this and still maintain that NPOV is non-negotiable. Guettarda 19:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No we must maintain NPOV. We will maintain NPOV. It just means that we do not agree that this as a POV. --ClemMcGann 19:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not. It was Slrubenstein's proposal we were voting on and rejected, not NPOV policy which remains as it was. And the issue of AD/BC and BCE/CE dates ramains an issue of style, covered under the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Gene Nygaard 06:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

As I understand matters, this was a policy proposal made with aview to its acceptance and implementation. If there is no consensus to accept a policy and such consensus is unlikely then it is deemed rejected. To continue to discuss a rejected policy is not constructive. The way to move things forward is to propose a new policy that is more likely to find consensus given the views that have already been expressed. Retaining the proposal for debate discourages the mooting of a new proposal. Any new proposal can refer to the rejected proposal because the debate is not deleted, merely categorised as "historical". I am not aware that anyone is proposing the deletion of these pages. This is about moving a proposal that reasonably cannot achieve consensus into Category:Wikipedia historical pages. This discussion has made me aware of the disorder in Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank and I have recategorised proposals according to the header templates that they already contained or which were clearly implied by their contents. Wikipedia: Confirmation of sysophood, to take Steve's example, was flagged {{Historical}} and categorised as an historical page. To answer Steve's final point explicitly: The "harm" done in leaving the proposal active when it cannot achieve consensus is that it discourages constructive debate by encouraging debate of the futile. Effectively it provides a dead horse to flog.

Part of the problem with this debate was that it conflated more than a single issue. Most voters appear to be voting on the behavioural issue of whether BCE/CE should be an enforced standard. Some however are voting on the philosophical issue of NPOV. As Clem says, the division here is essentially that we do not have a consensus that AD/BC is POV or that BCE/CE is NPOV. So we maintain the status quo until a proposed change of policy is accepted. We will not get closer to such a proposal by discussing a proposal that has proved to be so divisive. In my opinion, those who seek to change policy should propose a new one and this policy should be categorised as "historical". --Theo (Talk) 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That you have problems with either the proposal itself, the arguments I made, or how I expressed them, is not an issue here (you are free to make any criticisms in the appropriate discussion sections, but that you have objections is simply no reason to clase the matter). Jayjg and SlimVirgin are right. There is zero harm done by keeping this active in the think-tank. There is no harm done. If you or anyone else wants to make a different proposal, the existence of this one does not get in the way. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that you will continue to propose the same proposal until you get an answer which satisifies your pov? --ClemMcGann 21:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You, Steve, misrepresent my position. My support for or objection to the proposal is irrelevant to my opinion that a proposal that is irredeemably beyond consensus should be recognised as such. It is a matter of opinion whether an open proposal will attract discussion: I believe that it will and that it will do so at the expense of constructive debate. You appear to believe that this is not the case. I do not believe that this open policy prevents debate of another; I think that it discourages such debate and I see that obstacle (however small) as undesirable. I have no wish to make another proposal. I am, as I have explained, content with the current policy until a software feature implements user preferences of calendar formats. --Theo (Talk) 21:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Theo, I appreciate your clarifying. I understand you, but I do not agree with you. I do not think Jayjg and SlimVirgin agree either. You think it will attract discussion at the expense of a constructive debate. Well, what could be wrong with waiting a bit to see? If this proposal is immediately put into the "rejected" category. This is entirely reasonable as we as a community have done this before. Here is a rejected proposal that was not rejected until a year had passed [4]. Here is one that was not rejected until nine months had passed [5]. This one took ten months [6]. Here is one that was in the think tank for three years before it was retired to the "rejected" category [7]. What I am asking for is reasonable and has considerable precedent. Theo, we just disagree. But at least you understand my position and I am grateful for that. Clem doesn't seem to understand at all! No, Clem, it means exactly what I said it means. Wikipedia is an ongoing project and as people discover us they are invited to work on anything. I think they should have the opportunity to make comments — pro and con. As I observed above, there are many proposals that have been in the think tank for five or six months. And I was crystal clear about what I propose. This is what I wrote above: "Here is my proposal for this page: keep it active in the think tank until three months have elapsed. If at that time there has been no more discussion, use the same heading as the one used on Wikipedia: Confirmation of sysophood for at least another three months." At that time we can reconsider whether to leave it in the think tank with that label (as is the case with many proposals) or move it to the rejected category. That is what I said. That is all I said. I genuinely have no idea where your question comes from, as it not only puts words in my mouth, it puts words in my mouth that are quite different from the words I have written. Jayjg understood what I meant as did SlimVirgin and even though TheoClarke disagrees with me, he too seemed to understand quite well what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve, I really do not understand how we disagree on the recategorising of the proposal. I particularly do not see the applicability of the precedents that you propose:

• Wikipedia:Three strikes you're out policy had almost all its votes in the first two months and at that point had 24 support votes and 16 against. At that point it was still possible that it would reach consensus if some sixty people weighed in its favour. It hung inactive for four months then got another oppose. Six months later it got several opposers. After a year it had 44 votes spilt 24/20 so no consensus and somebody wisely (in my opinion) flagged it {{rejected}}</nowiki}}. Time to stability: two months but consensus was till possible at that point. *[[Wikipedia:Non-admin protection]] received no attention at all for its first two months and was put to a vote after a further three months of activity. It gained four supporters and thirteen opposers in three weeks and was flagged rejected two months later. Time to stability: three weeks. *[[Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors]] is a much more helpful precedent in that it attracted significant debate with well over 100 changes and comments in its first three weeks. After that there was a brief flurry a few weeks later and the proposal was eventually flagged rejected eight months later. Time to stability: Three weeks. *[[Wikipedia:Make omissions explicit]] had about forty edits in three years. It started with a small majority of supporters and then was slowly overwhelmed with opposition. Time to stability: 2.5 years. In my opinion, only the last of those four stayed active for very long and the delays in flagging them historical are administrative rather than policy. In effect, I contend, nobody noticed. So your precedents do not persuade me. To my mind, continued debate after a conclusion has been drawn (in this case, that no consensus is to be achieved) is a wasteful distraction. Perhaps I can pose my opinion as a question: What is the benefit to be gained by keeping the proposal active? --~~~~

Why the hurry to "close" the proposal? There's nothing to close, and the issue is an ongoing discussion. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Why the desperation to pump life into a proposal that's got 84 editor votes stacked against it and not even a remote possibility of obtaining a consensus? If people are going to post lame policy proposals such as this one they should be prepared to live with the results. And that includes outcomes that you don't necessarily like. Rangerdude 01:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is a lame policy? Jimbo doesn't think so. Guettarda 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your cause there's simply no consensus that what User:Slrubenstein purports to be a POV is in fact such - only the personal opinions of himself and a minority of editors who have undeniably failed to convince even a simple majority to join them. There are also a substantial number of editors who believe his desired alternative to be POV in its own right, and thus insufficient as a solution even if one were to accept his premises. Nice straw man, BTW. Rangerdude 02:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There are now 71 votes in favour, 84 against. That's a pretty narrow margin, as those who are against the proposal do not constitute a 'vast majority,' so to speak. Who is to say that this number, of those in favour, will not continue to grow as discussion goes on and awareness of this issue is raised? That there are already this many people in favour (myself included) and that there are just as many who are against proves that discussion is vital to this process. I don't think this will ever be a 'dead issue.' Only a few days have passed and to end things so soon in such a rush is not at all reasonable, IMHO. SouthernComfort 04:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole issue is that it will take consensus for this proposal to be adopted - not a bare majority (which it still doesn't even have BTW) but consensus, which typically falls somewhere in the 75% range in favor. The point that has been made in moving to close this proposal is that with 84 votes against it, consensus at this point will be virtually impossible to obtain. Put another way, let's assume that the discussion stays open and absolutely no new votes come in opposing the proposal (an unlikely if not impossible scenario given that a fairly publicized discussion will attract new participants on both sides of the issue). To defeat 84 votes and establish consensus you would have to reduce that participation share to 25% of voting editors by increasing the number of votes in favor of the proposal. 84 divided by .25 is 336 votes total, meaning a 75% share in favor would require you to get at least 252 yes votes, or 181 more than you have right now (also meaning you would have to increase the current yes vote total by 3.5 times over) without the opposition attracting another vote. I think it's safe to say that the odds of this happening are downright negligible at this point, and for that reason consensus will never be established behind this proposal the way things stand right now. IOW, it's dead. Rangerdude 06:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

By your line of reasoning, and please correct me if I'm wrong, even if we were to have many more editors involved, we will always end up with a narrow majority on whatever side. If that is true, then a consensus will have to reached through discussion, not by simply pushing the issue aside. It may take weeks, or months even, but I honestly believe a consensus can be achieved due to the very nature of Wikipedia as constituting a democratic medium. Whether this consensus will result in a major policy overhaul, or in simply clarifying and expanding the policy, I think it's reasonable that given time both sides will be able to agree on something. Such a major issue, with so many users having strong opinions and feelings on both sides of the coin, cannot be resolved in just a few days. SouthernComfort 06:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion's already been had many times both here and on the Talk:Jesus page where its author initiated this dispute. It's gone on for weeks and months. It's attracted well over a hundred different participants. The result has been little more than heightened hostility between participants (due in large part to the excessively combative nature of its main proponent) and demonstrable lack of consensus shown over and over again. The simple reality is that a consensus does not exist for the change proposed here nor will it ever exist given the votes stacked against it. If you have a different proposal or solution then by all means offer it, but this page is about the proposal made by user:slrubenstein and that proposal, quite simply, has failed. Rangerdude 06:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the background of the Talk:Jesus debate and I would have to read through all of that in order to be able to grant an informed opinion. What I will say is that User:Slrubenstein has done a great service to the Wikipedia community by initiating this proposal which has gone a long way in raising awareness of this issue. Now it seems to me, judging by the Common Era article and general observations here, that a greater proportion (but certainly not all) of the opposition to the BCE/CE standard is coming from those who reside in the U.K. and Australia. And that this opposition may only be in regards to do with Christian and Christianity-related articles (perhaps also including European history) only. I'm not stating any of this as fact, I'm just putting forth an opinion for the sake of this discussion. Now I can't speak for the U.K. or Australia, but in the United States and Canada BCE/CE has become the general standard in academic circles (including Catholic theological institutes) and is gaining greater acceptance. All of this is fine, and out of this data we can posit that users will most likely be split over this issue, due to geography or religious principles. What we can also posit from this is that a debate does exist concerning this issue for these and other reasons, and that as such, a solution or compromise is necessary.

Now since this proposal has already been set in motion, and since it already deals with this exact issue, and an initial discussion has resulted, why not continue it to resolution? So that if a new proposal will be required, we will have some idea of how to go about doing it and what will be necessary to achieve a solution. I still think this proposal is very valid and just, and perhaps votes were taken too early, or whatever, but I think the discussion should continue between both sides. We have to have some idea of what possible solutions there might be. For example, in the Wikipedia manual of style, it is clearly stated that both BCE/CE and BC/AD are acceptable. This is problematic because if one attempts to change dates in an article from BC/AD to BCE/CE, you will find opposition to that move from someone, even if the article in question has literally nothing to do with Christianity or Christian history. I have run into this problem as of late and it's frustrating for me personally since I have absolutely no interest in imposing BCE/CE upon Christian/Christian history articles, but I do find it frustrating (and offensive) when someone tries to impose BC/AD upon articles having no connection to Christianity/Christian history. One side always ends up being offended by the other, for a variety of reasons.

Point is, this is a serious issue and goes to the heart of compromise. We need to discuss this and a solution has to be found. Many users are of the school of thought that BCE/CE is the most NPOV, while many others are of the school of thought that BC/AD is NPOV. All Wikipedia has to say about the matter is that both conventions are acceptable. And this is a problem, and while a frustrating one for both sides, we are going to have to figure this one out together, with as little hostility as humanly possible. I'm an optimist and I honestly believe we can work this out somehow. But if there is no communication regarding this topic, then how can we possibly figure this out?

This is not a one-way street where only one person can come up with a solution and everyone either has to accept it or reject it. In a community such as this we have to be willing to discuss the issue openly and as humanely possible in order to find a solution, and for this reason our discussion here is of vital importance. SouthernComfort 08:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that both are acceptable is no more of a problem than the fact that "honor" and "honour" are both acceptable, and "liter" and "litre" are both acceptable.

I don't buy either your claim that most opposition to Slrubenstein's proposal comes from the U.K. and Australia, nor your claim that "in the United States and Canada BCE/CE has become the general standard in academic circles (including Catholic theological institutes)".

As a supporter of some sort of change, you ought to be expressing your disappointment at the heavy-handed, one-person-frames-the-question, attack-the-motives-of-anyone-who-might-oppose-me (before the discussion even starts), and vote-before-the-issue-is-joined approach taken by the proponent. Best to let this proposal die, if you ever hope to have a open discussion of this at some future time. Gene Nygaard 17:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The position of RangerDude and Gene Nygaard is simple: since they do not like this proposal, other people should not discuss it. This is absurd and intolerable. Gene and Ranger have had ample opportunity to express their views about this proposal; they have explained why they do not like it, and what they do not like about it — as is their right! But at this point, all they keep doing is repeating themselves. Guys, you do not need to keep repeating yourselves. We got it. We know you do not like it. We know why. That still does not mean that others cannot discuss it. If you are tired of discussion it, well, just go away. If you think this is an unconstructive debate, go do something you believe is constructive. But don't oppose others who may still want to discuss it. It does not matter what their reasons are, they have a right to do so. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! You don't seriously think that anybody is going to have any difficulty figuring out the one participant of these discussions most guilty of repeating himself, over and over and over again, do you? Even several times even before anybody else had even seen the proposal, in fact.

You do not need to keep repeating yourself. We got it. We know you like it. We know why. That still does not mean that there anything left to discuss.

But even more importantly, that does not mean that discussion at some future time will not be more productive, if you give time a chance to remove the taint resulting from all the ways you poisoned your own well. Gene Nygaard 11:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

TAKE IT OUTSIDE!!!

Tomer ^TALK 18:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglocentic nature of BCE/CE

The particular advantage the Anno Domini convention gained currency as the standard of time reckoning is similar to the arguements used by those propounding the adoption of BCE/CE—(1) that it is used in scholarship (2) that its is inclusive, i.e. recognizable to peoples of all languages nations and tongues. While that is true of BC/AD, it may not be true of an alternative. Anno Domini is common to Latin, Germanic and Slavic languages and culture (lets call it "old Christendom", for short). BCE/CE is purely an Anglicization, and there is no evidence to suggests the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek or Slavic speaking nations and peoples will adopt this standard. Hence, the "inclusive" arguement is hard to sustain. This may infact be little more than an another attempt to rebuild the Tower of Babel rather than reach out to include everyone. Nobs 17:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Unless, of course, you also deem the use of the English language on the English Wikipedia Anglocentric.

I'm ethnic Chinese and a native Chinese speaker. On Chinese Wikipedia we use 公元, which is Chinese for "common era". But it's in Chinese. Perhaps you would consider it Sinocentric? -- ran (talk) 17:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, does the Chinese "common era" have the same date? --Dmcdevit 17:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. -- ran (talk) 17:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Which sorta makes them functionally the same. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-thoughts

This policy is far to long and complex to really be a point of communal agreement. We do need some sort of AD/CE policy. That might be something as simple as one of the following:

• CE/BCE is always preferred, except in direct quotes.
• AD/BC is always preferred, except in direct quotes.
• There is no preference between AD/BC vs. CE/BCE. Any given page should use a consistent style, except possibly in direct quotes. What style a page uses should be determined by the convention used in the associated field or geographical area. If there is no outside convention, whichever style the page has already settled on should be maintained. If there is currently a mixture, either will do.

If we wanted to, we could add some reasons why the policy was a given way. Though it looks like we may end up with the third option, with the primary justification being, "there was widespread disagreement".

If people want to try to work more toward agreement on one or the other, I suggest trying to gauge support for the various arguments, such as:

• Changing to CE/BCE is offensively {to you, to enough people that Wikipedia should care} anti-Christian.
• Keeping AD/BC is offensive {to you, to enough people that Wikipedia should care}.
• CE/BCE would be too confuing for a significant number of readers.
• Using the Gregorian calendar is offensive {to you, to enough people that Wikipedia should care}.

I'm not sure the current vote tally isn't tainted by a reaction to this particular proposal and the tactics of interpersonal conflict, rather than being representative of people's thoughtful consideration of what the convention should be, and why. So it might be worthwhile to wait a few months for people to cool down, ponder the matter, and forget about interpersonal badness. And next time focus more on trying to characterize areas of agreement and disagreement, rather than persuading each other into particular opinions. -- Beland 22:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You forget:

* Changing to CE/BCE is offensively {to you, to enough people that Wikipedia should care} pro-Christian.

... which is my primary objection, and seemingly others'.

James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have always encouraged people who disagree with me (in any way) to make their own formal proposals, if they care to do so. I do think Beland may be right about the timing of the next proposal, though. But I have to ask, what does Beland mean by

• CE/BCE is always preferred, except in direct quotes.
• AD/BC is always preferred, except in direct quotes.

Shouldn't direct quotes always be verbatim? If the person quoted uses AD, don't we have to use AD in the quote? If the person quoted uses CE, don't we have to use CE in the quote? Why propose that we not use CE or BCE if it is in a quote? Or, did you mean "unless another dating system is used in a direct quote?" Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Belrand meant that **** is preferred, except in direct quotes, where the preferrence is for the author's usage. Mgw 05:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changing between the two

Some users are effectively ignoring this vote by switching from one dating system to their own preference. I really don't think this should be taking place, and that the original scheme used in the article is maintained (as per X English/Y English spellings). I believe that is the only fair system and should be worked into the MoS. For now, what should we do about these users (revert wars are already taking place)? violet/riga (t) 22:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and you seem to be involved in this crusade. Please just leave the Islamic and Iranian articles alone! BCE/CE are certainly appropriate there. Every single current academic source in these fields uses the BCE/CE convention. I was very very upset when I posted a basically NEW article in Islam and other religions and a few hours later Jguk had changed the CE dates to AD! Zora 00:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The previously undiscussed posting of a so-called "completely new article" as a replacement for an existing article would appear to be much more of the type of thing which goes against the spirit, and probably the rules as well, of Wikipedia.

But in any case, don't lie about what Jguk did. He changed no CE dates to AD. He merely removed one instance where it was probably unnecessary and not worth starting an edit war over by including one or the other, changing "Sometime in the ninth and tenth centuries CE" to "Sometime in the ninth and tenth centuries". Gene Nygaard 02:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahem! A lie is conscious. It is possible that Zora perceived the change in the way s/he described. That the perecption is false and its reporting misrepresented the facts is one thing; an accusation of lying assumes bad faith. --Theo (Talk) 08:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I should assume good faith. But given the often heated nature of these discussions, it was still probably irresponsible to post that accusation here, without double-checking exactly what was done. Gene Nygaard 10:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm involved insofar as trying to get articles back to the BC/AD form in which they were started and then progressing discussions, hence this section being made here. violet/riga (t) 12:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

But let me ask you, what exactly is the problem with leaving the change to BCE/CE intact, especially if most users are not opposed to this change? Even Codex (who is not in favor of BCE/CE and is involved with ancient history articles) has stated that if most users do not have a problem with BCE/CE, most especially those editors who are the most involved, then it will be alright (see Talk:Medes. I can understand that you may not be so inclined to 'shake things up,' so to speak, but WP is about being bold and making changes with appropriate justification. My changes were not radical in that I only changed the dating convention in accordance with the standard widely accepted by Near Eastern/Oriental studies academics and scholars. BC/AD makes absolutely no sense in these respective articles, just as it doesn't make sense to impose such inherently Christian POV terms upon Jewish history and relgion or any other non-Christian religion and history.

And at the same time, no one (at least not me personally) wants to impose BCE/CE upon European or Christian articles, especially if there is no desire for such a change - I am not involved with those type of articles and I will not speculate as to what editors involved with them prefer. And no one wants to change the dating system itself - for example, I have no desire in imposing the Zoroastrian or Iranian calendar (this is the year 1384, from an Iranian perspective) on Iran-related articles, which one user against BCE/CE suggested (which honestly wouldn't make sense as this is the English WP, not Persian WP). The Common Era is indeed common to everyone everywhere and it is an international standard. It makes a lot of sense to use it with non-Christian/European articles, and you have agreed with me somewhat on this. And not only that, I don't think most people have a problem with this. Jguk has been the only one to be so emphatically and vehemently opposed to BCE/CE, regardless of what the consensus might be in regards to these articles. I hope that much is at the very least clear, since you seem like a rational, logically minded sort of person. SouthernComfort 13:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This whole sordid process has already been started. see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jguk Tomer ^TALK 22:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Sunray, a poll has been taken at Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Votes. At last count, the vote was 92 votes to 75, with the majority OPPOSING Srubenstein's policy change proposal. Rubenstein has UTTERLY FAILED to acheive a consensus for his proposed policy change, and now it seems the supporters of the failed proposal are unilaterally proclaiming victory and considering it to be enacted anyway. This is most evident on the Iran pages. Since official wiki policy states that both are equally acceptable and not to go making changes like this from the original form when there is any opposition, it seems you are in violation and the ones here who are making trouble. If both are "equally acceptable" and I can unilaterally make such a change, it would be equally acceptable for me to invade articles about archaeology or the Talmud and impose BC / AD on precisely the same grounds. This policy about officially favoring one or the other under certain circumstances has LOST; face it and stop ramrodding the LOSER policy down our throats as if it actually had anything close to a consensus. This is a perfect example of the process whereby a minority cabal can fraudulently enforce their own POV on everyone else in North American "academia", but if wikipedia is going to work that way, I will stop contributing my edits and will no longer be able to take the whole project seriously at all. Codex Sinaiticus 13:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus, you are making the assumption that what is happening on the Persian pages is a direct result of the Srubenstein policy change proposal. You are mistaken about that. It is certainly not the case for me. I am simply trying to apply the provisions of the style guide (the closest thing we have to a policy on eras) in some reasonable fashion. SouthernComfort (one of the authors of many of the Persian articles) stated that he believed that BCE/CE made sense for these articles. I supported him. Slrumenstein did too, as did several others. BCE/CE is well-accepted for many Wikipedia articles on non-Christian subjects and it makes sense for articles on Persia. Sunray 06:21, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Where does WP policy state that one should not change BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa? There is no such policy. If it is offensive to you to impose BCE/CE upon Christian/European articles, then it is equally offensive to impose BC/AD upon non-Christian/European articles. You yourself stated the issue should rest with the consensus of those involved with such articles (Talk:Medes). If most editors involved with Iranian articles have no problem with BCE/CE (and may even prefer it over BC/AD), which seems to be the case, then why are you so opposed to this change? For instance, Parthia had been previously converted to BCE/CE by another editor (not me), and no one opposed this until Jguk embarked upon his anti-BCE/CE campaign once again. It makes absolutely no sense to impose Christian POV terminology upon non-Christian/European history and religion. Please justify the use of BC/AD in regards to such articles, especially considering that BCE/CE is the de facto standard in Near Eastern/Oriental studies. SouthernComfort 13:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort, without defending or opposing the changes that have been made to the articles in question, let me just point out that you are begging the question of whether BC/AD is indeed inherently POV. Some Wikipedians consider BC/AD and BCE/CE to be interchangeable as far as POV is concerned (though of course others do not). Stylistically, BCE/CE may be more suitable for articles on subjects where BCE/CE is the predominant style in the literature. In other words, I respectfully suggest that the convention should be to use whichever term is least jarring in terms of readability to most readers/editors of a particular article (if only one of the forms is to be used). For example, if BCE/CE is the predominant style in the literature about Islam, and readers of such literature would find it jarring to encounter dates couched in BC/AD terms, then BCE/CE should be preferred.

Since it is difficult to judge with minimal bias how most readers/editors would react to a particular style, I think a good approximation is to adhere to the style originally used in the article, unless a consensus to convert has been achieved on the article's talk page. (This ought to work as long as POV is kept out of the argument and the matter is debated solely on stylistic terms.) Note that I am suggesting a policy that applies on a per-article basis and assumes that for the sake of readability, editors should use only one of the styles. As such, I consider it complementary of other suggestions to avoid AD/CE whenever possible and to include both BC and BCE suffixes for dates that require such a suffix. Does this sound reasonable? Alanyst 15:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst, I appreciate your comments, and this is what I have been arguing all along - that if an editor changes the convention from BC/AD to BCE/CE (or vice versa), that if there is any dispute, that it should be left to the consensus of the editors involved with the articles in question. If an editor is willing to take the time to change the convention, and most editors involved have no opposition to this change, then why, in the case of Iran-related articles for example, should editors like Jguk (who have no involvement with these articles), immediately revert to BC/AD? And why would admins like Violetriga and RickK defend and support his actions, reverting articles themselves as well, and accuse me of violating non-existent policy? Jguk has also justified his reverts based upon this non-existent policy (that WP policy prohibits changing from one convention to another). Iranian history and civilization has is not Christian nor is there a connection to Christianity, and BC/AD makes no sense in such articles. Jguk has refused to allow editorial consensus to decide the matter - again, if most editors do not dispute or oppose the change, then why should the changes be reverted? SouthernComfort 16:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You push assume good faith at least to the edge of, and probably beyond, the limit when you say "why, in the case of Iran-related articles for example, should editors like Jguk (who have no involvement with these articles), immediately revert to BC/AD?" when it already has been specifically pointed out that that statement is factually incorrect. What Jguk changed it to was change it to "Sometime in the ninth and tenth centuries"— there is no "AD" there. [see below]

BTW, that is "involvement with these articles". Perhaps "no other involvement" would be more accurate, but in any case that does not preclude changes in accordance with the guidelines by anyone. Gene Nygaard 17:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Zora's complaint? My statements have nothing to do with that incident. I'm talking about his reverts towards articles I changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE - I work on Iranian articles, not Islamic. SouthernComfort 17:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood it, and am striking my comment above. Perhaps the key here, however, is your admission now that "I [SouthernComfort] changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE" first. That's like changing American English to British English, or vice versa. If nothing else, established usage should provide good reason for requiring discussion before such changes are made. Not doing that is a good reason for reversion, so take the hint and start your discussion after the first reversion takes place, rather than jumping immediately into an edit war. Better late than never. Gene Nygaard 17:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, if most of the editors of those articles do not dispute or oppose the change, then why should they be reverted by a user such as Jguk, who has had no involvement with aforementioned articles? This is a completely different issue from American English vs British. BC/AD is tied to Christianity and my argument is that there are articles, i.e. non-Christian, where BCE/CE is more appropriate. And if most editors involved with said articles are in agreement and/or do not oppose the change - especially since many other articles related to the subject adhere to BCE/CE - then why should Jguk revert based upon non-existent policy? And especially considering that he has refused to properly discuss (instead pressing this non-existent policy) why the change was made, and instead allowing it to remain to see what other editors may think. Not to mention Jguk's changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD when there either already was consensus, or the articles had adhered to BCE/CE for a long time, and/or had originally been BCE/CE. Go through his user contributions. SouthernComfort 17:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to go through his user contributions. We have your admission that you changed them first, in at least some of the cases. Just as when you change it first, it is encumbent upon you to get the discussion going, if Jguk changes existing usage first, he is subject to reversion and it is encumbent upon him to get the discussion going if he wants to change it. It works the same both ways. The point is, don't get your shorts in a knot at the time of the first reversion; use that as a starting point for discussion. Gene Nygaard 19:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if there was no discussion about changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE in those articles before the change was made, one could argue that the lack of outcry about BC/AD represented just as much a consensus for BC/AD as the lack of outcry after SouthernComfort's changes represented a consensus for BCE/CE, and thus SouthernComfort should not have changed the style unilaterally. On the other hand, if no contributors to the articles complained about SouthernComfort's changes, one could argue that reverting them should just as equally be conditioned on discussing such reversion on the talk pages and achieving a consensus to revert, and so Jguk should not have reverted unilaterally.

I perceive that the real disagreement here centers on how to edit an article. Assuming good faith on both sides, SouthernComfort evidently feels that the lack of an outcry by the main contributors to the Iranian articles implies a consensus in favor of the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Jguk evidently feels that because of the lack of consensus on the proposed policy governing the Wiki-wide usage of BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, no article should be converted from BC/AD to BCE/CE without explicitly obtaining the consensus of the article's editors to do so. I am sympathetic to both sides—one should be bold in editing, but systemic changes to the style of an article should be discussed in case one's desired changes should be viewed as pushing a POV. I guess I'm arguing that all articles using either notation should keep their present styles unless the matter is discussed and consensus achieved on the article's talk page to change it. Note that this is a slight change in my earlier formulation that the original style should be preserved; I now lean towards preservation of the current style in order to prevent reverts of long-accepted conversions from one to the other in the distant past. Alanyst 18:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

So now myself, RickK, Gene Nygaard, Alanyst and Codex Sinaiticus seem to have expressed the same thought: the dating style used by an article should stay how the original author wrote it and only after discussion on the talk page should it be changed. That's what I've been arguing all along, but some people seem too blind in their POV. It seems that those people are also not familiar with all the arguments against BCE/CE and for BC/AD and that their implemenation/changeover is 100% correct. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Violetriga: I think you have misunderstood my comments slightly. Please see the last sentence of the paragraph just above your reply: current, not original, so that long-since-accepted changes from one to the other are not reverted without justification. (Perhaps this is the same as your "pre-edit-war" approach as you stated since I started editing this reply. In which case, we agree.) Alanyst 19:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is guided by policies. That my policy proposal has failed to gain approval does not mean that our previous policies or ways of doing things should change. Policies are not rules applied to specific situations, they are principles that guide us. What Violetriga, RickK, Gene Nygaard, Alanyst and Codex Sinaiticus are saying (if Violetriga is correct in her take on things — I am not questioning that, I just do not mean to speak for others), the principle you are advocating is this: "an article should stay how the original author wrote it and only after discussion on the talk page should it be changed." You might protest that you are talking only about the dating system. But why limit yourself just to dates? That is an ad-hoc argument. The principle you are valorizing is "an article should stay how the original author wrote it and only after discussion on the talk page should it be changed." (1) this is not in fact how we work at Wikipedia. There are countless edits on countless articles that violate this principle. (2) this is not an established policy at Wikipedia. I proposed a policy, there was vehement debate, and much opposition, but at least I followed the formal procedure an proposed a policy. If you believe strongly about this, I urge you to propose a formal policy, that "an article should stay how the original author wrote it and only after discussion on the talk page should it be changed." As I did, provide your arguments for this policy, and provide room for discussion and votes, both for and against. Believe it or not — I honestly am not being sarcastic — I wish you luck. Anyone who has a proposal for a policy here has a right to propose it and be given a fair hearing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: I am just floating ideas, and if enough people think they're good then I may go ahead and make a formal policy proposal. I certainly would not want such a policy to apply beyond controversial matters of style such as date notation; we want to preserve the wonderful "be bold" philosophy of Wikipedia. But I think such policies (or at least guidelines) have been enunciated before regarding usage of American and British variants of words. I would hope that people would discuss before changing an article's style from British to American or vice versa; similarly I would hope that a BCE/CE <-> BC/AD change would be discussed first, and absent such a discussion one should leave the article the way it is currently written. Alanyst 19:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you seem to be seeing the change to BCE/CE as acceptable whereas many people have voiced their opinions against it. The simple fact that there has been this revert was shows that some people do not want that system to be implemented in favour of BC/AD. Indeed, some see it as offensive or just a bad idea to change it, and I'm not just talking about Christians. When a change is so controversial, as you must agree this is, it should be talked about on a talk page just as it is when the choice of spelling (BE/AmE/other) is debated. violet/riga (t) 18:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. Jguk was not even remotely interested in those articles until I made the changes. Again, if an editor is willing to take the time to make the change from one convention to another (BC/AD to BCE/CE), that editor is well within his or her right to do so. If there is significant opposition or outcry to this change from the article contributors, the changes can easily be reverted. There is no policy which states that changing from one convention to another is prohibited. What this has to do with the consensus here is beyond me, as this proposal concerned a system wide change of policy, whereas my changes were focused on specific articles within a specific subject which has no connection whatsoever to Christianity or Christian POV terminology. Jguk's reversions had nothing to do with the articles themselves, but with his blatant POV that BC/AD must be the standard. This is false. The fact that he changed articles which had adhered to BCE/CE from the very beginning or for quite awhile (or had been changed by others or myself before this consensus) speaks volumes. SouthernComfort 18:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

But you clearly have a POV for BCE/CE! BC/AD, to many people (including me) has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, therefore destroying your argument. I'd also like to see you head over to honour and change it all to "honor" and see what happens. You seem to have missed the point that if you'd have proposed the change on the talk page and then waited a few days then you would be totally justified in the change. You simply tried to force your view of the use of the dating system and someone disagreed. violet/riga (t) 18:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

And one could say the same of you, that you have a POV for BC/AD. It's a no-win situation. Yes, I believe BCE/CE to be far more NPOV than BC/AD in respect to non-Christian articles - and also considering the fact that BCE/CE is standard in academia, particularly in regards to Near Eastern studies. Again, you're mixing up the issues - this is totally different from variants of English. And you seem to forget that Jguk has so far been the only one to be so insistent upon BC/AD whereas consensus within the articles in question seems to favor BCE/CE. How have I tried to force anything down upon anyone? If I make the changes, and most editors involved with those articles don't oppose them, then what is the problem? Jguk didn't give enough time to allow other editors to come to a consensus. I violated no policy, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is improper. SouthernComfort 19:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are very mistaken there. I have shown a POV for using the format that was originally chosen for the article. It just happens that the people that favour BCE/CE are the ones going around and changing things. You may wish to consult the Talk:List of kings of Persia page to see that there were in fact four people expressing their dislike for the change - it should've been further discussed rather than an edit war continuing. violet/riga (t) 19:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Four people, that includes yourself and Jguk. Codex is the only one out of those four who is regular contributor to Iran-related articles (I don't even think Fornadan (?) has contributed at all to these articles, but I won't speculate). As anyone can see from that discussion page, as well as Talk:Medes and Talk:Parthiais that there is more support for BCE/CE than BC/AD as far as Iran-related articles are concerned. However, Jguk will not listen to reason and allow other editors to state their opinion and instead immediately reverts. I'm sorry, I don't know how anyone can defend his actions when he is not even allowing others to take some time to consider things. SouthernComfort 19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand the fact that extra weight ought to be given to the feelings of those that edit the articles, but you need to realise that the change to BCE/CE is more than just a Iran-related thing. Basically, we need to get the policy made clear on this. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort: Any changes that Jguk has made from BCE/CE to BC/AD have no support from me because of their unilateral nature. I further do not sympathize with him changing an article that was originally written in the BCE/CE style; I agree that that is entirely unwarranted. Where he has reverted an article back to an original BC/AD style, I sympathize with him somewhat insofar as the change from the original BC/AD to BCE/CE was made unilaterally—but although I sympathize with his reasons in such cases, I do not agree with his methods. One more thing: I'm not comfortable with basing the use of BC/AD on whether the subject of the article is connected to Christianity. Doing so implicitly accepts the still-disputed premise that BC/AD conveys a Christian POV. Basing the debate on the prevailing style in the relevant literature, as I have suggested, says nothing about the POV-ness of BC/AD and simply accepts the style likely to be the most readable for the article. In any case, although you correctly state that current policy does not require discussing the matter before converting the style for an article, I suggest that proposing the change beforehand on the talk page is a simple and effective means to gain consensus for such a change, and your arguments against reversions would carry much more weight than the "nobody opposed my changes so there was consensus" argument. Alanyst 19:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

violet/riga: What makes you say that BC/AD has nothing to do with Christianity? How is it that saying something is "Before Christ" is not about Christianity? If it isn't why do so many Christians cling so hard to the term? Why do so many non-Christians prefer BCE/CE? I know, I know, you are probably going to trot out the argument that we say "Wednesday" and "Thursday" and don't think of Viking mythology. True, but we do not say "Odin's day" and "Thor's day," so I don't think that argument really cuts it. Surely you can see that Before Christ and the Latin for In the year of our Lord are pretty much "in your face," comparatively. Honour and honor are both acceptable, depending on what part of the world you are coming from. Why not allow BCE/CE and BC/AD to coexist, just as the Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) contemplates? Why not just intelligently apply policy? That is what I see SouthernComfort doing. I think he should be supported in that. Sunray 19:20, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that User:Jguk has been extending his crusade to encompass every single Iranian article I have ever worked on to impose BC/AD terminology, even those that have been BCE/CE for quite awhile. How anyone can defend this user is beyond me considering his actions. SouthernComfort 19:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Millions of non-Christians celebrate Christmas even though they don't believe in the traditional meaning. Millions of non-Christians use BC/AD and either are unaware or don't care about the traditional meaning. My view of the current policy, even though it's not strictly worded as such, is not to change controversial things especially when it results in an edit war. I therefore reverted to the pre-war state and was hoping for proper discussion (both about that article and about the current state of the policy). violet/riga (t) 19:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand you say which dating convention is used is no big deal. But now you say that it is controversial to make the change. You are confusing me here. If it's not a big deal, how can it be controversial? SouthernComfort 19:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It's no big deal to me. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Millions of non-Christians use BC/AD and either are unaware or don't care about the traditional meaning. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to imply that it's not a big deal to a lot of people. But then we have someone like Jguk. Please, I am really asking you to think this over and ask yourself this one question: if Jguk were to stop his campaign of reversion, what would happen? If the editors of those articles do not oppose the change, and I assure you most of them don't (please engage them in discussion if you don't believe me), and Jguk is not around to revert the changes, what would happen? I'll tell you what - absolutely nothing. No one would bother to change them to BC/AD. Jguk has been the only one who has refused to communicate and to engage in this sort of absurdist behavior, going so far as to even change articles that have adhered to BCE/CE for quite awhile. You may argue that he has the right to do so, but that doesn't make it right if other editors prefer BCE/CE and if there is already consensus for that convention. The fact that he reverted so quickly and continues to do so says quite a bit about his character. Please, take all that I've written on this page into consideration and I think you will see that Jguk has acted recklessly and without regard and respect for others. Regards, SouthernComfort 20:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Violetriga, I implore you to try to distance your views of what is going on at the Persain pages from your views of my proposal. You write, " The simple fact that there has been this revert was shows that some people do not want that system to be implemented in favour of BC/AD," and you are correct that many people made this objection to my proposal. Thus, my proposal is not a policy. But neither is it a policy that one cannot change BC to BCE or CE to AD. There is no such policy! Our Manual of Style actually allows both. So the fact that some or many users have voiced objections to my proposal does not mean that a contributor to the article on Qom or Darius is not allowed to change BC to BCE or AD to CE. If other contributors to those articles objected then of course there should be a thorough discussion on the talk page. But I know of no one who has worked a lot on those articles objecting to SouthernComfort's changes. Again, any rejection of my policy about using BCE and CE more does not create a policy that we should use these terms less, or not at all. If someone wants to propose a policy banning "BCE/CE" from Wikipedia, let them propose it, and let's discuss it, and then see. In the meantime, the policy is: BCE and CE are allowed. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

By "system" I was referring to the dating system, not the proposal. The fact that someone has undone the changes at those articles shows that they disagree with the rationale of the switch. Yes, it's showing POV that it was reverted, but it also shows POV to change it in the first place. BCE/CE is allowed just as AmE, BE and other English variants are allowed, but changing from one to another should be avoided when possible. This goes for articles using BCE/CE being changed to BC/AD which I would also have reverted. violet/riga (t) 19:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This debate is a waste of time

I'm a lifelong atheist, and I haven't the tiniest trace of concern about use of BC/AD. The alternative is essentially the same anyway. Please could you all do something useful instead, like writing some articles? Thank you. Osomec 18:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I cordially invite you, and all others who feel this debate is a waste of time, to stop wasting your time. Additionally, please stop wasting our time by telling us it's a waste of time, so that something might actually come out of this. siafu 21:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Consider this lengthy debate as (hopefully) leading to an alternative to endless edit warring. Perhaps then the time will not seem to be so wasted. And if otherwise, please feel free to ignore this debate. Alanyst 19:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Here's what it boils down to: SRubenstein utterly FAILED to establish consensus, or even a majority of votes, for his proposal; and bitterly stung by this defeat, his side is now declaring victory anyway, and unilaterally proceding as if they had obtained an absolute mandate to do as they please with everyone else's articles. Against all etiquette and common sense, they have instigated huge revert wars by imposing BCE in Medes, Achaemenes, and List of kings of Persia to name only a few. Then they try to make it look like the majority who wants to stick with the accustomed BC is somehow "in the wrong", after they themselves have stirred up all this trouble.

It doesn't really matter what our reasons are for opposing the proposed policy, or if they are good or bad reasons. There could well be 92 different reasons. All that matters is that the proposal has FAILED for whatever reason, and its supporters, unable to live with that fact, are now acting as though it had succeeded. Codex Sinaiticus 19:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you say if users like Zereshk support BCE/CE, then it's alright? What on earth do the changes to those articles have to do with this consensus? You are mixing up the two, none of which is related to the other. There is a general consensus amongst editors to those articles that BCE/CE is preferable. Of course that doesn't stop Jguk from reverting in order to prevent further discussion. SouthernComfort 19:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, you should assume good faith. BCE/CE may indeed be the more appropriate style for these articles. If you feel that it is not, take it up on the articles' talk pages in a civil manner. There could be 92 different reasons for changing to BCE/CE for those articles, and it doesn't help for you to imply that the BCE/CE advocates are ill-intentioned. Alanyst 20:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus is profoundly confused. He believes that what has been going on at Iran/Persia related pages has something to do with this proposal. That is plain wrong. My proposal was to make BCE/CE the uniform NPOV standard. My proposal has not been approved. It therefore is not a policy. And if you look at the Jesus article, where I have contributed heavily and also argued my case on the talk page, we ended up with a compromise just for that page to use both BC and BCE, AD and CE — and I am a firm supporter of that compromise, and just today wrote in defense of useing BC and AD. The fact that my proposal did not pass has changed nothing. (1) BCE and CE are still, as they always have been, permitted on Wikipedia. (2) there is no policy that expresses a preference for AD and BC over CE and BCE. (3) editors are still free to make any edits they think are appropriate to a given article. For Codex Sinaiticus to think that "because we do not have to use BCE and CE, therefore no one should use BCE and CE" is so illogical as to be ridiculous. There is no "my side," and we have not "declared victory." We are Wikipedia editors just doing what we have always been doing: obeying policies, and editing articles to improve them. It has nothing, nothing at all to do with this particular proposal. As I said above, if you think that no one should use BCE and CE, you are arguing for a change in our policy. When I argued for such a change, I actually went through the formal process and followed all the steps. If you want to change our policy, you can do the same thing: make a formal proposal. In the meantime, do not force people to use BC and AD, when there is no such policy requiring it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, the policy is that whatever an article used FIRST is the mandate. This is a reasonable policy, and one that currently exists. BCE is acceptable... if it was used in the article first. If it was not, changing it to BCE from BC is wrong. Otherwise, by your very argument, changing it back is also acceptable. And then you changing it back again is acceptable. And on, and on, and on, in a vicious cycle. If it was listed as AD or BC frist, don't change it. Fieari 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with Fieari, that is also my position. Also I would like to question how much of a "contributor" Southern Comfort is to the Medes aside from changing BC to BCE and sticking CE after the plain numbers for AD dates, and continually changing the adjectival "Mede" to the incorrect form "Median" (It wasn't "The Median Empire, it was "The Mede Empire"... The two real architects of the entire Iran section are Zereshk, who I see has spoken up for BCE, and Fishal, whom we have yet to hear from. They always had it as BC before Southern Comfort first showed up in Medes two days ago and the bandwidth since then has doubled on account of the ensuing rv edit war. Codex Sinaiticus 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't change anything from 'Mede' to 'Median' in that article (at least I don't think I did!), so if you're accusing me of something please show me some proof. Secondly, 'Mede' refers to the peoples themselves, 'Median' refers to the empire and is an inclusive term. So 'Median Empire' is correct as well - Median Empire redirects to Medes. I've seen both terms used. I don't know where this antagonism of yours towards me comes from since I have never attacked you or even lumped you in with Jguk (who began the chain of reversions). I don't appreciate it. And just because you've stated that I have never contributed much to that article, I will add it to my list, especially since it does need clean up. ;) SouthernComfort 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fieari writes "Slrubenstein, the policy is that whatever an article used FIRST is the mandate," and Codex Sinaiticus agrees. Folks, you are both wrong. If you think I am wrong mdash; if the two of you are being sincere when you write this — please tell mich which policy states this, and please provide the name of the section of the policy, and please quote the policy you are referring to. Do not assert claims you cannot back up. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise vote

A possible compromise vote has begun at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. violet/riga (t) 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are mixing "policy" and "style guide". The style guide explicitly states it is not policy, yet all the options you've listed refer to "policy". At the top of every style guide page is a disclaimer like this:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things look alike — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and easier to use, not to mention easier to write and easier to edit.

New contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not expected or required to follow all or any these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. see for example Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (dates_and_numbers)

An example of policy, on the other hand, is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. These state they are official policy. Are you intending to propose a new policy, or make suggestions to the style guide? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right with that. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, better. I'll be offline for a couple of days but I'll check out your proposal more closely when I return. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy not needed

Anyone writing any article should be at liberty to use whichever abbreviation they prefer. The arguments have been well-worn. I am, and always have been, an atheist, but I would always use AD and BC and not the alternatives, which seem to be preferred by those who are too politically correct or just plain Christian-haters. To me, CE etc. simply draw attention to a non-problem. HN, 7 Feb 2006 AD.

[edit] Another Way of Looking At It

We all agree that the only internationally standard numeration is the one that makes this the year 2006. It is equally obvious to everyone that this system of numeration comes to us from Christians. We may not like numbering everything forwards & backwards from a (historically erroneous) birth-year of Jesus, but we're stuck doing so anyway. To me it is desirable to avoid stating, "Jesus' birth is the biggest, era-defining event in history." But, to me, that is exactly what BCE/CE does, even moreso than BC/AD.

When I see BC/AD, I understand quotation marks, i.e., this is the year the Christians, who developed the numeration system I use, gave the name "300 before Christ." Okay, duh, I knew that the reason I was stuck referring to pre-Christian antiquity according to this system was that some people considered a Messiah to have come around year 1.

What seems creepy to me about CE/BCE is that it takes a Christian numeration system and raises its authority even higher. It says that Jesus' birth inaugurated a "Common Era." This is so Soviet or French-Revolutionary in style, that it would be a nonsectarian modernization, except for the fact that the Common Era is still the Christian Era. By using Jesus' birth as the basis of our system, rather than finding a nonreligious basis, and then applying grandly universalizing names to the Jesus-based numbers, we get the worst of both worlds. If I don't accept Jesus' messiah-ship, or consider him the fulcrum of history, then with BC/AD I can see every date as saying, "Some Christians gave this year the name Year of Our Lord 1066. Since I use their system based on their Lord, I'm not going to pretend it's anything other than a number based on the Year of (Their) Lord. Until the world switches to Years of the First Internationale, this will have to do. At least it's well-established." But with BCE/CE, I'm endorsing the idea of a Common Era based on Jesus' birth. Unlike BC/AD, this is no quaint tradition or something I can put mental scare quotes around—the whole point of BCE/CE is to get everyone referring to Jesus Years as "Common Era Years." That's just too Evil Empire for me.

I'm well aware that my view is opposite to the intention of those who coined BCE/CE. My point is that I think they failed miserably in their attempt to avoid the message that history revolves around Jesus. I don't expect anyone else to share this view, but I offer it here, because as far as I can tell, no one else has given a valid reason why CE/BCE is objectionable because it creepily gives too much authority to the idea that the coming of Jesus as Christ established a "new era" for all of humankind. Wareh 21:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CE/BCE is just a more PC way of dating which is more universal. In any event, the turning point isn't actually the year of Jesus' birth, and people are far too lazy to switch over to a new calendar system. Indeed, any calendar system we use is arbitrary; what is year 0? We could come up with one, but how many people will use it? The year the US was founded? The year WWII ended/the year we dropped the nuclear bomb? The year we walked on the Moon? Titanium Dragon 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strongly in favour of BCE/CE

I'm glad this debate is being had. I believe that the BC/AD convention ought to be contested. I'm fully in favour of BCE/CE and especially on Wikipedia it seems like the only option that doesn't make a mockery of the neutral point of view policy.

I'm curious about the strong opposition to the suggestion (except where the opposing poster's own Christianity is a motivating factor); why the passionate attachment to BC/AD? [bitbutter] 85.147.144.209 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really being actively discusssed at the moment, as you'll note from the date of the last edit being ages ago. BCE/CE is probably better to use, and it is becoming much more prominent. However, I think there are some valid points against it:

• • It is basically the same as the BC/AD system.
  • It still has the same inherent bias as the other system.

That's not enough, IMO, to make us not make it the standard, as it is quite standard these days and is often used, and is preferable to the BC/AD standard. We can't exactly switch over to, say, post Hiroshima years or something, because people would be very confused. Well, I guess we could, but it'd be weird.

Fundamentally, I think its important that we standardize the dating system used. Titanium Dragon 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates are used by both historians and scientists. The scientists depend on an accurate benchmark, so it's not acceptable to say one notation "... is basically the same as ..." the other. It must be absolutely the same. For historians, close may be good enough. The Christians, AS USUAL, perfected their calendar to help all of mankind and, AS USUAL, they don't care what people call it as long as it is useful. Other sensitive and prideful cultures may be offended. But the scientists still require a firm standard. The key to making one or the other a standard notation is universal agreement. If there's going to be two sides, each not sure what the other is doing, and feeling that the two systems are "basically the same", this is going to make people nuts in the long run. Hoserjoe 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Point on BCE/CE

I am not sure if this is relevant but BCE and CE are being interpreted by some as Before Christ Existed and Christ's Existence. It fixes the confusion of A.D. being actually 33 years too early, not accouting for Christ's life.

Does this mean that we'll have to find yet ANOTHER notation to satisfy the Christian-haters?

No, it just means WP needs better standards for forbidding voting as a way to resolve questions related to fundamental policies like NPOV (and maybe name-calling as well). Jmacwiki (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)