User talk:Eupnevma

Changing dates

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have read the manual of style. I will include a discussion there. Eupnevma (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Please get a consensus before changing dates. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that you are the only person responding to the pages I change, and that the only real argument on the style pages is that BC/AD is the "status quo", please don't revert any specific pages I change unless there are others who respond to those talk pages specifically. The "status quo" as an argument would still not allow women to vote and have black people in the US (and others around the world) be slaves. The status quo is not a valid argument. If the community is ok with this bias in the world-I am not. It is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia policy. If there are others on these specific pages who comment with some kind of valid reason then we can have the discussion there. By reverting my changes you are persisting in maintaining bias-this is AGAINST what Wikipedia stands for. Eupnevma (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually comparing the use of AD BC with women voting and Black slaves? If you are, that's quite a stretch. It seems you are out to change the world--good for you! But Wikipedia is not the place to do it; Wikipedia follows, not leads. You said: "It is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia policy." I'm curious, which policy you are talking about? The WP:MOS is policy (not opinion) and it doesn't think AD BC is biased. Both styles, CE BCE & BC AD, are acceptable. WP:ERA says, "The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. Apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles with regard to changes from one era to the other." And going to MOS:VAR: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The key phrase here "substantial reason for the change" means you need to bring forward a substantial reason for the change. Not liking it or having the opinion that it's biased, IMHO, is not a substantial reason. To me, at least, your issue is with Wikipedia policy and, as such, you should really go back to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A proposal to normalize dating systems and argue your points there or go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and contribute to a discussion already taking place (or start another discussion there). Masterhatch (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhat Do you think *any religious dating system should be used? 33% of the world is Christian. I am not even trying to change those pages for countries that are predominantly Christians. I am trying to unbiase wikipedia towards a more neutral stance. Why do you object to that? Eupnevma (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch Wikipedia itself states that it must be written from a neutral Pont of view. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia so...that should exclude any "status quo" arguments for a dating system. if you think otherwise then I can only assume that you are blind to your own biases. Eupnevma (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"Do you think any religious dating system should be used?" My opinion is irrelevant as I do my best to keep my own POV out of my editting. Also, what does the % of Christians have to do with the price of beer? Wikipedia DOES NOT decide era style based on religion, nor should it. Imagine if it did? Imagine the squabbling that would arise on articles that both Jews and Christians feel dear to? The MoS is what we have to work with. While it isn't perfect, it's what we have. Without the MoS, wikipedia would be the wild wild west. It can't be ignored just cuz there's an aspect of it you disagree with. The MoS was built over many, many years by discussion and eventually consensus. You mentioned status quo, well the MoS is not static. It can be changed. You said: "I am trying to unbiase wikipedia towards a more neutral stance." Well, that tells me you are trying to change MoS policy and if you believe the MoS is biased, I strongly suggest you take your concerns to one of the aforementioned MoS talk pages as you really need to engage the whole wikipedia community when policy change is suggested. Masterhatch (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch So of both styles are ok then leave me alone while I use an acceptable style. Eupnevma (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, both styles are acceptable but to change from one to another, you need A. a substantial reason and B. consensus. You have neither. Since you seem to believe that non-Christian articles shouldn't use BC AD and those are the ones you want to change, that deviates from the MoS policy and you should really challenge the MoS at its talk page since you feel so strongly about it. Masterhatch (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch I don't think any articles should use the BC/AD system. I focused on those articles as the most glaringly biased. When I have done this in the past I put a post on an article talk page and if nobody protested I unbiased this aspect of the article, so there was consensus for those articles. The same would be true today if you were not reverting my edits. There is a very good reason to not use this system so I believe I am in full compliance with the rules. Eupnevma (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The very fact you said that you think no article should use AD BC tells me you have a clear bias. The very fact the MoS states both styles are acceptable tells me you are wrong about being "in full compliance with the rules." Again, if you have issues with wikipedia's policies, don't arbitrarily and unilaterally force your bias and POV on articles. You must get consensus for changes like that. Without the MoS, wikipedia would be the wild wild west. There are many aspects of the MoS i disagree with, but i comply with it. I suggest you consider the same. Masterhatch (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch what do you think my bias is? Eupnevma (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I was clear when I said, "The very fact you said that you think no article should use AD BC tells me you have a clear bias." You need to recuse yourself from pushing your bias when editting. Masterhatch (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You know, if it was one specific article you were trying to change it would be a whole different ball of wax. You could bring forward compelling arguments for the change (your opinion that it's bias is not a compelling argument) and state a strong case. But that isn't what you are doing. You are going for wholesale changes on multiple articles without a single compelling argument and that goes directly against MoS policy. That is why you need to go to the MoS policy talk page. Masterhatch (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You said: "When I have done this in the past I put a post on an article talk page and if nobody protested I unbiased this aspect of the article, so there was consensus for those articles." FYI, if you edit with a 2nd account and don't declare it, that's a sockpuppet, which can get you banned from editting. Masterhatch (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand what a sockpuppet is. Editing anonymously is not a sockpuppet. Eupnevma (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you do. Logging out to make edits is the same thing as creating a 2nd account to edit with. It's a way of hiding what you are doing. Not cool. Read wikipedia's policy on that. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Masterhatch (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about me. I used to edit anonymously before I realized that you could make an account. Eupnevma (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me. I was presumptuous. I will strike that uncalled for comment. Masterhatch (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Eupnevma (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I am also opposed to all these changes, as many others will be. So please don't do them - you do not have consensus support. Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)