Wikipedia talk:Eras/Archive 2

Why in the world is this all of a sudden Jguk talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras?

In the editorial comment moving everyone else's discussion to Archive1, Jguk said "archiving on a point of agreement - in hope that this can be the start of reconciliation"

I have no idea what agreement he is talking about.

The most significant portion thrown in out in the archives was the discussion of the wording, which is proposed on the project page to which this talk page is attached. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras - Archive1#Wording discussion. Gene Nygaard 02:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I'm bringing the discussion back. This kind of high-handed action is the crux of the problem we have been dealing with. I will avoid getting Ad Hominem but must say this is typical. Sunray 05:54, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clem, et al: "BCE"/"CE" has been used in the academic world (at first selectively, then ever more widely) for at least 80 years -- often as a courtesy to Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist etc. peers when working on historical and archaeological issues. It makes a neutral dating system for people who use other calendars and other notations, although everyone is well aware that the "common era" we are using is based on an estimated date for the birth of Jesus. Courtesy should also be a Wikipedia virtue, I think. If a real proposal gets off the ground here, I (as a Christian) would have no problem being courteous enough to use "BCE"/"CE" as the Wiki style. WBardwin 21:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WBardwin is right that we should be courteous, but mistaken as to whom we should extend the courtesy - and that is to our readers. Our readers are a diverse bunch - they can come from any part of the world and have any background, and it is clear worldwide that there really is only one standard, BC/AD. This is true by a long, long way. So much so that many do not understand, or get confused by, or just will probably not choose to read, something that uses what to them is an alien style, BCE/CE. It is fundamentally important that we keep our readers happy. That is the test. So we should extend a courtesy, and that is by using BC/AD throughout.

Incidentally, WBardwin, you misunderstand some of the history. You might find this, which is only 12 years old and is from America, of interest. Kind regards, jguk 21:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And -- the point of your link? Old news. I understand the history. CE is very old, it is from theological ideas in the middle ages. It is part of a church based perspective. But, having used it since I went to undergraduate school (at a church based university) for many many years, it is a workable relatively neutral standard. Just because the Jehovah Witness's apparently like to use it does not make it any more point of view than BC/AD.

I agree with you that BC/AD is the current Western non-academic standard and that all of our readers would need educating in how to use a new nomenclature. But, may I point out that we have many English readers from Asia and other parts of the world as well, a large majority without exposure to the Western norm. I work with a number of Koreans /by phone and online primarily/ who are most comfortable using BCE/CE terms. In fact, one of them asked me to explain AD when it was found in a reference document. We use terms in Wiki (like Amerind) which are also moving toward neutral and are academically based. We get away with it because an encyclopedia can explain its entries. We expect our readers to read. If they do, we can explain new and useful terms to them. Now, nowhere in this present talk/proposal have I read that we are banning the use of one or another of the conventions, just trying to establish how the systems could best be used. But sticking with the "old" just because it is old and comfortable implies that we and our readers are unwilling and unable to learn new things. This may reflect America's current school system -- but that is a topic for another day. WBardwin 22:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This approaches advocacy, which is to be deprecated. Septentrionalis 14:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tempora mutant et nos mutantur in illis. In 50 years time we most probably won't be having this discussion - maybe BCE/CE will have passed off into oblivion, maybe BC/AD will be quaintly archaic, maybe another style entirely will be preferred. And if the style used out there in the real world changes, so should the style on WP. We should reflect and respond, not lead. Currently BC/AD is overwhelmingly, by a long, long way the worldwide standard, as you acknowledge. It is therefore appropriate that we extend the courtesy to readers of using that terminology as it is that terminology that they prefer. If, over time, that changes, then we too should change. Kind regards, jguk 22:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we were composing this encyclopedia early in the previous century, would it be appropriate to use terms like "darkie," "abo," or "half-breed" because they were in common use? These may seem like extreme examples, but I am troubled by your apparent assertion that the discussion of appropriate terms should be sidestepped in favor of pandering to what the readers prefer. The readers could well be wrong in preference (wrong in relation to wikipedia's principles), and we shouldn't simply assume that it doesn't matter because they have such a preference. If you were to indicate that this particular case is not a big deal that would be one thing, but I'm getting the impression that you hold the view that the discussion (of POV, of appropriateness, etc.) itself is illegitimate because the perceived comfort of the readership should trump outright. siafu 22:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find those terms used (outside quotations, where WP would also use them) in the 1911 Britannica, I believe this to be a straw man argument. Septentrionalis 14:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misquote me, Jguk --- "....the current Western non-academic standard..." (see above). Wikipedia is a reference work -- designed to give people old, current and innovative information in a useful readable format. I currently use both of the styles in Wiki, but judiciously. I tailor their use to fit the article and the previous usage on the page. But, if I were to choose, I would use 207 Before Common Era (207 B.C.) for first reference and then 207 BCE for second reference and that would be that. I do that in my own work. Our reader would understand the parenthetical reference and realize that the two scales are numerically equivalent with two different suffixes. Many would learn something new and perhaps incorporate it into regular usage elsewhere. People should expect to learn new things when they come here and we should provide them that opportunity. We may not be aware of it, but we are educators here. English is becoming a worldwide language, yes. But what type of English should we promote? I would vote for an English that suits a 21st Century world viewpoint, not a traditional or comfortable or religious Western viewpoint. WBardwin 23:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To mandate a particular style of English would contradict clear policy. Therefore any argument so based is invalid. Septentrionalis 14:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misquote me, Jguk --- "....the current Western non-academic standard..." (see above). Wikipedia is a reference work -- designed to give people old, current and innovative information in a useful readable format. I currently use both of the styles in Wiki, but judiciously. I tailor their use to fit the article and the previous usage on the page. But, if I were to choose, I would use 207 Before Common Era (207 B.C.) for first reference and then 207 BCE for second reference and that would be that. I do that in my own work. Our reader would understand the parenthetical reference and realize that the two scales are numerically equivalent with two different suffixes. Many would learn something new and perhaps incorporate it into regular usage elsewhere. People should expect to learn new things when they come here and we should provide them that opportunity. We may not be aware of it, but we are educators here. English is becoming a worldwide language, yes. But what type of English should we promote? I would vote for an English that suits a 21st Century world viewpoint, not a traditional or comfortable or religious Western viewpoint. WBardwin 23:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

Long-standing usage

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)[reply]

What does "favoring" mean?

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)[reply]

Different approaches in different circumstances

The proposed variations are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes more than one of them could apply, or sometimes the one which should apply could depend on the state of development of the article in question or other factors. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original author

the heading of the "Favour the original author" section of alternatives is in direct conflict with the proposed wording, "Changes to an article's era naming style should not be made except to restore the style used originally." If you don't understand the difference, see Talk:Diamond. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree that the place for this issue begins with the Manual of Style - over time the use of BC/AD will either become viewed as Christian POV or it will be viewed as the common usage that has lost its religious meaning over time. As discussed elsewhere I think there is some doubt as to the understanding of most average readers what the big deal is about CE/AD, not usally thinking about the meaning of the abbreviations.

I am strongly in favor of discussing such a potentially controversial change first on the talk page so that the opinions of regular editors of the article's substantive content can weigh in before a chagne is made.

I am also strongly in favor of "writing for your audience"

As can be seen on the Jesus page - a controversial page with many groups that have strong opinions about their POV - reasonable people with very different viewpoints can agree or at least comet o a compromise. Trödel|talk 03:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's how the frequent contributors of an article get an edge; by having the discussion on the article's talk page, where they are likely to notice it. There is no need for anything else in the policy to specifically favor their views, or to give them any ownership rights in the article. In other words, don't make some subjective measurement of the value of previous contributions to that particular article an issue for debate in determining this issue.

It doesn't matter much if that discussion comes first, or in response to a reversion after an undiscussed change. Just encourage the discussion at some point. Gene Nygaard 12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - having the style manual recommend discussion is a good thing. However, making a change first, and then discussing it, encourages edit waring rather than consensus - see Jesus, List of kings of Persia - and it is the way any potentially controversial edit should begin. Trödel|talk 14:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a rule that once such a discussion starts, the status quo ante should be restored. In other words, until it is resolved, it should remain where it was before the first change which prompted the first revert. Gene Nygaard 14:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]