User:West London Dweller/Rational Calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taken from Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Pretty much contains my views on the use of BCE/CE - a misbegotten 'politically correct' mish-mash. I'd far rather a proper rational nomenclature and dating system were used. Of course - the liklihood of this happening is extremely remote, so cultural hegemonists will continue to hold forth. Sigh.

I'm inclined to agree with BCE/CE. It *is* in mainstream academic use with many authors, it is recognised, and part of the reason for that is that the debate over whether BC/AD is felt to be chistian-centric has been thrashed out in academia and judaica already off the internet, and it's clear a significant proportion of people at least feel BCE/CE is more desirable. As a reference text, I'd suggest we follow that too. FT2 (Talk) 10:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. "Significant proportion" does not mean a majority (or a plurality, if you prefer). As I've stated elsewhere, on this talk page, my preference would be for a dating system that is not centred/centered about a religious personage. WLD 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is that there should be a standard which follows Wikipedia's fundamental NPOV policy. While it may be reasonable to debate which particular terms are more neutral than others ("insurgency" for example) there's no need to have this debate over and over again with regard to particular terms which are standard form. This needs to be resolved at WP:MOS/dates and numbers, and a thread should be started at wikien. This is for sake of standardizing things and preventing things from fragmenting further by dwelling in unnecessary debate. It has nothing to do with what people think about Jesus and where he belongs - it has to do with using NPOV terms -at least the most NPOV terms we have available. -Ste|vertigo 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
People seem to agree on using Common Era notation. On the issue of the Judaism tag, I would suggest that it be replaced with a cut-down template that is less Judaic and more Jewish. Isnt understanding Jesus Jewishness is separate from understanding his Judaism? Judaism as both religion and culture has too much depth to claim as a full prerequisite or even a parallel reference to understanding Jesus background. When we were first using topical templates, I argued that their inclusion should be limited in organized and rational bounds. And isn't Jesus a topic in Christianity? Why isnt the Christianity template included, hence referencing Jesus as a subtopic within Christianity? Its simply a structural paradox, so Im inclined to be as inclusive as possible. -Ste|vertigo 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You wouldn't believe how many MB worth of archive pages there are full of debate on exactly this question, Steve... And the debate continues on, even though a slight majority agree on using BC / AD in every poll ever taken so far. If you want to jump in the fray over there, check out all the Eras archives of the Mos section first. What you said about "People seem to agree on using Common Era" couldn't be more incorrect, if you mean site-wide. Not a vast majority, but still a majority feel that "CE" exudes more of a POV look to an article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Democracy - polls are taken not to guage which view is correct but to ascertain the spectrum and scale of divergent POVs. Hence, even if fundamentalist Christians ransacked the article and swarmed the polling pages to assert Anno Domini over Common Era, they would still have to lose out according to NPOV. Thems the rule - the main one in fact. If people havent been thinking along these lines, its because theyve been inclined toward biases in language and terminology rather than toward NPOV. Its as simple as that. -Ste|vertigo 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My gosh, how did YOU get to decide that BC (used for centuries) is POV and CE is NPOV, and that most people are "wrong" and need to be "educated" by you? Wikipedia may not be a Democracy, but it does operate by consensus, and is also not an oligarchy. I strongly suggest you stop rehashing the whole debate here yet again for the umpteenth time, and take it to the MOS page. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. In my opinion, both BCE/CE and BC/AD are (irredeemably?) tainted with a POV. But, if BC/AD are to be replaced, I would prefer not to use the politically correct mish-mash that is BCE/CE and use a dating system that is not Christ- or any other personage- centred. Using years from the foundation of Rome (AUC) would be better, but probably too western-centric. Years from the epoch of the Julian Day Number would be my slight preference. In the absence of a rational system being available, I would vote for leaving well alone, and using BC/AD. WLD 08:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea, right. Why don't we invent out own dating system starting with the birth of Jimmy Wales (the BJW/JW system)? That way, there will be no confusion at all! Back to reality: both systems are established. Both can be used. In some contexts one is clearly preferable to the other. Personally I wish the inventors of BCE/CE had left it as BC/CE rather than insisting on both sides changing, then 90% of the dispute would vanish, since we rarely use AD anyway. But they didn't, and we can only work with established conventions. Paul B 08:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, my preference would be for a non-personage centred dating system, which one based around the birth year of Jimmy Wales clearly would not be. It is not true that we can only work with established conventions (in the general sense). Obviously, there is the Wikipedia injunction of 'no original work', but the Julian Day Number epoch is not original - it was conceived by Joseph Justus Scaliger in 1583, which you would know having read the Julian date article. Some say the idea of the Julian Period antedates this by about 400-500 years, as Robert Foliot, Bishop of Hereford writes of the period of 7980 years in 1176, (see Twelfth-century origins of the 7980-year Julian Period: American Journal of Physics -- January 1983 -- Volume 51, Issue 1, p. 73) and a previous Bishop of Hereford, Robert de Losinga also mentions it in 1086 (see New evidence concerning the origin of the Julian period: American Journal of Physics -- November 1991 -- Volume 59, Issue 11, p. 1043). The use of Julian Day Numbers is extremely well known to astronomers - it is an established and useful convention in their field, so its use elsewhere is not beyond the pale. I commend it as an example of a more culturally neutral dating system. It is open to criticism, but, in my opinion, less so than BC/BCE. Wikipedia establishes its own conventions in any case - such as the conventions on which variant of English spelling to use in articles and so on - the Manual of Style is a collection of such conventions, so choosing another convention is not unprecedented. Please note, I am not saying that we should summarily change all dates to years from the Julian Period epoch - simply commending such as system for consideration. Perhaps I should 'be bold' and do it anyway, but somehow I don't think that would wash. WLD 10:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Again this is off topic - I would prefer to use Stardates.
Well, according to the Stardate FAQ here [1] (which is the most popular theory of Stardates), the stardate epoch (the date they start from) is probably 2162-01-04, making current dates negative. While I applaud the sentiment, I suggest that if changing dates, it would be best to change to a scale where all historical dates are positive. WLD 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
AS for being off-topic - I sometimes think the off-topic parts of discussions are the most interesting. WLD 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Common Era notation, referred to here as "BCE/CE" despite its "personage-centered" basis - call it "centrage", its still more universally acceptable (secular, nonbiased, NPOV) than BC/AD. Im sorry if some of you feel like NPOV is some sort of opinionated imposition. It is not - its the basic philosophy which guides the way we write about all articles. Its not 'who died and made you Mr. NPOV' - a more proper statement shoudl be 'if nobody stands up for NPOV, then evil wins.' -Ste|vertigo 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out above by User:Codex Sinaiticus, polls on Wikipedia consistently show slightly greater than 50% support for the BC/AD usage - so BCE/CE style is not more universally acceptable. I'll say again - if changing from BC/AD, why not change to something secular and rational? In my opinion, BCE/CE is neither. WLD 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)