Wikipedia talk:Eras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed wording

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

Favour the change

Variation 1

Proposed wording

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

Variation 2

Proposed wording

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

Variation 3

Proposed wording

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

Favour discussion

Variation 1

Proposed wording

Favouring one style of era name over another is controversial. Editors should not replace the currently used style of era name with another until the change has been proposed on the article's talk page and a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to make the change has been achieved.

Variation 2

Proposed wording

Favouring one style of era name over another is controversial. It is recommended, but not required, that editors not replace the currently used style of era name with another until the change has been proposed on the article's talk page and a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to make the change has been achieved.

Favour the original author

Proposed wording

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

Wording discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoS versus Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Renaming this page

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

Writing policy

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

Extreme simplification

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

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

Explaining BCE/CE

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

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

zoney ♣ talk 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A modest proposal

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

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

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