Talk:Jesus/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

List pro BCE/CE votes here (note: applies to this article ONLY)

aye Tomer ^TALK 07:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support for the reasons that I've given above. Note that this vote isn't binding, but is a way to attempt to gain consensus; thus those people who haven't been involved in the discussion should give reasons — and reasons that take into account what has been said. Merely parrotting a reason that has been countered isn't helpful. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes to the academic/professional usage of choice. Zora 10:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
1. ~~See my response to Silversmith in a subsection titled 'Style Guides and Peer Review.' El_C 13:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)~~ — I'm not playing anymore. El_C 13:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
BCE/CE. duh. This is not a religious encyclopedia. --goethean 15:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my reasons are above, and will be below. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
This is the common academic and professional usage, and it reasonably common in non-academic usage as well; if Wikipedia wants to become a respected encyclopedia, this is one of the things it will have to do. Also, BC/AD is not used in the ISO 8601 standard for date formats. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
An article on Jesus that incorporates a statement that Jesus is Lord cannot be NPOV on Jesus. Most articles, it matters less, because they are either not about Jesus and/or the AD is just plainly omitted. GMT vs. UTC is good analogy. To those who voted "no, because of policy", which policy do you think you are referring to? Someone please quote source for this -- Turns out policy referred to is to keep Brit/American spelling of first user - but this is overridden by any other concern, such as whether it is topic about America or Britain - and NPOV overrides just about all other policies, does it not? -- JimWae 18:06, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
The neutral, academic, easy-to-understand term. AD means in the year of our Lord. I am Jewish. Jesus is not my Lord. And NPOV is non-negotiable. Neutrality^talk 21:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Per Slrubenstein. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Seems obvious. Flyers13 03:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Changing my vote from BC/AD to BCE/CE; see my comment here. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Support. BrandonYusufToropov 13:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
BCE/CE is the academic standard let us use it uniformily on wikipedia. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
BC/AD is POV - not everyone considers Jesus to be Christ or Domini. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. For obvious reasons. --Leifern 20:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Academic standard and ISO standard, regardless of whose lord anyone is. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Support for reasons of internal consistency and NPOV. -- Olve 21:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Support for NPOV and Academic standards. --PinchasC 23:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Support as academic standard. --Viriditas | Talk 00:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. More neutral. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Support, for both academic and NPOV standards. Ambi 05:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Support, for this article and all articles. srs 06:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Support for reasons of internal consistency and NPOV. -- Dittaeva 07:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Strongly support what Ambi said. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
support already in use at a lot of places Switisweti 10:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Support - NPOV --Mrfixter 16:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Support echoing Tomer primarily with some thoughts that BCE/CE is the most NPOV system to use. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. More neutral. Jonathunder 06:07, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Support. CDThieme 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. NPOV and academic standard. Shoaler 19:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. Fredrik | talk 19:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

List pro BC/AD votes here (note: applies to this article ONLY)

Per policy. Chameleon 08:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- For reasons I stated above (for this article only) and also based on precedence to follow style used by first major contributor if all else fails (as in spelling styles). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC) **Note: I would support a policy change, however, to universally use BCE/CE throughout Wikipedia, particularly on religious articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC) What I originally understood as policy turns out to be mere guideline, and even the guidelines point to the underlying principle of NPOV as being more important than style. So I am changing my vote to BCE/CE for this article. Also see my comment here. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Since User:Tomer successfully negated the arguments about Chinese calendar, etc., and since even if Tomer is correct that "Thus far, neither group has brought forth any overriding authoritative rationale for using either", that would mean that the original use should remain. Gene Nygaard 09:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Anno Domini --ClemMcGann 10:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Since no-one knows what BC, AD, CE or BCE mean anyway, it's pretty pointless, and changing from the most commonly used will just cause confusion, as it did with me on another article. By the way, all our redirects go from BCE to BC, so we'd have double redirects which is pretty stupid. --Silversmith 10:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD. It's more familiar by far & no legitimate case has been made for changing it, only Politically Correct POV's. Rangerdude 15:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD. My reasons are documented above, the main one being that I consider CE/BCE a contrivance of the political correctness lobby.Arcturus 17:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD. This is why we have policies. Rmhermen 19:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep because God told me to do so. Favour established humanity over doctrines of the anti-christ. Also BCE and CE are not recognised by ISO 8601.Nobs 19:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD. Wikipedia is not a forum for revisionist history. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:19, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Keep as originally written, as per the MoS. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Makes no sense to use a year-numbering system with a year 0 (or 1) without acknowledging the significance of the date. — Dan | Talk 02:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
BCE/CE is a euphemism, and therefore POV. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD as it is more easily understood and more common. RossNixon 01:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD - it is more common and more widely understood. Trödel|talk 11:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
BC/AD - ít is more common, more original (as regarding the calendar), and certainly not more POV than the alternative. Str1977 15:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
BC/AD - common, and essentially meaningless. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with jews, jesus, or whatever, and I don't care about BC/AD. CE/BCE isn't "more" academic, it's just used by some (definitely not all, or dare even most). and encyclopedias aren't academic, they are explanations for common people who don't want, or care, about academic ivory tower hairsplitting over AD/BC/E/CE. SchmuckyTheCat 22:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Certainly appropriate for this article. Generally let people use what they want. Eclecticology 02:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD - Appropriate for this article, policy allows it, most commonly accepted and understandable term. Fieari 17:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD. They are most familiar to English readers, and its usage is not generally understood or interpreted to be an endorsement or acceptance of Christianity. A short disclaimer to that effect would be fine. Wesley 16:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep BC/AD. It is a double standard to not do so (see NUMEROUS discussions on this issue on Jewish pages).JohnFlaherty 09:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Continue pointless discussion here

Comment: I've just replaced a vote to keep (and some minor formatting) removed by Silversmith (talk · contributions) ([1]). I'd like to think that this was an accident, though to be honest it's difficult to see how it could have been. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Important: This is very, very strange. I did not make that second edit. I know it looks like I did, as it was made by User:Silversmith, but it was not me. I voted, before Zora or Mel, and while they were voting, I was making my second edit which was not in the voting secion. I then left the page, not even noticing that Mel or Zora had voted. It is very strange that the signature was re-signed 2 minutes after my edit outside of the voting, when Zora's vote was removed. The only thing I can think of is someone has guessed my password, or someone has hacked wikipedia. I know both of those options are unlikely, but as I did not make that second edit it's the only possibility I can come up with. I remember having an edit conflict, and had to copy and paste what I'd written back in, but as it was not below the vote, I would not have grabbed the vote as well by accident. I also only wrote that edit summery once. I don't repeat myself unless I'm writing "Stub sorting" or something. If you were to look over my contibution history you would see that in all the votes I've participated in, I've never done something like this. I know how wikipedia works, and would never do something so stupid - of course it would be found in the history! This is very strange, and I would love it if the person who made the edit would come forward and admit it. I'm off to change my password now. --Silversmith 13:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I don't think you are exhibiting goodfaith with these insinuations, and I would like to see you retract them. Anyway, it may have been a product of that edit conflict (Silversmith having submitted it without noticing), or a glitch. I highly doubt Wikipedia was hacked, I doubt Silversmith account was hacked (or password guessed), and most of all, I doubt this was anything but an accident. I'm late! El_C 13:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to vote. Voting is stupid in a wiki. Nothing is resolved by it, except that one side has a stick to bully the other with. BTW, Mel, El C, Silversmith, I had a strange server glitch earlier today in which two comments were wiped out. I didn't even know they existed and only knew I had wiped it out when I received a message about it. You're all people I like and respect as editors, so please, let's all play nicely! Grace Note 13:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that seems to be the answer, a glich. Very strange though. I can't even log in now, well, I keep logging in then it logs me out. And every time I try to make an edit it comes up with a server error. It also saved something I wrote that I didn't save due to a server error. I just closed all the windows and gave up. Silversmith --Chammy Koala 13:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I seemed to be insinuating anything. Nothing about Silversmith's (or Chammy Koala's) history suggested that she'd deliberately do anything underhand, as I said when I went on to alert her to it on her Talk page. My comment above was partly the result of haste, and partly of the "Silversmith" ID being new to me. It would be good to know what happened and how, though, if only to be able to recognise if it happens again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's just happened again. I made an edit, pressed save, it came up with an error, then I pressed save agin, this time it came up with an edit conflict, I pressed save again after copying and pasting my edit. When I went to save after the edit conflict, I added info to the edit summery. If you look at the history you will see that it did actually save my edit the first time, even though it just came up with an error, then it saved it after the edit conflict, and just changed the date on the signature. So earlier, I must have had an error, it saved it without my knowing, then I saved it again, and somehow Zora's vote was deleted, not deliberately by me. Something to look out for if you ever have an error - check the history! Silversmith. --Chammy Koala 14:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The arguments given by those who favor AD are hypocritical and disingenuous for two reasons. First, Grace Note, who favors AD, asks of the CE system "Who has it in common with whom?" But Nob, who also favors the AD system, provides the answer: the current system of dating (by which this is 2005) "is currently commonly used globally by all cultures and civilizations, Islamic, Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, etc." This is why we call it the "common era" -- because many non-Christian groups use it also. They do not use it because they believe Jesus is Christ or the Lord, they use it as a convention to coordinate activities and records of activities with one another. So CE makes perfect sense. Second, opponents of CE claim that it is POV. Why? Because it involves their changing one of their habits. Sorry, but this is not what POV means. "POV" does not refer to anything that leads you to change a belief or practice, it refers to beliefs or practices that represent one point of view. This is indeed true of BC/AD. It represents the point of view of those who think Jesus is Christ or who think Jesus is the Lord. Now, I know that many people who call themselves non-Christians use these terms, but that is because the West is largely a Christian culture, by which I mean that many practices that have their origin in Christianity are taken for granted, regardless of what people believe (this is one meaning of "culture," a historically and locally specific set of habits). It should surprise no one that a google search shows that the vast majority of people use AD/BC, since the vaste majority of sites on the web are from Christian or Christianized societies. But again, the claim that AD is NPOV because it is accepted by a majority is 'ABSURD. All it means is that many people have this POV, not that it is NPOV. Most people in the antebellum South (and probably the North too) thought Blacks were inferior. That most people thought this doesn't mean that it is an objective fact, indeed it is still a point of view, a highly biased one. So let's leave out the numbers, shall we? They are irrelevant. I and many people like me — in fact most Jews I know – have no problem with Christians using BC and AD among themselves since it is after all their religion. But we are deeply offended when these terms are applied to ordinary events or even our own history, because we do not believe Jesus was Christ or the Lord. We can accept the numbers (e.g. 2005) as a convention, but this number (2005) has meaning because many people accept it as a convention. But those many people do not accept that Jesus is Lord. That reflects one point of view and is by no means neutral. Now, why do opponents of BCE and CE think these terms are POV? I have read through this entire discussion and the only answer I can see is: "because it is different from what we are used to." This is a pathetic position. Anyone who believes that their own points of view are neutral points of view either does not understand what NPOV is, or does not accept the principle of NPOV. And for any Wikipedia to claim that BCE/CE is POV is pure hypocracy, because their reason for opposing it is simply because they do not like it. Look, I know that this year is actually 5765. It really is. That's the truth. But I recognize that this is just my point of view, and in an NPOV encyclopedia I have no right to impose this on others. Like many non-Christians, I have no problem using 2005 in common discourse as a convention and as a convenience — but never because it is "the yearof our Lord." And to tell me that I must accept it, not as a convention but as the year of our Lord, is to impose your point of view on me. I will not impose my POV on you and force you to call this year 5765. Do not force me to use BC/AD. We can come to a mutually acceptable NPOV convention, and that is to use your number (2005) but stop saying that it "is the year of our Lord." He's not my Lord. And if the policy says BC/AD is acceptable, that policy should be changed. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Re your statement "And if the policy says BC/AD is acceptable, that policy should be changed." That's something for you to take up with the policy itself then if you truly feel that way. But right now the policy is clear that BC/AD is both allowed and placed on equal footing with your alternative of BCE/CE. As long as that remains the policy of Wikipedia in general, your complaints are not a valid basis to challenge BC/AD's use on a particular article and you have no grounds to force other people to use BCE/CE. Rangerdude 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Style guides and Peer Review

Very briefly. Also, please see Talk:Jesus/Archive_15#Style_guides_and_Peer_Review (a trick I learned from someone's signature!). And at the grave risk of intense POV, welcome back, SR! El_C 15:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Slr, I think that last sentence of yours is the bottom line here. It's changing the policy that needs to be discussed rather than focusing on this article if the case is to be made that BCE/CE is the preferred style. Otherwise, if Wikipedia supports the usage of both (as it currently does), where is it appropriate to use BC/AD if not this article? Based on the guideline that the two systems are acceptable in the way that British/American spelling styles are both accepted, I've reverted, for example, attempts by other editors to change BCE/CE to BC/AD on Jewish articles because BC/AD in those cases is akin to enforcing American spellings on an article about London. On that same basis, I support BC/AD usage on this article (until and unless policy lays out a preference). I'd also like to respond to a point above in which someone protested that since there is not a cultural trend to rename other date systems like the days of the week or the months named after Nordic or Roman gods, the push to single out era for terminology neutralization is somehow antiChristian. My response is that worshippers of Nordic and Roman gods are not really extant today in a widespread sense, so week/month names do not impinge on general societal values and sensitivities in the same way the usage of Christocentric BC/AD nomenclature, which represents an existing dominant section of Western society today, is seen to delegitimize nonChristian segments of society. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good points. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear that they all are. Not using an explicitly Christian reference in an article on Judaism is no more or less PoV than using that same reference in an article on Christianity; the status of NPoV is unchanged from religion to religion. To exaggerate the example in order to bring out the problem: it would be wrong to say in the Judaism article: "Jews wrongly deny that Jesus was the true Messiah through whom alone salvation is possible" — but it would be equally wrong to say that in this article (and to defend it by asking rhetorically "if we can't proclaim the Christian faith in this article, then where can we proclaim it?"). The wrongness doesn't lie in a mismatch between claim and article, that's fundamentally to misunderstand the nature of NPoV. (The analogy with British/U.S. English fails, because they don't embody claims about the world.)

In non-religious articles the case is less pressing, though personally I'd argue (and do argue) for the use of "BCE/CE" throughout Wikipedia, as it is in other respectable and respected publications and reference works (as indicated by El C's invaluable list above). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

They are indeed good points. World at large take note: Jay and I agree on something. At last. ;) BrandonYusufToropov 12:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey I propose we start a new date system based on this epoch-level event. Today can be 1 JB (day 1 on the JayBran-Consensus Calendar). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well Mel Etitis, you DO make a good point that perhaps *especially* in religious articles, BCE/CE should be used, and in fact, if I understand correctly, I believe the attempt to be neutral when referring to era began in theological circles about 100 years ago [edit conflict w/Nobs who says half century ago by rabbinical scholars, hmmm, I don't think it was limited to rabbinical scholars but began as an academic theological trend in general]. I'm not sure though that BC/AD is as value-laden as explicitly stating "Jews wrongly deny" etc. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

"respectable and respected publications"??? Sounds like a POV to me. Besides, if you want to argue for BCE/CE throughout wikipedia, you need to take that up on the style manual's discussion page cause right now sweeping through and changing everything to it conflicts with the policy. Rangerdude 18:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, um... not sure where to insert this, but I just wanted to say that I have no dog in the CE/BC-AD fight, but I do feel strongly that there should be a note explaining why Jesus is thought to have been born 6 years before when the calendar starts. So whatever y'all end up deciding, please leave that parenthetical note in--whether you say B.C. or B.C.E. --Chowbok 19:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

So, like, if you revert it, at least argue with me about it first. --Chowbok 03:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

lovely little list

Yes, lovely little list. How about this one:

A History of the Ancient World by Chester G. Starr. "The Greek world in 500 B.C."
Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations by Arthur Cotterell. "The period between about 3100 BC when dynastic history began, and 332 BC."
History of the Ancient Near East: Ca. 3000-323 Bc by Marc Van De Mieroop. "And the origins of writing in the Near East, around 3000 BC,"
New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History by Colin McEvedy. "the historic cultures of Europe and the Near East up to the fourth century AD."
The New History of the World by J. M. Roberts. "The Hellenistic World soon after 200 BC."
Oxford 1st Ancient History by Roy Burrell "Hunters and gatherers throughout all of the Americas by about 10,000 BC."
The Atlas of Early Man : The Rise of Man Across the Globe, From 35,000 B.C. to A.D. 500 With Over 1,000 Maps And Illustrations by Jaquetta Hawkes. (It's in the title).
A History of Ancient Egypt by Nicolas Grimal. "Naqada II period, c. 3650 - 3300 BC."
Ancient Rome : A Military and Political History by Christopher S. Mackay. "...Italian Iron Age to the deposition of the last emperor in A.D 476."
The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 10, The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69 (The Cambridge Ancient History) by Alan K. Bowman. (It's in the title.)

And yes, I could go on. All of these books are available on Amazon today. I agree that there is some use of BCE/CE but you can't claim it's the norm anywhere. --Silversmith 18:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

- Acutally, so you don't think I've deliberatly left out religious books, or Jewish related books:

A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People: From the Time of the Patriarchs to the Present by ELI BARNAVI. "The background seems to be the fist half of the second millennium BC."
A History of the Jews by Paul M. Johnson. "...the discovery of contemporary archives from the third and second millennia BC."
History of Religious Ideas, Volume 1 : From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries (History of Religious Ideas) by Mircea Eliade. "...for the use of fire dates from Choukoutien (about 600,000 B.C.)".--Silversmith 18:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Publication date: 30 May 1991. Oxford University Press says: Links to web resources and related information More in the same subject area: World history: BCE to c 500 CE [2]
Noted in this Syllabus as Cotterell, Arthur, ed. The Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations. Penguin Books, 1989. Prof. Kathy Payne says: "c. 3000 - 1200 BCE," etc. [3]
~~Marc Van De Mieroop, Professor of History at Columbia says: History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 - 323 B.C. (2004). Looks like the new edition chose to go with BCE.~~ [4] Amazon concurs. Hmm, I think I misread that. Still, the point is that the author of that book now uses BCE as is evident by his own official page at Columbia university: "He has recently finished three book-length projects: Early Civilizations and Cultures, 4000-1000 BCE..." [5]
Published in 1989, too.
Published 2005. "Indeed [as is the case often, no one is disputing that], "the authors use the BC - AD designation rather than the more general BCE - CE form" [6]
Published [I kid you not] in 1989. Practica.org lists under category "World History: Bce To C 500 Ce" [7].

And yes, I could go on. All of these books are available on Amazon today. Amazon uses BCE/CE in its categories. [8] Incidetnally, not a single Peer Review publication is listed in this pronouncedly undated book list sample.

Originally published in 1992; has it been changed in the "revised" 2004 edition? Maybe, maybe not. [9]
Published 1988.
Published in 1978

El_C 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out when they were published doesn't actually prove anything. They were all published after the first usage of BCE/CE. And they are all available now, which means that anyone who bought these books would be reading BC/AD. I also only spent about 15 minutes finding this list, and was limited to ones that had a "see inside this book" option. But as SLR points out below, proving the popularity is quite pointless as everyone knows BC/AD is the most commonly used. And just because in some fields there may now be a move to using BCE/CE, that has not been established as the trend on Wikipedia. And as has been pointed out, this is not the place to discuss that. If it became the standard, fine, I wouldn't change it. I only argue here becuase I believe the motivations for this article to be BCE/CE are POV, due to religion, and I aim to uphold NPOV on WP.--Silversmith 10:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It suggests plenty, I thought, because obviously the trend has been (and remains) gradual. The point is, as I demonstrated above is that newer publications (<2000) would be more representative of that 'trend.' Second, for better or worse, books are a somewhat poor indication of Peer Review, in part, because Journal standards tend to be kept more up to date. Third, I didn't spend more than 15 minutes either, so we have no verificiation whether newer editions (if any) of the books you listed employ it now (so date ties into that, too). Fourth, what I was able to demonstrate —and I do think it's worth acknowledgment— is that Oxford University Press (which hosts the first book) now uses the new dating system, or that the Columbia University historian of the 2nd one who used AD/BC in the title of his book, now uses it, too. Authoritative sources by any stretch. **** Now, the motivation behind BCE/CE itself (in the scholarship) are a product of POV, or rather what was percieved as counter-POV, mainly due to religion. That's why OUP and Oxford scholars such as Mel are now using it (that is, it happned/is happening outside of Wikipedia). I think it's safe to say that within the more professional scholarship —for our purposes, specifically, that which writes about the time/space of Jeses (which is SlR's field)— it is viewed as more modern, secular, or at least, prefrable. Therefore, if I am right about all this, about the role it plays in the scholarship (where Jorunals rather than books are more indicative of Peer Views), that it isn't limited to OUP but also many other authoritative sources, et cetera, etc., then we are at the question I posed to jguk bellow: should npov be evaluated in accordance with common or specialized use in this case. As I said there, I was in favour of BCE/CE because I thought npov is to be guided by the latter, but many people here insist it should be the former. And, as I also said, I haven't really read the npov article closely (due to lack of interest on my part!), so I leave that as an open-ended question for everyone else. If I could (and I will) criticize SlR, I think one of the problems here had been his tendency to make the argument as if this was the scholarship: saying that he was offended (unless he was being esp. subtle, though then, I would argue, somewhat unclear) by it. I don't think it's pertinent one way or the other. Whether he (and Neutrality and others) was offended has nothing to do with whether the experts are moving towards its use (esp. Peer-wise), or not. And whether npov should follow their lead, or not. That's the bottom line, the rest is a diversion. I realize I'm repeating myself (or am I?), but I seem to be having a real difficult time getting this point across. Honestly, it's the only reason I'm still involved in this dispute, a dispute of an issue which dosen't particularly interest me, because I seem to be failing to do so. To do what? The point! What point? Exactly. El_C 11:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Careful, you may get so confused you forget what side you're arguing for. ;) I'm waiting to hear back from my sister who works in the publishing department of OUP in Oxford — I would like better confirmation on their stance.--Silversmith 12:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Question to Slrubenstein: You make excellant points and all very valid. It is my understanding (and I may be wrong) the BCE originated with certain rabbinical scholars in perhaps the past half century, and your arguement makes an excellent explaination of their use of it. However, as I understood it, their use of it was intended for students of their writting and beliefs. My question is, do you believe they intended their concept to be hijacked by atheists, those at enmity with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Thx. Nobs 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

First, I've never heard that the terminology had rabbinic origins; where did you hear that? Secondly, your point is at best ad hominem (in the true sense, not the all-too common Wikipedian misuse). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Inserting for the record: ad hominem adverb & adjective phrase Latin (= to the person). Of an argument, etc.: directed to the individual, personal; appealing to an opponent's known personal views rather than reason. Such an argument, which plays upon an opponent's own premises, seeking to draw from them a conclusion that is rejected by that same opponent, is a legitimate debating tactic, unlike the kind of argumentum ad hominem that is really no more than a personal attack.Source: Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English Nobs 18:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine Jacob Neusner (E-Mail: Neusner@webjogger.net) is probably the foremost living expert to ask, if he didn't personally invent the term himself. The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style supports my understanding [10]. As does The Jewish Virtual Library[11] and others [12] sources. I first reads the term (B.C.E) in Norman Podhoretz's book copyright c.1968, can't remember the name of it though. And in older texts prior to 1968 I have only found references to "Common Era", but never an abbreviation, C.E.; of course I don't claim to have ever done any exclusive research on the subject. Also, C.E. can also be taken to mean Christian Era Thx. Nobs 22:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I first encountered it 1960-61 (without abbreviation). Then in a Catholic school, I can remember being disappointed that it even existed, but recognized it was a fairer alternative to entrenched imposition upon non-Christians. Here's an interesting page http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm --JimWae 00:21, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Let me reverse myself, upon further review. The first published use of the abbreviated form of B.C.E. I ever encountered was Chaim Potek's Wanderings, History of the Jewish People published in 1978. I don't beleive I have ever seen any type of manuscript prior to that with the abbreviated form, and I challenge some of our researchers to find one. Thx. Nobs 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the Common Era, other than the recognition that much of the non-Judaic world recognized and accepted a system of Law based upon Judaic scriptures. To reject the basis of the teachings, yet to continue reckoning time according to such raises all sorts of interersting questions. Everyone in the enlightened rationalist school for example knows that time is not reckoned by spiritual conversion of gentiles, but rather sidereal time, which again is problematic. So if we limit our reckoning of time to origns of planet earth and/or the universe, we come up with the year 13,000,000,000 or 15,000,000,000. Lets just average it, and call it the year 14,000,000,000 of the Common Era. Of coarse averaging it is problematic also, kind of like filling out a tax return, do we round up or round down. Damn, life is difficult when one is in possession of enlightened esoteric knowledge and one is forced to deal with the lumpen masses of opiated humanity. Nobs 18:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. More opium please. Following this almost requires it. On the server problem thing, I too noticed that there were some funky things going on yesterday, specifically with this page. I made a comment, hit save, got a server error, hit backspace, hit save again, and it worked...then I noticed that half of my comment had been inserted into the middle of another paragraph, so I raised my right eyebrow really high and went to take it out of there...but when the edit window opened, lo and behold, it was gone. so I hit cancel and reload, and *poof*, it was like it never happened. weirdness. Tomer ^TALK 19:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

To Silversmith: You might want to start a new discussion topic...your method of inserting above other comments without indenting to make clear which comments are responding to whom has sort of disrupted the flow of the conversation. For example, the way you stuck in your comment above jayjg's makes it look like his comment at 17:14 and also my comment at 17:54 responding to Mel Etitis are a response to yours. It makes it confusing for others to follow. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I fixed it myself above to restore the flow of the discussion. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:58, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

First major contributor did not use AD, he referred to it. He did use BC, but "it is often assumed" can hardly be called ringing support for its usage. Anyway, is there really a policy on first major contributor? The server is bogged down, so I had to stop searching. So far I found Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and something about Be bold. Also Spelling preferences specifically overrides first major contributor... Here's the relevant passage from First major contributor though...

It is often assumed that Jesus was born in the year 4 or 5 B.C. and died at age 33.
The nomenclature of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini - 'Year of our Lord') for years was based on a mistaken calculation of the year of his birth.

--JimWae 21:40, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Silversmith above provides a long list of books that use BC/AD, but like others of his point of view, he mistakes quantity for neutrality. That many books use a POV term does not make that POV term NPOV. It is not a popularity contest. We know most Westerners use BC and AD, but we at Wikipedia have this "NPOV" policy and that is what is at issue. Above, Baas writes "Keep BC/AD. Wikipedia is not a forum for revisionist history." which again shows the intellectual dishonesty or dullness of that position. This has nothing to do with revisionist history. To state that many people do not believe that Jesus was Christ or our Lord is not revisionism; the NT itself observes that some people do not accept Jesus as Christ and Lord. Wikipedia should as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - as usual there is a severe recurring flaw in your premise. As you have been shown many times, Wikipedia's NPOV policy says absolutely nothing barring the use of BC/AD and Wikipedia's Style Manual explicitly condones it as one of two acceptable dating systems. You're free to disagree with those policies and even lobby to get them changed if you want, but you're not free to misrepresent them as you do above and as you have been doing for the past several days. Furthermore, your penchant for insulting and attacking the person of people who disagree with you is also growing tiresome and has no place on this forum. Considering your 3RR violation yesterday and pattern of similar warnings and behaviors, you should take greater care in what you say and post around here. This is your warning. Learn to behave in a civil and respectful manner or else intervention will be sought. Rangerdude 00:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Btw, 6 BCE does NOT do any redirect, nor does 30 CE --JimWae 01:46, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - "but like others of his point of view" you say. Well, El C, who shares your point of view, has povided a nice long list as well, which prompted me to provide mine. So thank you for pointing out the futility of his efforts as well. And I don't appreciate your calling me he. If you don't know, try he/she or something.

6 BCE redirects to 6 BC and 30 BCE redirects to 30 BC and 30 CE does not exist. I think that gives a good indication of the wiki stance on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. Why change a perfectly good, majority accepted system? oh, yeah, because you don't like it because Jesus isn't "your Lord". But that's your POV. And he isn't my lord either, so don't claim that's the basis for my argument. --Silversmith 10:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Despite Wikipedia's style guide preference for AD 30, it too does not exist in wikipedia. 30 AD redirects to 30, however. I guess some things need to be changed, no? --JimWae 22:23, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki, it's not carved in stone. Those mistakes can be cleaned up. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The one and only advantage of using BC/AD is that it is more common. Its disadvantages include:

POV - AD 6 means the "6th year of the Lord". This is clearly a pro-Christian POV, whereas 6 CE means the "6th year of the Common era", which is neutral. No matter how stupid or silly you find the name "Common Era" it is far better, and far more neutral than the alternative.
Factually Incorrect - Not only is it not neutral, it is factually incorrect as to the date of Jesus' birth.
Offensive to (some) non-Christians, and people who don't accept Jesus as "Lord".

Given the above, I fail to see why BC/AD is being supported so vehemently, and the arguments of the supporters seem to boil down to:

Keep the status quo (even though its inherently POV), because its "common".
Changing something from a pro-Christian POV to a neutral POV is somehow anti-Christian (apparently from the George Bush school of thought where "You're either with us or against us".)

There also seem to be some who consider the most common term as the one we should here, but that is not true, especially when the common term espouses a particular POV or causes offense to a certain group of people. For example, we have People's Republic of China, instead of the more common China, and we have Republic of China, instead of the more common Taiwan. srs 07:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Policy vs. Style Guide

In comparing the "policies" on spelling and era styles, I notice the disclaimer on both guides (see American vs. British spelling style guidelines and BCE/CE vs. BC/AD era style guidelines) emphasizing that these are style guidelines and not policy. Both guides state at the top of each respective page: "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." Therefore the overriding principle in choosing the style to be used in a particular article is NPOV. I think the case can be and has been made for BCE/CE being the more NPOV terminology, which is why so many publishing houses are going in that direction as El_C demonstrated above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you are changing your vote? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Jesus#lovely_little_list. :) El_C 03:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Before a decision is made on this matter, I think the C.E. article needs to be reviewed and perhaps rewritten. It makes the assertion that the term began in academic circles in the 19th century and offers absolutely no support whatsoever of this claim. Thus far on this talk page, no one has found usage of the abbreviated form published prior to 1978. There is one citation from wiki claiming it was appeared in the Catholic Encylopedia of 1908, but that again I beleive was only the phrase "common era". And no one has produced any evidence of its scholarly use outside of Talmudic scholars. Hence, the co-opting of the phrase by non-believers in the Jewish providential being of Hebrew & Christian scriptures is suspect. Nobs 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've reconsidered my vote and made changes to reflect my current understanding of policy on the matter. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I beleive all the evidence brought forward thus far weighs in the direction that BCE/CE originated among Christian academics and Talmudic scholars, and not among secular academia. This is an important distinction to be made before the term is exposed to popular abuse. Nobs 22:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Another BCE/CE use: among Jehovah's Witnesses

May I point out that the BCE/CE-system is used by preference by Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world, though I don't know what that means for this debate... Switisweti 11:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a source for that usage? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all publications of Jehovah's Witnesses on (both biblical and non-biblical) history (and that's a lot: all their books and magazines) use this system. Just take any of them as an example. They use it to avoid referring to Jesus (BC/AD), as their main focus is on Jehovah. Even their online articles use the BCE/CE-system. Here's just one example: Watchtower online on Maya culture using BCE/CE. Switisweti 10:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

They spell their name differently in English. Is it an NPOV violation for you to spell it that way? Gene Nygaard 11:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. How should it be spelled? Switisweti 14:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see: I missed the h at the end of Jehovah. I'm sorry. That was just a mistake, not a intentional "NPOV violation". I now corrected all instances. Switisweti 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure. And the Society of Friends uses "Fifth Month" for the current month. Does that mean that Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to use that as well, to avoid reference to a Roman goddess? Certainly using "Fifth Month" would be the neutral way to do it, wouldn't it? How about Eighth Month, to avoid reference to an egomaniacal Roman emperor? Tenth Month to get rid of the silly counting calling it the eighth month based on some ancient calendar? Gene Nygaard 11:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I agree with them. I merely stated that they use the system for a reason. That's all. Maybe it clears something of the origin of the BCE/CE system.Switisweti 14:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone find a date that Jehovah's Witnesses began using BCE/CE convention? Again, this supports the evidence that BCE/CE began in religious community and not among secular academia as rationalists contend, and meaning of common refers to worship and deity, not the profane and vulgar use of the atheist POV.Nobs 17:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses have been using BCE/CE for as long as I can remember. Its use reflects their POV. (They deny the deity of Jesus). --ClemMcGann 17:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 19 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

The NPOV policy is non-negotiable.
In every other instance I can think of, we use the most common word/phrasing for something
There is no reason for this BC/AD vs BCE/CE issue to be any different (in fact, this means we cannot reasonably be different here without being POV)
This practice ensures NPOV - we use a word/phrasing because it is the most common word/phrase for it
This comes with the implication that if general usage outside WP changes - then WP will change to reflect general usage.
This way we avoid making any comment at all in favour or against any usage (Compare the picture of Tony Blair on Politics of the United Kingdom. By having this picture, we are not saying we are in favour of Tony Blair, or that we like him. We have his picture because he is the current PM. When the PM changes, I would expect the picci to change to a picci of the new PM - and for that to be a totally uncontroversial edit.)
Doing anything else always raises the question "Why are you doing something different?" And it's impossible to answer that without being POV - therein lies the rub.
And this is especially important here. The act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE has caused much offence where it has been tried. Changing it in one exam question in one exam paper in New South Wales caused questions to be asked in both chambers of parliament and an admission from the Minister of Education that the change should not have happened. Introducing the teaching of what BCE/CE notation meant into the British National Curriculum in 2002 caused letters to be written to newspapers and the government agency responsible to note that, whilst pupils could use BCE/CE notation if they so wished, the agency itself would stick with BC/AD and there were no plans to change it. It's also hard to think of any page where such a change would alienate and cause as much offence as this one.
BC/AD notation is used almost exclusively everywhere outside academic circles and the US. It is also the most dominant form by a long, long way in the US. The google searches, which will be biased towards US and academic usage here (ie they are likely to overstate BCE/CE usage), show a 9:1 split in favour of using BC/AD.
This is so conclusive it is impossible for us to use anything other than BC/AD without breaking NPOV - doing anything else just opens up too many questions, none of which can be answered without reference to the responders political beliefs, jguk 05:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You've raised a very valid point. Those who are claiming BCE/CE is more "neutral" than BC/AD are asserting a POV themselves that not everybody agrees with. The course of this dispute is testament to that fact, and many of the pro-BCE/CE editors often seem to believe that their opinions matter more than the opinions of others who differ with them. Right now, if anything, consensus on this issue is split down the middle for and against the change yet there are many here acting as if BCE/CE should take precedence anyway. Since BCE/CE is the proposed change to this article, and not the original terminology used for several years on it, it is automatically incumbent upon the proponents of that change to establish a consensus in favor of their desired course of action. To date they have not done so, and far from it. All we've gotten are a series of increasingly belligerent posts advocating POV's in favor of BCE/CE and claiming that BC/AD violates NPOV without consensus to that end and without a care that BCE/CE, in the form being used, may violate NPOV and even do so to a degree that far surpasses what they allege against BC/AD. When proposed changes give rise to editing disputes that fail to establish any reasonable consensus - as is indisputably the case here - the default solution is to retain the status quo until a consensus for something else emerges, if ever. The status quo here since the article's creation has been BC/AD, which is accordingly what should stand until a consensus is reached otherwise on both the alternative and the NPOV/POV status of the alternative. Rangerdude 06:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Essentially so. BCE is essentially a non-Christian, unchristian or anti-christian POV. Nobs 06:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Unamerican, Nobs! :p Well, no offence (really), but I found that to have been, erm, quite a legalistic and convoluted comment, Rangerdude, but ultimately mostly a regurgitation. jguk, the question remains: who are we going to turn to for accuracy? "Why are [we] doing something different?" We? Are we Oxford University Press, etc.? Are they not authoritative? Why are they doing it? Incidentally, I, myself, am not offended by AD/BC, I'm almost certain I employed both dating systems on Wikipedia without noticing which one I used when. But since I focus on 20th Century history, it's usually an aside. Whereas here, the fundamentals of the npov policy (which I have heard of, though admittedly, only in passing) seem to be at stake —perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking it's so closely related to Peer Review...(?) Bah. :) El_C 07:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

El C - It's a simple and easily observed fact of this discussion that a consensus does not presently exist to merit the proposed change to BCE/CE, or even that BCE/CE is the more neutral of the two terminologies. What's so "convoluted" and "legalistic" about that? Rangerdude 19:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that BC/AD is the more common notation and by a long, long way. Indeed BCE/CE just doesn't have any common currency that I've ever seen amongst the general public where I am. Indeed, in the past I was swayed by arguments on its commonality that were proferred here on WP - but when I checked the assertions, found them overstated. On the more general point - where different words/constructions are equally common, on WP we tend to end up using a mixture of the two. This isn't surprising - it's a wiki - everyone's free to edit, and people tend to edit using language styles they prefer and are familiar with. Kind regards, jguk 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems I have been experiencing throughout much of this discussion, John, is that too many people get (very) emotionally involved, on both sides, and dispassionate exchanges invariably seem to get sidetracked by innuendo and swallowed in textual abyss, as our own discussion right now undoubtedly will. Anyway, if it is decided that the basis for the npov policy is familliarity as opposed to Peer Review, so be it. I really, ultimately, could not care less. But this distinction does need to be clearly spelled out, I think. :) El_C 07:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is quite clear that all views should be represented but minority views cannot expect equal representation. Make of that what you will. Most of the arguments here are entirely spurious (my favourite is the ISO 8601 one -- the standard uses the year of the metre, 1875 I think, as its reference point; maybe we should mark dates as BTM and ATM?; my next favourite is "Jesus is not my lord" -- ( I have a delightful picture of extremely delicate Wikipedia editors leaping back in horror at the suggestion that Jesus is lord in history books -- "my God (or no God, of course), these damned (or not damned) authors are extolling the dominion of Jesus the not-Christ". Well, it makes me laugh). GN

This is a response to Nobs, Rangerdude, and Silversmith, although again these points realy are directed to everyone and consider the issue as a whole. Nobs suggests that BCE/CE was developed by Talmud scholars and asks how I feel about it having been hijacked by atheists. Nobs, I think your question suggests a misunderstanding of the issue. Personally, I do not know who first coined the terms BCE and CE, and I do not care. However, ler's say it was Jacob Neusner. It is true that he is a scholar of the Talmud, but whatever his degree of religious observance (I have no idea whether he is shomrei mitzvot — an observer of the commandments, or an apikoros — what Orthodox Jews might consider a heretic. What I do know is that he is a critical scholar, meaning he applies the methods of critical history and comparative literature to the study of Jewish texts, which leads him to question those texts' claims about their origins and truthfulness. In other words, I think that his being Jewish is less important than his being a historian or textual critic like Eugene Genovese or Hayden White. As I suggested before, if he were writing from a Jewish point of view, he would identify this year as 5765, and the year Jesus was born as 3756. But he didn't, because he was not writing from a Jewish point of view but rather from the point of view of a critical scholar as committed (or, in this instance, more committed) to NPOV as (than) us. I have no idea why you use the phrase "hijacked by atheists" for two reasons. First of all, hijacking involves stealing someone's property. But as any Wikipedian should know, ideas are not quite property. We cite other sources all the time, indeed, we are supposed to cite other sources all the time. So of course Neusner expects other people to cite him, engage his ideas, and, if people find his arguments compelling, build on them. This is the scholarly enterprise &mndash; don't you agree? (if you don't, why are you involved in writing an encyclopedia?). Second, I have no reason to believe that the other people who use "BCE" and "CE" are atheists or not. I imagine some do not believe in God, and others do believe in God. Ihonestly do not see how it matters. What is at issue is not whether one believes in God. What is at issue is whether one believes that all human beings believe that Jesus is Christ and Lord. And as the New Testement makes clear, the Apostles certainly did not believe that all people believed that Jesus is Christ and Lord. Why do you believe this? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude takes it upon himself (herself?) to "warn" me against insulting other people. I have not insulted anyone, I have however criticized other people's positions which again is basic to scholarly enterprise. If you can't handle it, go away. If you can handle it, understand that I will criticize your views when I feel they are flawed. You say my premise is flawed: "As you have been shown many times, Wikipedia's NPOV policy says absolutely nothing barring the use of BC/AD and Wikipedia's Style Manual explicitly condones it as one of two acceptable dating systems." I honestly have no idea how you can write this with a straight face. Let us look at your own words: the style policy allows both BC/AD and BCE/CE. Fine. But this only means that the style policy will not help us resolve this debate (see also MPerel's astute and relevant observation [13]. You are not only saying "AD" is permissible, YOU are also saying that "CE" is permissible! Your argument supports my view as much as it supports yours. In fact, this policy cannot and will never decide this issue, since as a matter of style it sees both systems as acceptable. But not only is your argument flawed; you do not understand my argument. I am NOT criticizing "BC/AD" on the grounds of style. Therefore the style policy is not relevant. I am criticizing it on the grounds of NPOV. Style issues aside, "BC" and "AD" are abbreviations for claims that Jesus is Christ and Lord. That is a point of view held by Christians but not held by others. So it is POV, plain and simple. Conversely, "BCE" and "CE" are not POV, because they make no claims about Jesus. They do not say he is Lord, but neither do they say he is not Lord. A devout Christian can use "BCE" and "CE without feeling that he or she is betraying his or her faith, because using these terms in no way negates their faith. What these terms do is signal that this dating system is a convention that people use even if they do not believe Jesus is Christ and Lord. If you do not understand this, I do not need to insult you, you are insulting yourself. In any event, I would think it is clear to everyone here that our NPOV policy is far more important than a style policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith misunderstands the import of El_C's list, because s/he thinks that his/her list of people who use AD/BC is comparable and cancels out El_C's. Again, he/she is mistaken. The lists are comparable only in that they both illustrate that many people use either system. But no one has ever contested the fact that many people use BC/AD The only thing that we contest is that BC/AD violates NPOV policy. The purpose of El_C's list is simply to show that there is an NPOV alternative. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the NPOV policy guidelines aren't the issue here. I'm assuming we all agree that the article, just like any other, should be NPOV. The issue is whether or not the the use of BCE/CE and/or/vs. BC/AD is inherently POV. The answer is: it depends on who's using it and why. Clearly, we all have a POV, and nobody's arguing that we should give it up...but it should NOT influence our writing on wikipedia. Those who say BCE/CE is anti-christian may well be correct. Those who say BC/AD is less "scholarly" may well be correct. The point is, however, that whatever the outcome of this discussion might ultimately be, I think Wikipedia will suffer greatly if we don't come to a CONSENSUS, and AMICABLY. I'm afraid that, however this ends up, one group is going to be annoyed, and one group is going to feel vindicated. I would prefer to see both groups drop their bias, and work together, not to show how everyone else how "smart" or "right" they are, but to IMPROVE THE WIKIPEDIA. I reiterate my point above: it sounds completely moronic to say that Jesus was born 4 to 6 years before he was born, i.e., "in 4BC" or "as early as 6BC". Let's stick to the relevant issue (improving wikipedia) and stop already with the pointless and unproductive, oblique or overt, ad hominem attacks about who is more or less POV. (and yes, Slrubenstein, you have insulted people in this discussion, whether you meant to or not, but you're far from the only one (not that that makes it OK))... Can't we all just be friends? Tomer ^TALK 16:39, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Susvolans, please explain why "Common Era" is POV. And please explain why "Before Christ" and "In the Year of our Lord" is not POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Common Era" is just plain stupid. Common? To whom? It's just a circumlocution based in a desire to either obliterate any mention or note of jesus in the dating system used in christendom over the past millennium and a half, or to simply avoid having to say his name everytime you state a date. I still say we should all just go with 5765. Tomer ^TALK 16:39, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "common" refers to "whom" the date is common. It refers to the common starting point by which years are counted. Common Era maintains the common starting point defined by the widely used Gregorian calendar without using the religious-laden nomenclature. The logic is probably similar to the reasons for the recent cultural change from GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). Time is still measured from a common point which happens to be based on the time in Greenwich, however the name change reflects the same common starting point for measurement purposes and yet diffuses the preeminence of Greenwich implied in the GMT nomenclature. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Common Era is just plain stupid?" Well Tomer, I guess when you wrote that I was not the only one resorting to insults, you meant yourself. But I don't mind the insulting language. What I do mind is that you either have not read what I wrote, or refuse to respond. I explained why BCE/CE are most definitely not insulting to Christians or Christianity, and I explained to whom the Common Era is common. Now let me ask you a question: when you say "christendom," what do you mean? DO you mean the world consisting only of all Christians? If so, you are wrong, because many non Christians agree by convention to call this year 2005. Or by "christendom" do you mean all people who use the Gregorian calendar? If this is what you mean, you are really insulting me and violating NPOV. I am not a Christian and although I call this year 2005 it insults me, and it is inaccurate, to call me a member of Christendom. If you believe that "Christendom" — the rule of Christianity – should rule Wikipeida, you have no business here at all. How dare you exclude all non-Christians (or demand that non-Christians accept Christian practices)? What does "Common Era" mean? It means an an era common to many people of many faiths, including Christianity but yes believe it or not including non-Christians too, and refusing to privilege a Christian POV. Why do you think that is stupid? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I assume you are joking when you say we should all use 5765. I agree with you that that is what year we are in. But I recognize that others do not agree. This is the question: can people of different views find common ground or not? This is what Wikipedia's NPOV policy is all about, and this is what the switch to "Common Era" is all about. It really sounds to me like the people who support AD 2005 or 5765 over 2005 CE are saying that we pick one view or another, but there can be no neutral view. If you feel that way, how can you commit yourself to Wikipedia? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: You express your ideas very well and have an excellent understanding of the issues involved. You and I may be closer to an understanding if we can look at this dispassionately apart from our own personal spiritual preferances. The issue seems to be around an understanding of what the term common means. A search on CE/BCE finds for the most part, Christian bible schools and Jewish sites that use the term, repsectfully of each other. The Christian bible schools use C.E. to acknowledge it may not be "anno domini" for all members of society; the Jewish use C.E. to acknowledge the rise and dominance (in population numbers) of the gentile church over the past 2 millenia. What is "common" to both is the shared belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, and (God permitting) a respect for each others beliefs. 2005 is not just a random number pulled out of a hat; it represents an historical experience of entire civilizations. Here's the premise: there is a third group now that seeks to change the meaning of the commonality shared by these two faiths. By "common" they really mean secular, denying the very basic premise by which Jews and Christians have achieved a peaceful coexistence. Let's give this group a name just for reference sake, I prefer enlightened rationalists, sounds less radical than atheist (or the inflamitory Satanic conspiracy); nonetheless, while they may share with our Jewish brethren the denial "Jesus is Lord", thier attitude toward the fundemental precepts of Judaism is the same as it is toward Christianity: it's a bunch of hooey & superstition. They are co-opting CE/BCE to further a POV: that belief in God is bullcrap. I return to the fundemental premise, 2005 is not a random number pulled out of a hat. If these enlightened rationalist & truthseekers really want to establish factual truth, why then do they seek to assign the random number 2005 as being the current calender of reckoning, when as everyone knows, it's pure crap. Why don't they state thier real agenda, to make it the year 14,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000, or thereabouts, to be scientifically and factually accurate. To much work I presume, so they propose continuing the lie and at the same time, in thier enlightened rational thinking, wanna call it factual. What I understand about Judaism has little "in common" with this. Nobs 17:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. We are closer than I previously thought, though I respectfully disagree with you on some important issues. When you write " A search on CE/BCE finds for the most part, Christian bible schools and Jewish sites that use the term, repsectfully of each other. The Christian bible schools use C.E. to acknowledge it may not be "anno domini" for all members of society; the Jewish use C.E. to acknowledge the rise and dominance (in population numbers) of the gentile church over the past 2 millenia." I agree wholeheartedly with you. But when using "common era," I think that the only thing Jews and Christians have in common is there desire to live together with mutual respect. It is true that Jews and Christians worship the same God, this is something else they have in common — but I do not think this is the reason for Jews accepting the Gregorian calendar and Christians accepting CE. I think it is as simple as Jews accepting the fact that Christian Europe has set the terms for many global customs, and Christians accepting the fact that however widespread some customs may be, they are now used by and in a way belong to non-Christians. Clearly, one does not have to be of an "Abrahamic" faith to use the Gregorian/CE system -- Hindus can, for example, and do. As far as atheists coopting BCE/CE, Nobs, with all due respect, this simply does not matter. This is not a chatroom for debating religion or atheism, it is an NPOV encyclopedia. No editor here should care about another editor's beliefs. But we should all care about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Very good; my whole point is this is not a two-sided discussion, it is a three-sided discussion. While Jews and athieists may share "denial of Christ" to put it crassly, Jews and Christians have shared more during the C.E. than atheists have with either group. Nobs 17:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There are other POVs. Frex, some of us, like me, are Buddhists. Zora 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What Zora said. :) Only I'm not a Buddhist, but a Muslim. BrandonYusufToropov 18:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you understand Arabic, but it is my understanding Osama bin Laden repeatedly uses Anno Domini system of dating in most of his public pronouncements. perhaps you could aid in research. Nobs 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It is hubris to think that AD is more NPOV than CE. They are both allowed in the Manual of Style; Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Since they are both allowed you can't say one is more NPOV. However, I would rather it in CE because of uniformity. And no, I am not a Christian. --The Sunborn

You might want to vote on the subject, up top. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, nothing about what I said about "Common Era" was meant to be insulting toward you or toward anyone else. I maintain that it's just plain stupid. If you have a lot of stock riding upon its usage, I would say it's probably a good investment, but that the phrase is still stupid. It's not "common", and it's based retroactively on an event whose dating is undeterminable, to say nothing of unverifiable. If people were to say "Christian Era", then I might be less critical, since that's what the dating system is supposed to be indicative of. BCE as "before the christian era" is much less nonsensical than "before the common era", since, as has been pointed out numerous times, and not just by me, there is nothing "common" about "this era". Even saying that cheeses was born in 6 BCE with that meaning, is much less nonsensical than saying he was born 6 years BC. That is, as I have said several times already, the only reason I'm opposing the use of BC/AD in this article. If you find insulting my saying that the phraseology "Common Era" is just plain stupid, then I would suggest that you're perhaps too emotionally attached, as bizarre as that sounds to me, to this non-issue. Tersely but respectfully yours. Tomer ^TALK 19:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

AD/BC could be pov or npov as it is more frequently used.

CE/BCE could also be pov and in some circustances npov. but why introduce it into this article, except to be pov? (or as Tomer says - stupid)? To introduce it would demean the article --ClemMcGann 19:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand ClemMcGann's statement. How frequently a phrase is used has nothing to do with whether it is POV or NPOV. If you seriously think that frequency of use proves NPOV, you profoundly misunderstand our NPOV policy and I urge you to read it carefully. Frequency of use is simply irrelevant to POV/NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Jguk who earlier reverted my changes has yet to explain why BC and AD conform to our NPOV policy. Moreover, Susvolans has yet to explain whose or what POV "Common Era" expresses (don't say the POV of people who use CE, that is tautological. The reason AD is POV is not because it expresses the point of view of people who use AD, but rather because it express the Christian POV; people who use CE are doing so precisely to be neutral. If you call the Neutral Point of View a "Point of View" and conclude that it thus violates our NPOV policy, your logic is really screwed up. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, I have actually heard some people say that CE means "Christian Era" and I have no objection to that interpretation, which you seem more comfortable with. Nevertheless, I still do not understand why you question "common." "Common" means shared by many people, and indeed many people, including people of different faiths and no faith, share the Gregorian calendar. This seems like a straightforward use of the word "common." The point is, they have the calendar in common, but they do not have belief that Jesus is Christ and Lord in common. Also, I have noticed that you often talk about the Gregorian calendar and the BC/AD system at the same time. I think this is unconstructive, and certainly misses the point of many people who object to AD. As I said, people share the Gregorian calendar (i.e. "2005"), they do not share belief in Jesus as Lord (i.e. "AD). I understand you are saying that the Gregorian calendar is derived from an assumption about Jesus' birth, and an assumption that happens to be wrong to boot. But the same thing can mean very different things in different contexts. For Christians, 2005 may very well mean "2005 years since Jesus' birth." When Jews use "2005" they know that Christians think it is 2005 years since Jesus' birth. But that is not why Jews use "2005." The reason they use "2005" is because it has become a convention shared by (i.e. common to) many people worldwide. It is a convenience -- rather than have to convert the Jewish year to the Christian year to the Muslim year to the Hindu year whenever different people try to communicate, it makes sense to pick a convention. There are of course historical reasons for why the Gregorian calendar became the convention rather than the Muslim calendar — reasons that have more to do with European commercial and military prowess, than with Christianity. Nevertheless, it is a convention, just a convention. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I propose - in an effort to end the revert war - since this is an issue for all of Wikipedia and not just this artice, that the original version be maintained until the policy is reviewed and a decision is made to adopt the system of BCE/CE over BC/AD, or not. The article should be left in it's original state until that time, as that is the most common usage, and the most common usage on Wikipedia. There is also no definite consensus either way. Many Wikipedians do not even know this debate is happening as they have no reason to come to this article. You may argue that we don't need to decide either way, like with English vs. American spelling, but I think this talk page clearly shows that we do. This is a complete waste of energy. We are arguing the same points over and over again. This is my proposal, and if agreed upon, there should be no further discussion of the issue here, or reverting of the article. I don't know the best procedure for having such a policy vote, I haven't been here that long. I hope someone can come up with a solution. Please address this proposal below. And just to make a point: I would probably vote on Wikipedia adopting the new BCE/CE system, as that seems to be the way the academic world is going. --Silversmith 21:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur with this approach. Incidentally, it appears several people missed my intention w/ calling for a vote earlier. Specifically, I was trying to point out that the way the discussion was going, we weren't going to reach a consensus. I think that's been pretty thoroughly proven by now. This is something that is going to have to be referred to the overlords of wikipedia and adopted as a wikipedia-wide policy. I, for one, will be happy to go with whatever their decision might be. (In other words, I'm really not that attached to either nomenclature--there are, to me, convincing arguments against using either one of them.) Tomer ^TALK 22:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
There is no "original version" as far as I can tell; the article is in constant flux. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[14] This is a much earlier version of the article, 14th September 2004, edited by Jayjg, keeping the BC/AD style. The way the policy works with English/American spelling is to keep the original, so that is what I propose here until wiki-wide decisions are made. Jayjg, could you please comment on the voting proposal, not just which version to freeze it at in the meantime, as it really isn't the end of the world if it isn't the one you would prefer. --Silversmith 22:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

September 14, 2004 is a looong time ago. As for a vote, isn't that what is happening above? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, so for a very long time you and everyone else were fine with it being AD/BC, so I'm sure you can handle it being AD/BC for a little while longer. And as for the vote, the vote above is only for this article, not what I've proposed, and which is to be somewhere more communal as it affects everyone.--Silversmith 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The change was made, and it was a good one; I accepted it. Currently the vote seems to be strongly in favour of the change. And once one recognizes who is reverting to BC/AD, particularly the most persistent reverters, it is a given that the change is more NPOV and logical. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not see the point to or value of this proposal. Silversmith and Tomer misconstrue Jayjg's point, which really is that all Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Period. Earlier versions have no priority just because they happen to be earlier. Indeed, if you really believed in the ideals of Wikipedia, which I am beginning to doubt, you (Silversmith and Tomer) would argue that the most recent versions of articles have priority. This is because the idea of Wikipedia is that over time through the contributions of many articles will improve over time. Moreover, Silversmith and Tomer keep trying to switch the issues. Yes, the style guidelines (Which as MPerel pointed out are not binding) say that AD and CE are equally acceptable. "Equally" means that this style policy gives you no grounds for objecting to CE as a matter of style — just as it gives us no grounds for objecting to AD as a matter of style. But we are not objecting to AD as a matter of style. We are objecting to it because of a whole other different policy — our NPOV policy. NPOV is one of the most, if not the most, important policy we have here and there is no question that it trumps issues of style (i.e. what may be acceptable or even good style must be deleted if it violates NPOV; what may be poor style is acceptable if it maintains NPOV). Silversmith and Tomer, please stop confusing two different issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to uphold NPOV, and end a revert war, and end a never ending discussion. It is ridiculous to argue that newer versions should have priority because what is a newer version? That is something more likely to change from one moment to the next. I appreciate your point about newer versions being updated etc. But if there was nothing wrong with the old version (and you've yet to prove there is) then there's nothing wrong with sticking with the old. The guide suggests that if both are fine, then the original should be kept. Both are fine, and your reasons for feeling otherwise are based on your personal POV. If it isn't, then why aren't you out campaigning for a diferent article to change to BCE/CE? Why just this one? What I was suggesting would be to create a uniformity on Wikipedia that is based on logic and NPOV. I'm upset you would suggest that Tomer and I are not upholding the "ideals of Wikipedia" because we are arguing against you. If you argue that NPOV trumps all, you need to figure out how exactly BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD. The whole point behind inventing BCE/CE was POV! Someone decided they didn't like the meaning hidden, not only in an abbreviation, but also in Latin. So they decided to come up with another abbreviation, which they thought would be better. But it doesn't really make a difference because, and I hate to use the term, "at the end of the day" the calender is still based on the birth of christ, and calling it whatever fancy title you like won't change that. We can't please everyone here on Wikipedia, so we should at least try to please the majority, and we all know in this case what the majority use. Those who have voted for BCE/CE in this article, and have said for reasons of academic usage, have not said anything about using BCE/CE across the whole of Wikipedia. Why is that? And before you say that I'm arguing for my POV, you should know, as I said earlier, that I would probably vote BCE/CE for a wiki-wide usage. --Silversmith 16:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You have no understanding of our NPOV policy. AD is POV, CE is NPOV. I and many others have explained why. It is POV to say Jesus is Christ. It is NPOV to say that many different groups have a particular calendar in common. To say that the invention of BCE/CE expressed a POV shows that you are ignorant of what we here at Wikipedia mean by POV. "NPOV" is not itself a POV that violates our NPOV policy — you are just a troll making a mockery of our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Withdraw that personal attack, Slrubenstein. Chameleon 20:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not call me a troll. Your personal attacks are not necessary. Particularly as I have stated that I would agree to a wiki-wide usage of BCE/CE which is what you are arguing for. When your arguments aren't working, you should still not resort to name calling: it is unwiki. --Silversmith 20:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, I am sorry. But what frustrates me is that although I have responded to your statements, you never seem to respond to mine. I have explained why BC/AD is POV (many people do not believe Jesus is Christ). I have given reasons why BCE/CE is NPOV (it makes no claims about religious beliefs, pro or con). I have explained why the fact that people came up with BCE/CE for a reason is not sufficient to make the term POV (our own policy explains why NPOV is not itself a POV). I have explained why it does make a difference (you are conflating/confusing two things: the Gregorian calendar and the BC/AD terminology; they should be treated seperately. I, like most non-Christians, can accept the Gregorian calendar as a convention because we accept that some people do think Jesus was Christ and his birth was important. But that does not mean we should, in addition, be required to say Jesus is our Lord). I have made these points several times; others have made similar points. And you keep ignoring them. That is disheartening. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. And I am sorry to have been such a frustration to you. What is dificult in this whole debate is that it has come down to a lot of personal views. I have read your arguments, but I have also read the arguments of those who disagree with you. I think there are valid points on both sides. All I ended up trying to argue was for an end to the revert war, and making a decision to end this time consuming debate. That finally seems to have happened, with the article mentioning both. I still feel the issue needs to be addressed as to the style being used across wikipedia. But that is for another day. And just one more point: AD means "year of the lord" not "our lord". Or do you disagree? --Silversmith 15:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Major proposal

Latest comment: 19 years ago44 comments9 people in discussion

I propose that:

Wikipedia's stance regarding AD/CE be the same as the stance on UK/US spellings (accept either; don't revert between them) and this should be hard policy, not a guideline.
In the preferences, users should be able to choose between one system or the other in exactly the same way as we can currently choose between other aspects of date format (1 September vs. September 1).

Chameleon 01:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a great proposal...(note I'm not saying I'm in favor of it or not) ... but this is not the place to ~~propose~~ <insert>make</insert> wikipedia-wide <insert>policy</insert> proposals. Tomer ^TALK 01:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is a fine proposal if we are talking only about matters of style. If we are talking about our NPOV policy (which is far more important than our style conventions), it is a terrible proposal. NPOV by its very nature is not about US versus UK standards, it is about neutrality. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of ballot stuffing

I propose that we wait for the vote to conclude; fascinating how this proposal appeared just as the tide appeared to be turning in one direction. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating that the "tide appeared to be turning" (i.e. there are several CE votes that have popped up) after Jayjg attempted to, let's say, stuff the ballot box by writing to as many Jewish editors as possible. Futhermore, the first part of the proposal has been my position from the start. Jayjg, try, just try, to assume good faith, and, more importantly, act in good faith. Just try. Chameleon 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?! You tell Jayjg to assume good faith after you assume "bad faith" on his part? Chutzpah! Tomer ^TALK 02:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's no assumption of bad faith, Tomer. What Chameleon alleged against Jayjg happened. See my last post for the links. Jayjg posted a message to all his friends asking them to come vote here to skew the outcome in his favor. While I don't mind those other editors participating if they actually have something to contribute to the discussion, it does bother me that somebody is campaigning behind the scenes to tilt the vote in his favor by drawing in participants who have not followed the debate here and do little more than cast the vote he wants from them and leave. Previously, all the votes appear to have come voluntarily from the VfD note and from people who were already here. Now about a third of the votes in favor of the change were privately recruited in a manner that was intended for nobody here to notice even though its purpose was to alter the outcome of the vote. That type of behavior is generally disrespectful of the notion of consensus, which Wikipedia policy says should guide our decision. I added a link on the survey announcements site to draw greater attention to this vote and hopefully get a broader sample of wikipedians now that one editor has sought to skew the vote's participation by pinging all his friends. Rangerdude 04:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what you and Chameleon alleged didn't happen. I didn't post "a message to all his friends asking them to come vote here to skew the outcome in his favor"; many are not my friends at all, merely people I think would be interested. Some are my friends, some I barely know, some I mostly edit-war with, some came without any prompting on my part. See my comment below responding to your spurious charge. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And I hope some of those people you invited to the discussion actually do show up. At least they have a record of thoughtful discussion on matters instead of descending to personal attacks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

As is typical. Don't get worked up, he's not worth it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

fascinating how 2 dozen people rewrite 2000 years of human experience in 24 hours. Nobs 01:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing has been re-written; a more neutral usage has come into currency. Strawman arguments are sadly typical of the arguments made in favor of this outdated and non-neutral form. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon - You state that the tide appeared to be turning "after Jayjg attempted to, let's say, stuff the ballot box." Would this be the vote recruitment you are referring to? See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. IOW, somebody didn't like the way the vote was going among people who came here to participate on their own so he rounded up all his friends to invade the discussion. I did think it was odd that after two days of evenly split voting, all of a sudden a bunch of editors who never participated in this discussion suddenly showed up, cast a quick vote in favor of Jayjg's position, and then departed. Now I know why. Rangerdude 04:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with asking other people to participate? I came here by an invitation by another editor to comment as well. And btw, only two of the editors you listed have even come to the page to participate...hardly ballot stuffing, especially since no one is being told how to comment or vote. The broader the participation, the better. It's more likely the many people who have come lately are responding to the RFC Slrubenstein posted. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with seeking wider participation per se, but secretly pinging a dozen or so of your friends to come vote in favor of your position and then pretending that the tide of the vote had shifted on its own is deceptive. When Chameleon made his proposal above, Jayjg responded to it by attacking Chameleon's motives and suggesting that he offered the compromise in response to the shift in votes towards BCE/CE as if it had happened naturally. In reality, as we now know, almost every single one of the last 1/3rd or so votes in favor of BCE/CE was quietly recruited by Jayjg, who made no indication or disclosure that he was campaigning elsewhere for votes. And no, the recent votes are not from the RfC's. Click on the links I gave you and you will find that they link to several names who have cast subsequently cast votes for his position in the last couple hours. Rangerdude 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, Which third of the votes in favor of BCE/CE were "quietly recruited by Jayjg"? I see two people who actually showed up (and one of those two had already been commenting on this talk page before Jayjg commented on their talk page) and they weren't "pinged" nor advised how to comment or vote, they were merely openly invited via their talk pages to participate. Do you have anything compelling to add concerning why BC/AD should be in this article, or is this the direction you are taking now, ad hominem attacks on editors who don't hold your position? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Posting on someone's Talk: page is hardly "secret"; in fact, it's just the opposite. As for them being all being my "friends", another falsehood. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I brought the issue to the attention of people who I thought would have an interest. Turns out I was right, some did, though most of the people I contacted haven't voted. They're not all my "friends"; some I barely know, and with others I've mostly been involved in edit wars or Talk: disagreements. Oh, by the way, at least one of the people on your list had commented on the issue before I ever contacted him, and others I never contacted and are no doubt responding to the RfC on this issue. Anyway, people ask other interested editors to take a look at stuff all the time; you can do the same if you like, that's hardly ballot-stuffing. All of the people I contacted are long-time editors whose opinions on this matter are as valid as any of the pro BC/AD voters; actually, more valid than many, since they don't use rationales referring to the "anti-Christ" or "revisionist history" or claiming CE is "just plain stupid" etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well hey. I'm the one who called B/CE "just plain stupid", eventhough I also said it's moronic to say that Jesus was born 4-6 years before he was born. And I also happen to hold to the "revisionist history" thing. That notwithstanding, I voted in my straw poll to use BCE/CE simply because it sounds dumb to say Jesus was born before the beginning of the calendar system based upon the supposèd date of his presumed birth. I notice tho, that nobody's bothered to list me as Jayjg's "friend" yet...Tomer ^TALK 06:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you're my sockpuppet; that's even closer than friends. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh my yes. I can see the headlines now. SOCKPUPPETS OF THE JEWNIVERSE JEWNITE!!! Bleh. I'm going to bed. Tomer ^TALK 08:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

...and yet curiously almost all the people you pinged showed up to cast largely unelaborated votes in favor of your position then departed as quickly as they came. Whatever the case, it cannot be denied that you were campaigning for votes. I can't stop you from doing that but I can point out that you did it and I can make note that your observation about the tide of the vote changing was no chance event from the RfC. Rangerdude 05:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"Almost all"? Count again. I looked at your list, and only one person on it appears to have come here after I "pinged" him. A second, Sunborn, had already commented against the proposal, and I went to his page and suggested that if he felt that way he should vote. That's it. One whole person. This is your amazing "ballot box stuffing" conspiracy? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I count 3 votes that happened after you contacted them: Leifern, Ambi and Sunborn. Note that Sunborn's contributions only show edits to this article after your contacting at 18.45pm. Of the others, 5 haven't voted yet, but still may, and the last 2 decided they weren't interested. MathKnight wrote: "Honsestly, I don't see the difference between BC\AD to BCE\CE, since they both refer to the Christian dating system." And Msh210 was the other who wasn't interested. --Silversmith 12:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I count User:Leifern, User:Ambi, and User:Sunborn among the pings I uncovered. In addition to that he also contacted User:PinchasC here and User:Kuratowski's Ghost here to solicit votes on this discussion. That makes a total of at least 5 separate votes that Jayjg has recruited here. A quick review of his history also indicates that he has communicated in the last day or so on other subjects (including apparent vote recruitment on another article) with User:Viriditas, User:Humus sapiens, and User:SlimVirgin, all of whom have curiously chimed in here to vote for his position in the last 24 hours. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right? Just like the fact that virtually everybody he's pinged so far coincidentally voted in favor of his position? In short, not only did Jayjg initiate a behind the scenes campaign to swing the vote in his favor. Now he's also fibbing when he claims that his ballot box stuffing effort only netted one vote. Right now it's at least 5 and counting. Rangerdude 16:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sunborn commented before I responded to his statement that he preferred BCE/CE; you've been told this a number of times, and even shown a diff. If you can't be honest about at least this, then your position is clear. As for Ambi her vote came after the ballot-stuffing accusations. You claimed a third of the BCE/CE votes came from "ballot-stuffing" when, at the time, only one vote was from a person I had contacted; it's quite clear that you were the one fibbing at the time, as you still are. Please read MPerel's comments below for diffs, and try to refrain from further false accusations. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether they came after the evidence of your vote recruitment emerged or not is irrelevant because the editors came here on a direct request from you. If you want to discard Sunborn from the list, fine by me as well. That STILL leaves you with 4 times as many recruited votes from what you previously admitted, and maybe more considering the unusually coincidental back-to-back arrivals of three other editors you apparently recruited to the talk pages on other issues within the last 24 hours. As for "false accusations," the only one of those I see to date is your original comment that started this whole dispute to the effect of impugning Chameleon's motives for proposing a compromise. You accused him of responding to a shift in the vote that you tried to rig in your favor without disclosing the fact that several of its "new" participants were hand recruited by you to vote here, all of them casting a ballot in your favor (which I'm sure was just coincidence, was it not?). What myself and others have said about your vote recruitment has been fully documented from your own posting history, and if you don't like us doing that, that's just tough. Perhaps next time you'll think twice before pulling a stunt like that or disclose your activities in good faith before somebody comes along and finds the evidence of it on your posting history. Rangerdude 16:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello? At the time you made the claim, and I responded, there was exactly one person who responded, and you still refuse to acknowledge that. The fact that others have responded hours later are irrelevant to your original false claims, which you continue to try to defend. And asking other potentially interested parties to comment on the subject is not "vote recruitment", but in fact what Wikipedia considers a good thing. Your calumnies are exposed, whether you like it or not. Perhaps next time you'll think twice before pulling a stunt like that or confess your falsehoods and hypocrisy in good faith before somebody comes along and finds the evidence of it on your posting history. You add no value here, I am done with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Some people frown on it, Jay. I've seen it expressed that it shouldn't be permitted. And ballot-stuffing is often done by email and other means. Grace Note 06:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Frown on what, getting more people involved in the discussion so we can get a fuller picture of the Wikipedia consensus? That's what Wikipedia is all about. As for "other means", sounds very mysterious and conspiratorial. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some people frown on spamming talkpages to gain votes for your side. See the discussion on GRider's Schoolwatch thing and the discussion on the autofellatio picture, where an editor did precisely what you have done. I don't agree with those who dislike campaigning. I agree with you that trying to round up support is fine if it's openly done. There is nothing conspiratorial about "other means", Jay. I take it you know how to write an email. I don't have a problem with that either. If an editor with a concern about an article were to email me, I would look at the article. Grace Note 23:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, Ambi for example came *after* all the wild accusations of "ballot stuffing" (and good, she's a very respected editor with a record of thoughtful feedback), and Sunborn contributed on this page at 18:24 *before* Jayjg responded to him/her both on this page and his/her talk page. And the ambivalence of MathKnight demonstrates exactly the point, that just because someone is invited to participate guarantees no certain outcome, it only increases participation. What I do find disconcerting is comments on this talk page and the user talk pages of Rangerdude and Nobs demonstrating the personal stake in the Christian POV rather than concern for NPOV, and the mischaracterization and personal attacks of editors who hold other positions than theirs [15] [16]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

All your link to Sunborn's contribution to this page shows that it was at 20.24/8.24pm, not 18.24/6.24pm. Jayjg contacted Sunborn at 6.45, which is over an hour before Sunborn's first contribution, as I said. And it doesn't matter if a vote came along after the "ballot stuffing" accusations started flying. All I concede from that is that when Jayjg said one, there probably was only one. Now there are 5 and still more may join in. But who cares anyway, as this whole vote will achieve nothing anyway. --Silversmith 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, recheck your chronology:
:18:24 Sunborn initial comment at Talk:Jesus
:18:42 Jayjg response to Sunborn at Talk:Jesus
:18:45 Jayjg reiterates response to Sunborn at User Talk:Sunborn
--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

If your buddies want to contribute to the discussion, fine by me. Just don't make personal attacks on other editors for proposing a compromise on the basis of a vote that you were heavily campaigning for behind the scenes. Based on your comments to Chameleon, you insinuated that he was somehow shunning a vote that just happened to have an influx of voters for one side in the last few hours. In reality that influx of votes was hand-recruited by you. Don't complain to me that you got caught. Rangerdude 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"My buddies"? Re-read my post to you. And my post to Chameleon in no way insinuated that there "just happened to have an influx of voters for one side in the last few hours". The only thing this episode has "caught" is a rash of false accusations by you. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

2nd idea is interesting, if practical. But re 1st idea: (& finally someone has almost made the policy repeatedly referred to slightly clearer) - nobody has been arguing that American or English spelling is less POV. There is a claim, with growing support, however, that Common Era is more NPOV than In the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ. --JimWae 01:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- Others find CE to be politically correct, euphemistic, axe-grinding POV. They find that using the term that everybody knows is NPOV. Also, Anno Domini means just "In the year of the Lord", and nothing more. Not "our" lord or anything else. It is perfectly possible to understand it as "in the year of the lord of the Christians" and not worry one's head about it further, as we do with Moon Goddess Day, Tiw's Day, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, Frige's Day, Saturn's Day and Sun God's Day.
  - Its meaning & its translation are not equivalent, as it is years reckoned by supposed birth of Jesus Christ, who is called "Lord" - anyway, I think the 2nd idea is just fabulous - and it lets wikipedia off the hook from receiving hate mail claiming "discrimination against Xians" too. The pages themselves could be named either "4 BC" or "4 BCE" or "4 BC - 4 BCE" but the title on the page could use both. Still either one or both of 4 BC & 4 BCE would need to redirect -- increasing the load on servers to handle redirects. Maybe wikipedia will have to decide after all. I do not have the same problem naming days of week after planets (& sun & moon) - even if they are in a different language that has a touch of Norse mythology. Hardly anyone is trying to make a case that the laws given by Norse gods should govern the Earth. Furthermore, the initial user's spelling is overridden by appropriateness (Articles about America use American spelling...) --JimWae 03:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- Let's accept that there are strong feeling on both sides, and just tolerate both forms. The first part of my proposal is pretty much policy already. It just needs some teeth added. The second part just requires a developer to do a little bit of work. It seems the ideal solution to me. Chameleon 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Who says this isn't and educational exercise. It's possible 10 billion human souls have walked the face of this planet over the past two millenia. I had no idea they were so ignorant until a wiki poll set the matter straight in a vote 20-13. Nobs 01:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Look up "disingenuous"... Tomer ^TALK 02:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon and Rangerdude are being very unfair to Jayjg. As far as I know, it was I who first solicited the particpation of others, many others, not Jayjg (just go to my page and look at "contributions" for May 8th, when I posted an RfC and also solicited several individuals. Moreover, the charge of "ballot stuffing" is ridiculous, especially at Wikipedia where people who might have knowledge about or interest in an article are supposed to get involved. And when I recruited people to participate, there was no vote and I did not ask anyone to vote any particular way. I also resent Chameleon's vague anti-Semitism. To bring race in when we are trying to discuss neutrality is utterly uncalled for. In any event, many of the people I contacted are not Jewish, or at least I have no reason to think they are Jewish (e.g. John Kenney, Jayjg, and Mustafaa). And another thing, some of the people I invited to participate were or are vigorously opposed to my own view: I left a message on Tomer's talk page and it is obvious that he and I are entirely opposed; I also invited MPerel, and although he has since changed his mind, at the time he was opposed to my view. Jayjg and JimWae (both of whom I notified) and I happen to agree on this matter, but there are many examples in the recent past where they and I vigorously disagreed. What I value is open and intelligent discussion. On the other hand, Chameleon and Rangerdude's complaints are unfounded, signs of intellectual bankrupcy or cowardice (because it doesn't matter how many people disagree with you, what matters is their reasons and the ability and requirement that all of us have a rational conversation about the issues; if you think many people oppose your point of view, try using reason to change their minds! Or try to take their own arguments seriously!), and diversionary. Let's stick to the issue rather than try to assasinate Jayjg's character. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Withdraw that personal attack, Slrubenstein. Chameleon 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

And especially ironic, in light of Rangerdude's comment just the day before: "Furthermore, your penchant for insulting and attacking the person of people who disagree with you is also growing tiresome and has no place on this forum."[17] But then, it's part of a pattern, as others have noted here:[18] Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Considering that this entire dispute was initiated by your personal attack on the motives of User:Chameleon, hypocrisy is a better description and that hypocrisy belongs solely to you. As to what I've said, it's all documented above and on your posting history. You just don't like the fact that I've aired your dirty laundry and thrown a wrench in your little behind-the-scenes vote recruitment scheme. Rangerdude 16:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was started by your false accusations about me, which you still have not acknowledged, much less retracted, as is all documented above. Are you still claiming I contacted Sunborn before he spoke out in favour of BCE/CE? Well, it doesn't really matter much: Your personal attacks, prevarications, and calumnies grow tiresome; have you nothing else to contribute to this Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. I suppose your only response now is to fib about what you did and attack the messengers who pointed it out. Too bad for you, the evidence is all there for anybody who wants to see it. The fact that you've gotten yourself so worked up over my posts drawing attention to your posting history is testament in itself to exactly what I've said about you. All anybody needs to do is go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Rangerdude 17:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As one of the people contacted, I'd like to point out that a) Jayg doesn't know anything about my religious convictions; b) did not encourage me to vote one way or the other; c) will from time to time ask for me to weigh in a contentious editing issue, and I have no idea whether he agrees with my insights - he never says one way or the other. --Leifern 17:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it's still vote recruitment. Furthermore, given that he apparently makes requests such as this one of you on many other topics per your admission, it is silly to suggest that he does not have at least some idea which way your editing preferences and beliefs tilt. As I noted previously, every single one of Jayjg's recruited votes that participated has cast a vote in support of BCE/CE. Seeing as the remaining votes, which came from an RfC (and thus were a reasonably random sampling of wikipedians as a community at large), split almost evenly between the two sides, that all of Jayjg's recruited voters would come down in his favor is highly uncharacteristic of the non-bias that is now claimed among them.Rangerdude 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, these continued hysterics and re-repeating your false allegations do nothing for your credibility nor the discussion on BC/BCE. Do you have anything pertinent to say that actually makes a case for BC over BCE? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, claiming that letting people know about a potentially interesting discussion is "ballot stuffing" is bizarre at best. But then to compound the issue by claiming that, because of the 23 people voting for BCE/CE four were first contacted by me, we have "evidence" of "ballot stuffing" goes beyond bizarre into the realm of pathological. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

MPerel - if my allegations are "false" as you claim, then why can you find evidence of each and every one of them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here? That's the great thing about wikipedia - it keeps a record of everything that happened, meaning people who come along later and deny their own actions can be plainly contradicted by the record of them. Like it or not, Jayjg engaged in widespread behind the scenes vote recruitment to stuff the ballot box in his favor. His actions have netted the BCE/CE side at least 5 or more votes that they otherwise would not have had if participation came only from editors who clicked on the RfC on their own. And like it or not, this entire spat was initiated not by me but rather by Jayjg, who used the results of his vote recruitment scheme to make an unprovoked personal attack on another editor's motives. Rangerdude 17:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, it's apparent you're ignoring any response I or anyone else makes, you just keep repeating yourself. So what, there's a record of Jayjg inviting people to participate. There's nothing wrong with inviting other editors to participate. That's the point of Wikipedia, it's a multi-effort. If you look at the talk pages of any serious editor, you'll see lots of editors inviting involvement by others. Maybe if your contribution to discussions revolved more around article content and less on disrupting discussions by resorting to personal attacks, you'd be getting these kinds of invitations to participate on articles yourself. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, MPerel, but some people do not like this sort of thing. You must know that because I think you have read the arguments over it before -- didn't IZAK do something that garnered some criticism? In any case, GRider was criticised for placing messages about his schoolwatch page on talkpages, and an editor -- User:Achilles I think his name was -- did something similar in connection with an image of autofellatio. In each case, the editors, I believe, could argue that they didn't solicit votes, only the participation of interested editors, but they also were accused of only asking editors they believed would vote their way to participate. In any case, directing editors to a vote is not the same thing as directing them to an article that might interest them. I think that that's fair enough to note. I think votes are perverse anyway -- means to stymie conversation, not bring about consensus. I don't think they should be encouraged, especially where those encouraging them can be certain they will not in fact bring about consensus. All this vote has done is stir up further acrimony. Grace Note 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace, I have similar feelings you express about voting in general at Wikipedia. Ideally it should be a temperature gauge to measure where the progress toward achieving consensus is holding, but in reality votes often only create polarized partisan sides digging in their heels. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ballot-stuffing refers to people voting more than once, or votes cast by non-living people. This is not the case here; each vote is by a real editor, and no one has voted twice. Rangerdude simply cannot stand being in the minority. And he is in the minority. It does not matter how or why various people voted because every wikipedian has a right to express their view. Rangerdude, stop — and before you say anything else, please go through our policies and tell us which policy Jayjg has violated. If he has not violated any policy, he cannot be faulted for what he (or I) did. Tell us what policy we have violated. Please provide a link to that policy too. Thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough mudslinging. Show us the policy violation. Ballot-stuffing is very different from campaigning. That said, Rangerdude, I didn't see anyone campaigning for a vote, until I called for one, and it certainly wasn't at Jayjg's urging, it was, as I've said, a way of demonstrating that we're not going to reach consensus one way or another on B/CE vs BC/AD by arguing with each other. We all pretty clearly have our own POVs on this, even those who are ambivalent like me, and no amount of evidence gathering is going to bring consensus, all it's going to do is make people get defensive...something that has quite clearly happened. Recently, in fact, NONE of the discussion here has had anything remotely to do with the issue at hand. Half of this talk page should be archived under Talk:Pointless_discussions rather than under Talk:Jesus. Get back to the subject at hand or sit down and shut up. If you have a gripe against another editor, TAKE IT UP WITH THE WIKISYSTEMLORDS. Tomer ^TALK 18:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you exactly which policy he violated. He did not assume good faith when he made an uprovoked attack on User:Chameleon's compromise proposal on the basis that the "tide" was turning in the vote. In doing so, he made the exploration of why that tide was turning fair game. That is where the policy violation occurred and it was duly noted at the time. Now, WRT the ballot box stuffing, Chameleon, Silversmith, and myself investigated the reasons why the votes drastically changed from an even split and found an undisclosed behind-the-scenes vote recruitment campaign by Jayjg to sway the outcome in his favor. As I have repeatedly stated, I cannot stop him from doing this nor does policy permit me or anyone to discard the votes he recruited. I can however document it and criticize it as underhanded and bad form for an open discussion. So while not strictly illegal by wikipedia policy, what he did was impolite and deceptive given that his campaign was not disclosed even while he was touting the outcome of it to make personal attacks on another editor's proposals. The truly telling thing about this entire spat is that Jayjg and his defenders have responded to the evidence that has been documented by backtracking, denial, launching ad hominems against the messengers, and even lying (such as Jayjg's claim that his campaign produced only 1 vote when in fact it produced at least 4 and very likely more than that). But the one thing none of them can do is refute the fact that it happened. While we do need to get back on track and I'm perfectly willing to see just that happen, this incident is worthy of note because it pertains directly to an ongoing vote on this subject and the manner in which it is being conducted. The lesson from it is that if you're gonna campaign for a vote, disclose it and be upfront about it. And if you're gonna attack the motives of other editors for suggesting a compromise, make sure your own closet is clear of skeletons - especially when you're using the outcome of one of them to make that attack. Rangerdude 19:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude is just a troll making a mockery of our policies. There is no policy against campaigning (if that is what Jayjg actually did) and all RD is saying is that anything someone does that RD doesn't like is "lack of good faith" is absurd on its face. Listen to Tomer's good points rather than continue to get more and more hysterical. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Bring your gods, ghosts, familliars, aviators and guppies

And bring also anyone who likely to participate constructively. I extend this advice to every single individual here, and I don't mean anyone especially, though especially Rangerdude. Let the "invasion" begin. From someone whom SlR contacted and did not arrive here independently, El_C 10:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV (Era Notation Compromise)

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Okay. Let's do the date thing the NPOV way. The policy says "represent all views". So represent all views. 6 BC/BCE. AD 4 CE. What's the problem? We don't have to choose. Include both. We've established that "BC" is considered biased by some editors and that "BCE" is considered anti-Christian by some, so clearly there is no term that is acceptable to both (unless we date the year from the invention of the metre ;-)), so why not just use both? Problem solved. You may now return to your pointless debate about it. GN User:203.103.60.206 Sig added by --Silversmith 01:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

100% STRONG AGREE! This page has been on my watchlist for a while now, but I've managed to keep my mouth shut... I had this very idea, but looks like you beat me to posting it. Linuxbeak 03:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

This would be confusing - it would also make each year look like a vacuum cleaner model, jguk 05:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I find your attitude utterly intolerant. You can plainly see that there is a lot of strong feeling about the dates thing. You cannot claim you are sparing the ignorant, because I have proposed including both sets of dates, so that all can understand them. So basically you are saying my way or nothing. Even JimWae, a staunch supporter of a switch to CE, is willing to give it a go. I know that Jayjg is online too, and he's not afraid to revert what he doesn't like! Why not give it a think? If everyone can just swallow it, we have resolved the problem and can all move on to creating content. Grace Note 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think for this article, the combo BC/BCE is an acceptable compromise. I've seen it done like that before even in scholarly contexts. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with silversmith. Sam Spade 12:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation for why BCE and CE are "anti-Christian?" Nobs, above argued that it is not, and gave reasons. I've yet to see reasons for why BCE is "anti-Christian." This is tantamount to saying "NPOV is anti-Christian." Our NPOV policy requires us to say things like some people believe that Jesus is Christ — but not everyone! Is this anti-Christian? If not, why is saying BCE, which only means that many people do not believe Jesus is Christ, anti-Christian? It doesn't make sense to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This is proving to be an interesting discussion. BCE/CE has become essentially a homonym. It originally was developed by Christians & Jews entirely for the purpose of being NPOV. It has now been hijacked by atheists to promote their POV. Nobs 15:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Um...Nobs...I think you mean synonymous, not homonymous. A homonym, in case you don't want to look it up, is more than one word, spelled the same way. The classic example of this is "bow" (the kind you shoot arrows with) vs. "bow" (what the japanese do before people they respect). This should not be confused with homophone, which pits "bow" (what the japanese do before people they respect) vs. "bough", a branch of a tree. More common homonyms in LModE include such verb/noun pairs as present/present. Synonyms, on the other hand, are different words (or, in this case, acronyms, which I'm not going to explain), which mean the same thing. Tomer ^TALK 06:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Perhaps you are not aware that "homophones" are "homonyms". What you describe are "homographs", the less commonly described type of homonym. Grace Note 07:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Synonyms, according to wiki, have the same meaning but are spelled different. Homonyms are spelled alike but have different meanings (like bitch, n.a female dog and bitch, v. to complain). Common is a homonym, means shared and also vulgar. Judeo-Christian usage of BCE/BC is shared belief in a common deity. Atheists and so-called rationalists usage of BCE/CE shares nothing with theists. It is their POV of denying the Christian Lord and a declaration of a Novus Ordo Seclorum, or New secular age. Secular, i.e. not sacred, or vulgar. I repeat once again, Jews shared belief in God with Chrisitians was the basis of the compromise language that originted BCE/CE among Christian and Jewish scholars as NPOV. Their shared beliefs and experience over 2 millenium have nothing in common with secular atheists. While the Jews do share the denial that "Jesus is Lord" with atheists, that is not the meaning Christians and Jews, who developed the term, attached to it. The atheist/rationalist argument that Anno Domini should be dropped, yet time reckoning from the Time of Christ should continue, is disingenuous in the least. Nobs Subsribed and sworn before me on this 12 May in the Year of our Lord 2005 at 21:29 (UTC)

I do not see the "hijacking." The words "Common Era" or "Before Common Era" in no way imply that God does not exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So, do the terms "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era" imply that God exists? Note that these are also fairly common usage. To me, it is also an indication of the silliness of the whole argument. For example, in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the entry for "common era" is only a cross-reference:

common era n, usu cap C & E : CHRISTIAN ERA

Wouldn't it just be simpler to invent new interpretations of the words represented by BC and AD as well? Gene Nygaard 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not God exists has never been an issue here. I do not think that even "Christian Era" takes the Christian POV, it simply admits that it is an era in Western history dominated by Christianity, which I accept as a fact. As for creating new meanings for old abbreviations, I suppose it is possible, but when people ave been using "BCE and CE" for at least a hundred years, I don't see the point in banishing them from this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What is NPOV? Know the reader

Latest comment: 19 years ago52 comments13 people in discussion

NPOV means that, for reporting purposes, we accept the societal norms that we are in. We use the most common terms as understood and used by our audience. Here our audience is anyone who might be searching for information in a web-based English language encyclopaedia. And it is clear what the norms are here. The overwhelming majority (90%+) of that audience use BC/AD in preference to BCE/CE. Based on that overwhelming majority, BC/AD is what we should use - to do anything else begs "WHY?" And you can't answer that without telling me your POV.

Note that in a different scenario, you would come to a different conclusion about the same issue. Suppose we had a journal written by academics for academics from various university departments where BCE/CE was overwhelmingly prevalent - so much so that the journal's style guide prefers that notation. What sort of message would it present if you persisted in writing to that journal, submitting letters, etc. using BC/AD style. Why would you be breaking the norms? What message are you trying to give? What's your POV?

But the point here is that BC/AD notation is what our readers (and our writers) prefer. By a long shot. There's no contest.

I appreciate that some contributors are more used to BCE/CE than BC/AD - but they form a small minority of our readership. I ask them to accept societal norms here. There is no reason not to.

There are a number of side-effects to the principle of using most common terms - they make the reader comfortable with the style, and if the style is welcoming and familiar, they are more likely to stay. Ask me why I read The Times rather than The Daily Telegraph, The Independent or The Guardian - and it is purely a question of my preferring its style. The same is true of online encyclopaedias. If you are unsure - next ask yourself this. If WP had adopted a strong policy of only allowing American English (swap for British English if you are American!) and rigorously enforced a style guide, so that we made arbitrary changes to contributions to comply with it - do you really think WP would have the breadth of coverage and contributors that it currently does?

Style is important - as is conforming to societal norms (if we are to have a NPOV encyclopaedia). In this instance, there is no alternative - NPOV is non-negotiable and not susceptible to a vote. We must use the forms preferred overwhelmingly by 90%+ of our readership. Kind regards, jguk 05:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Since when did more common usage become "NPOV"? I've read your comment, and I'm not getting the connection. Does this understanding of NPOV also require us to change all references to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to "Mormons"? If so, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. When we do not reflect most common usage there is usually a POV reason why - in that particular case it is the pro-Latter-day Saints (or pro-Mormon) PC lobby. Surely to be NPOV we should be neither pro- or anti- the Mormon viewpoint? jguk 12:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention changing People's Republic of China to China and Republic of China to Taiwan... Simply put, using the most common name is not "NPOV" when the common name itself espouses a particular POV. srs 06:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The problems with those pages started as soon as some users changed the pages away from the most common usage principle. Your example demonstrates another reason why we are best off (from a harmonious editing viewpoint) accepting the basic NPOV principle that the most common usage is, by definition, NPOV. This is because we use it because it is the most common usage - not because we are advocating the usage or expressing any views at all on its use, jguk 12:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

jguk, I'm interested in your response to slrubenstein's point here. BC/AD represents the Christian POV. What POV does BCE/CE represent? I also would like to know how you happen to know what 90% of our readership prefers? Even if a readership "preference" could be somehow demonstrated, why should this override NPOV policy? And to echo Jayjg, I also don't get the connection between reader preference and NPOV, please elaborate. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered Slrubenstein's point twice - once before he made it. It is NPOV because we use it merely because it is the most common formulation. There is no viewpoint there - we take a demonstrable fact and apply it uniformly across WP. Not only that, there is an implication that if what is the most common formulation changes, WP will reflect that. IE we report and reflect, we do not decide.

The 90%+ figure is based on our readership being anyone who may come to the internet looking for an English-language encyclopaedia. The expectation is that google searches would be biased towards American usage and, for an issue such as this, academic usage - both of which would skew the results towards BCE/CE. Google searches show BC/AD to be more popular than BCE/CE by a ratio of 9:1. I admit there can be flaws in google searches - but if the better ratio were even 5:1 or 13:1 the conclusion would still be the same.

As noted above, always using the most common formulation because it is the most common formulation is always NPOV. By doing that the only "view" we express is that a particular term is most commonly used (an assertion which can be proven). We do not chose which articles or formulations to apply this rule to - we should apply it to all. Similarly, we have a picture of Tony Blair in Politics of the United Kingdom not because we approve of him or think he should be prime minister, but because he is prime minister. And the picture will change without there being any controversy when he ceases to be PM. Kind regards, jguk 12:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate demonstrates the NPOV of the editors and the debate does not consider as relevant the expectations of the audience. (Whatever happened to writing for your audience. [19]) The article on Common Era in wikipedia itself suggests that BCE/CE "is most often used by academics, especially in the fields of non-Western history, theology, archaeology, and anthropology." And the referenced Chicago Manual of Style provides what I consider to be a NPOV approach:

Q. Do you recommend the use of BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead of BC and AD? Has the debate about these been settled or is it still in flux? A. We are not aware of any intense debate. The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated. Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so. [20]

As this is an article about Jesus it seems appropriate to use the BC/AD designation since the designation was created to coincide with his birth. BC/BCE applies a new (supposedly neutral) label to the same convention and seems out of place in an article about the person on whom the starting refernce point is based. Trödel|talk 12:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As an historical purist with a tolerance for revisionism, my question is at what point does BCE/CE become acceptable? In otherwords, does the proposed changes take effect immediately, henceforth & forever, or do reversions occur in previous texts working backwards, in an attempt to expunge the Lord from every aspect of our common history? Nobs 15:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk is so incredibly wrong it amazes me. Above, MPerel asks Jguk to respond to my criticism of his view and he replies "It is NPOV because we use it merely because it is the most common formulation." This is simply wrong. W-R-O-N-G. I have explained why several times. The popularity of a phrase or the frequency of its use has nothing at all to do with its neutrality. Why don't we look at the actual NPOV policy (which, Jimbo has said, is non-negotiable):

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

That Jesus is Christ is not a fact no matter how many people believe so. That Jesus is Lord is not a fact no matter how many people believe so. On the contrary, that Jesus is Christ and that Jesus is Lord is, undeniably, incontrovertably, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." Even if four billion people believed Jesus is Christ, to assert this as a fact would violate NPOV. I have asked several people to explain why BCE/CE violates NPOV and no one can give me an answer. But I can explain very simply why it is NPOV. First, it claims that the Gregorian calendar is common to many different groups. This is a fact. Second, it implies that many people do not accept Jesus as Christ or Lord. This too is a fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

- Here's a conundrum for you — If one were to believe that their argument was more NPOV, then isn't that their POV? And if both sides of an argument believe that their argument is NPOV, then don't they cancel each other out? So if NPOV = POV and NPOV + NPOV = POV then we should use both, as using either is POV, and the only way to equal NPOV is POV + POV. Elementary my dear Watson. --Silversmith 16:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, I now realize you are a new user. Welcome to Wikipedia, and we welcome your contributions. However, if you want to avoid potential conflicts, please familiarize yourself with our policies. Some policies are really just guidelines (like our style policies) but some policies are firm and non-negotiable. Wikipedia: Neutral point of view is one such policy. I urge you to read it. In cases of Wikipedia policy, do not turn to dictionaries — turn to our policy pages (if you do not know where they are, go to the community portal and you will see). In answer to your question, our policy is:

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

Remember, this policy is non-negotiable. Now, if I understand you correctly, you are in part suggesting that NPOV leads us to include multiple points of view in articles. You are right. For example, an article on Jesus should include multiple points of view: Jesus was the messiah; Jesus was a false messiah; Jesus was a prophet; Jesus was the son of God, and so on. Including these multiple points of view is one important way of achieving an NPOV article. In the case of any discussion of the terms, BC and BCE, NPOV requires us to say that some people use BC, and others use BCE. But the argument here is not about how people in general use these terms, it is about which of these terms to use in this article and many argue that BC is a term that reflects a POV and BCE does not. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC) — As many argue that BCE/CE is POV and BC/AD is not. --Silversmith 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You may want to read the internal wikipedia link I made to conundrum. And you may want to look at this internal link to a very important policy on Wikipedia that you seem, after such a looooong time here, to have forgotten. And also our NPA policy. Very important. It doesn't seem you are familliar with either. And according to our NPOV policy: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased." Which is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps it is you who needs to re-read some policies. --Silversmith 19:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

POV + POV = 2POV, not NPOV. NPOV - POV, however, = N. Tomer ^TALK 17:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please tell us where in the NPOV policy it says this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason I said POV + POV = NPOV is because if there are 2 opposing arguments, and each argument is POV, then the only way to reach NPOV is for the 2 POVs to be added, and thus we are saying that neither is right (or both are), and it is up to the reader make an interpretation for themselves. I read that in the policy somewhere a while ago, I'll have to go find it again. --Silversmith 19:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: from WP NPOV policy.

- - "There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing." --Silversmith 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a case of "some people use BC, and others use BCE" as Slrubenstein suggests; it is the actual fact of history that billions of people for 2 millenium of diverse languages, cultures and civilizations have left the contemporary generation a legacy using the Anno domini system of reckoning. "Some people" in the current generation, for different motivations, personally prefer to use a system that does not deny the date of origin of reckoning, but dissents from the established practices of a civilization. Nobs 17:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The argument that billions of people for millenia used it is bogus; the vast majority who might have used it were illiterate and so used nothing, and in any event they were outnumbered by the peoples who used other systems. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Slavery was an established practice of civilization too. Dissent is often justified over legacies involving domination of one culture at the expense of all others. That's where NPOV comes in... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:09, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dissent from a common established practice is a POV. Nobs 21:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, just because some nomenclature has a historical POV does not mean that it has a current POV. For example, I can use the terms Holy Roman Empire, Thursday, or Queen Elizabeth II without implying that I believe that the empire was holy, or that I worship the Norse god of thunder, or that I recognize the authority of the British monarch. (Interesting note about the Quakers in the Thursday article though: should we scrub Wikipedia of "Thursday"?) Regardless of the historical origins of the abbreviations BC and AD, they now mean little more than indicating the point at which the English-speaking world stops counting years backward and starts counting them forward. Seriously, how many people read "BC" and think that the Messiahship of Jesus is being proclaimed? Or that AD means they accept Jesus as Lord? Construing BC and AD as statements of religious devotion may have been valid when the terms were first introduced, but to reject BC and AD now in the face of centuries of tradition and widespread usage seems to be justifiable only under two premises: either (1) that any term with historical origins in religious devotion carries an eternal POV taint and should be excised from Wikipedia, or (2) that the abbreviations still so strongly communicate religious meaning to the majority of users as to make the terminology indeed POV. The first premise is itself POV (by singling out religion as an unacceptable originator of terminology), and thus should not justify rejecting BC/AD. The second premise, though is where I think Slrubenstein and others are coming from (do correct me if I'm wrong). If this premise can be validated, then the POV-ness of BC/AD is established, and use of these abbreviations should be abandoned throughout Wikipedia in favor of BCE/CE. On the other hand, if BC/AD is shown not to convey religious meaning to the majority of Wikipedia users, then it should be the favored usage in most articles based on its familiarity to readers. Perhaps another poll could be taken to address the simple yes/no question: Does modern usage of BC/AD convey a religious point of view to you? Assuming a sufficiently representative response by Wikipedians, the results may be a better indication of how to resolve this controversy than simply asking for people's preferences between BC/AD and BCE/CE. Alanyst 18:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if BC/AD only conveys religious content to some Wikipedia readers, BCE/CE would be more neutral and thus preferable. --goethean 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to understand that some (not I) view BCE/CE as POV—not in the abbreviations' meaning, but in their replacement of widely used abbreviations simply because of the latter abbreviations' historical connection to Christianity. If all that matters is that some readers' sense of neutrality is offended, very little could be written in Wikipedia without violating NPOV somehow. Take the example of Thursday I cited above. It's possible that a devout Quaker who objects to the pagan origins of the day's name might object that "Thursday" forces them to adopt a religious POV to which they do not subscribe. That doesn't mean, though, that we should purge all of the names of days of the week from Wikipedia. Why? Because those names have essentially lost their religious connotations to most people, and are far preferable style-wise to "Fifth Day" because they are simply the way that English speakers talk about the days of the week. Forcing everyone to write "Fifth Day" would thus be enforcing the Quaker POV, even though strictly speaking it is a more neutral term than "Thursday". I believe the same argument can be made about BC/AD: while BCE/CE may be the choice of scholarly publications, it does not pervade common speech or literature to any extent compared to BC/AD. The fact that some choose to focus on the religious origins of the BC/AD abbreviations does not make using the abbreviations POV. Alanyst 20:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But the fact is that people do object to BC/AD on religious grounds, and others defend them on religious grounds, including many of the people arguing on this page (on both sides), so it's clear they do have a religious connotation for many. As for the "Thursday" argument, in reality no-one objects to the usage of the name, and in any event there is no alternative proposed, much less which has gained any currency, that is a strawman argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Arguments don't become logical fallacies just because you mention them and link to an article on a given fallacy, Jayjg. Really, I almost wish we didn't have articles on them, because it encourages people who don't understand them to attempt to tap into some cool factor associated with them, just by linking to them. Chameleon 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Strawman? According to the Thursday article at least, the Quakers do object to the usage of the name, and have proposed an alternative, "Fifth Day". I grant that it has not gained any currency that I know of (though I do not know or live among any Quakers), but one could equally argue that BCE/CE has not gained any currency to speak of in the English vernacular. What you call a strawman is actually a good parallel: some people object to a widely used term on the basis of its religious origins, so they propose a neologism to replace it. In both the BCE/CE case and the "Fifth Day" case, enforcement of the neologism in Wikipedia would be justified if use of the original term still carried the implication that the person using the term subscribes to the beliefs that originated the term. But in both cases, BC/AD and Thursday are used by millions of people regardless of their personal religious beliefs. So, one cannot read "600 BC" or "400 AD" and conclude that the author is a Christian, just as one cannot read "Thursday" and conclude that the author is a pagan. Hence the terms have lost their religious meaning (though not their origins) in the vernacular, and are thus sufficiently neutral. Alanyst 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But asking people to use fifth day is more onerous (and confusing) than using BCE/CE. Additionally, not very many people are aware that Thursday stands for Thor, wheras most users here know that AD has something to do with Jesus. --goethean 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

and using an abreviation "that ... has something to do with Jesus" on the page about Jesus is definately expressing a POV Trödel|talk 21:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC) (tongue firmly in cheek)

"In the year of Our Lord?" Um...--goethean 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Granted. But just because AD has something to do with Jesus does not make it de facto POV. It's so widely used that it no longer identifies the religious POV of the author who uses it. Hence its usage is NPOV, even if its historical meaning is not. Alanyst 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The scholarship arguement is a fallacy seeing there has been NO evidence presented of its origin and/or common usage outside of religious scholarship. In otherwords, proponents of adopting the BCE/CE standard are basing their arguement on the POV of religious scholars. I challenge anyone to disprove the above premise. Nobs 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Gotta differ with you here, Nobs. A stylistic convention among scholars does not make something POV. I don't object to BCE/CE on the grounds that it somehow represents an anti-Christian viewpoint; I object to it on the grounds of inappropriateness for a non-scholarly Wikipedia article when, in my opinion, BC/AD is sufficiently NPOV and has the great benefit of being familiar to pretty much everybody. I would feel the same if somebody tried to replace all occurrences of "St John's wort in Wikipedia with "Hypericum perforatum" simply because the latter is the one used in scholarly journals and because the former might be construed as accepting the sainthood of John the Apostle. It's the wrong approach, even though Hypericum perforatum is perfectly NPOV. Alanyst 21:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Poor analogy. Maybe if St. John's Wort was as common as wheat, let's say, and it was named "Our Lord's Wort", and was understood to refer to Jesus, and global culture had accepted that without a qualm, then you would have a good point. --goethean 21:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see my current version of the Jesus article to see how both BCE/CE and BC/AD can be used in the same article without looking like "a vacuum cleaner model." And I don't expect it to stay that long with some people here determined to get their way. --Silversmith 22:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You and I agree I think. I am pointing out the falacious grounds BCE/CE proponents argue on. They erroneously believe the term has gained currency beginning with and among secular scholarship, when in fact it began among Christian and Jewish scholars during recent ecumenical religious movements to represent the commonality of those two faiths. The term now has been co-opted by group whose express POV is Jesus is NOT Lord. Nobs 22:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Did nobody read the bit of the NPOV policy that says that NPOV does not mean "use the most neutral expression"? It means "express all views fairly". It simply doesn't matter why people have one view or another -- we are precluded from analysis of why. An expression cannot be "more NPOV" than another in any real sense. Slrubenstein, your argument boils down to the belief that AD expresses a POV you don't like, and CE does not and is consequently more "neutral". But it's not "NPOV" to exclude POVs you don't like! Nor is it "NPOV" to push for "neutral" expressions. It's NPOV to push for expressions that fairly represent all views and opinions. Okay, I'd say there are three groups of people with views on AD: those who think that AD means "Jesus is Lord" and like that, those who think it means "Jesus is Lord" and don't like it, and those who don't think it has any such meaning. (I'm simplifying -- there are also plenty who don't care and haven't thought about it.) You are wishing to exclude the first and third groups and only cater to the POV of the second. This is not "NPOV" by any means. Now about CE, there are also three views: those who think it is neutral, those who think it is anti-Christian, and those who think it is a ridiculous PC contrivance. Again, you only wish to include one of those views. Neutral, you can argue for; NPOV, no way. Grace Note 00:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that BC/AD includes only the Christian POV; BCE/CE includes all peoples, recognizing a dating system they all hold in common. Non-Christians can think of it as "Before the Common Era/Common Era" if they prefer, Christians can think of it as "Before the Christian Era"/"Christian Era" if they prefer. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, you either misunderstand or misrepresent me. I do not think AD is POV because I do not like its point of view. I simply observe that it is POV. If you think I am being disingenuous, please recal that I gave the obverse example. That this is the year 5765 is a view that I do like. But know what? Even though I do like it, I recognize that it is POV and should not be used as a convention in dating events in Wikipedia. Whether I like or do not like something has nothing to do with whether I think it is POV, as these two examples prove.

Grace Note, I honestly do not understand what you mean by "ridiculous PC contrivance." Is our NPOV policy a "ridiculous PC contrivance?" And why is it that when I tell you I am deeply offended by people who use BC and AD — except in contexts that explicitly acknowledge that a Christian point of view is being represented – you tell me I am being ridiculous. I do not know how you were reared, but I was brought up to value courtesy. If you did not know before, you now know that the casual use of BC and AD deeply offends many people. And you know the reason &mdash' there are some people for whom saying "Jesus is my Lord" is profoundly offensive (no offense to Christians). Did you know that Jews were once banished from England, for not accepting Jesus as their Lord? Did you know that Jews were once expelled from Spain, for not accepting Jesus as their Lord? In the 1700s the European Enlightenment began encouraging the idea that people should be free to worship as they please, or not worship at all. There was a long struggle through the 19th century and into the 20th century, but by 1945 it was established that one should be able to be Jewish and be accepted as being Jewish. And that Jews could participate in the public sphere equally with Christians. If you do not see why using BC and AD is so offensive to many Jews, there is something missing in you, in your mind or in your heart, and I feel sorry for that. But to dismiss my desire to be able to particpate in the public sphere without fear of being banished (as I would have been from England once), and without being forced to become a Christian (as happened in Spain) as "ridiculous PC contrivance" just boggles my mind. I do not see how a human being can be so dismissive of the feelings of another person. And my feelings are not arbitrary — I can understand why if I told you I hated to hear the word "yellow" you would say "well, too bad, that is just silly," I really could understand that. But for you not to see why I have very good, reasonable, justifiable reasons for feeling like my right to exist as an equal member of modern society is being stepped on and tossed in the trash, when I read "In the year of Our Lord," I just do not understand what kind of human being you are.

No, our NPOV policy is not necessarily a "ridiculous PC contrivance". It is the claim that there is a violation of our neutral point of view policy here, when all that is really involved is political correctness, that is a contrivance.

Even if all your arguments are true, they have nothing to do with neutral point of view. The argument may involve neutral expressions (but there is no consensus that any of them are really neutral), and it may even involve several points of view, but that doesn't mean it gets bootstrapped into a neutral point of view issue. That is something with a very specific meaning in Wikipedia policy.

What would violate NPOV would be for you (and the rest of us here) to "make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." In other words, "to state, imply, or insinuate" that "CE/BCE" is correct and that "AD/BC" is incorrect, or vice versa. Gene Nygaard 17:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nygaard, if this were an article about dating systems, I would agree with you 100%. Such an article should present different calendars (besides the Gregorian) as well as AD vs CE, not commenting on which is "right" or which is "better" but who uses which and why. I am sure such an article would explain that BC/AD is a Christian convention, and BCE/CE is a non-denominational convention, without saying that one is better. But the issue here is not claiming that one is better (which might violate NPOV). The issue here is which is more appropriate. And we should pick the one that is not affiliated with one religion, one that is non-denominational, as most appropriate to conform with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE and CE are not meant to force a Jewish point of view on you (as BC and AD forces a Christian point of view on Jews). It does not represent a Jewish point of view. It does not represent a Hindu point of view. It does not represent a Muslim point of view. All it says is that there is a calendar, originally devloped by Christians, which Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are quite willing to accept as a matter of convention but not as a matter of faith. It is NPOV because it represents no view. And when I see you and Silversmith and Chameleon and Rangerdude taking offense at BCE/CE, this is what I see: people taking offense because non-Christians refuse to accept a Christian view. Some Christians, devout Christians, are good friends of mine but they are not offended by the fact that I am Jewish and not Christian. I have nothing against Christianity. But I am against any religious group forcing others to conform to its values. And if you tell me that you are not a Christian, then why does it matter to you so much that I use BC and AD? Why are you so opposed to BCE and CE? If you are not Christian, why does it matter so much to you? The only thing I can imagine is that when a group of people are used to dominating the world, it deeply disturbs them to realize that they no longer dominate it. This is not ridiculous PC contrivance. This is on the contrary a world that aspires to live up to the best aspects of European civilization rather than its worst — to actively reject the legacy of the genocide of Native Americans by Europeans, the unbelievable inhumanity of the Belgian Congo, of the British occupation of India, Kenya, and other parts of the world, but to embrace the ideals of the American Declaration of Independence; of the French Rights of Man; of England's slow but steady decision to treat people equally before the law. This is not ridiculous PC contrivance. It is the recognition that no one group's views should be imposed on another. I willingly accept the Gregorian calendar as a convenience, but do not force your beliefs that Jesus is Christ and Lord on me. That is unacceptable. Similarly, Wikipedia should be a place where no one group's views are foisted on another. This is what NPOV is all about. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of public interest, I hate the color yellow. I don't mind my alma mater's school colors, blue and gold [21]--they look nice together. Tomer ^TALK 16:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of public interest, my alma mater's school colours are also blue and gold, and I have a yellow shirt that I quite like. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dammit! Gold offends me just as much as yellow. I can't believe I am actually typing these odious words. Please stop using them! Can't you say "Ekke ekke ekke ptang zoo boing!" instead? For me? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you are just trying to foist your hidden pro-olive agenda on the Yellow-Gold community. They'll be banning yellow construction paper in schools next, and society will eventually explode. Alanyst 17:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I think the crucial question is: Does use of BC/AD communicate the author's POV? If it necesssarily does—if by reading text with "BC" or "AD" in it one can ascertain that the author asserts a belief in Jesus as Christ and Lord—then its use in Wikipedia is POV and should not be accepted; BCE/CE should be used instead as the next best alternative. If the author's POV cannot be determined by their use of BC/AD, then its use in Wikipedia is NPOV and should as a matter of style be favored over BCE/CE in most articles because of its far greater currency in the vernacular. Alanyst 17:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst, I think you (and perhaps many others) are making a mistake about our NPOV policy. It does not say that an author cannot present his or her own point of view as if it were fact. That may be the most egregious and common violation of NPOV, but really, that is just an example. NPOV is not about specifically "the author's" point of view. It is a policy against presenting any point of view as fact. I could write an article in which I present the Nazi point of view as fact. Or, if this is too extreme, the point of view of vegetraians as fact. It doesn't matter that I am neither a Nazi nor a vegetarian, I would still be violating the NPOV policy. Maybe what is wrong in this conversation is that people are taking things personally. It is true that in my reply to Grace Note I spoke personally, but only to make a specific point in response to grace note. In everything else I have writtn on BC/BCE I was not writing personally. This is not about the author's point of view. It is about privileging any point of view! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you know what? Olive is the best color. Long live Olive! Olive rules! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I accept your statement of the NPOV policy. I agree that no point of view should be represented as fact. The problem here is that BC/AD has dual meanings: one of them is POV, and one of them is not. The NPOV meaning is by far the predominant one in common use today, indeed to the extent that one cannot sufficiently express POV by using those abbreviations, because too many people who do not share that POV have used and continue to use them indistinguishably. So, I believe it's entirely plausible that "the year of our Lord 400" or "Anno Domini 400" can be immediately classified as POV while "400 AD" can just as immediately be viewed as NPOV, even though the last historically derives from the second, which has the meaning of the first. It's the same as if one said that "Thor's Day" was POV but "Thursday" is NPOV, despite the historical derivation. Writing "400 AD" or "Thursday" does not represent a point of view as fact, because standard usage no longer conveys whatever point of view originally was tied to those terms. They are now neutral terms that simply provide a temporal reference. Alanyst 18:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this like the "Christmas isn't a Christian holiday any more, it's a universal one" argument? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Vaguely similar. In fact, if you like the analogy, renaming AD to CE (on the grounds that it is a common or universal system rather than a Christian one and should therefore have a neutral name) is rather like renaming Christmas to something like Common Winter Festival (on the ground that it is a common or universal festival rather than a Christian one and should therefore have a neutral name). But I don't see you arguing for that change, although the level of international acceptance of Christmas approaches that of BC/AD. I'm certainly no Christian, and yet I find it difficult to avoid the December festivities. Chameleon 18:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not argue for changing Christmas to something like "Common Winter Festival" because as a Jew I do not celebrate Christmas. I know it is a Christian holiday and am happy to wish my Christian friends a merry Christmas. Since it is not my holiday, they can callit whatever they want to. But the Gregorian calendar is no longer a Christian calendar, it is indeed one common to people of many different faiths — which is why, although I don't mind Christians in a specifically Christian context using "BC and AD," I do object, strenuously when anyone expects me to do the same, or thinks that it is appropriate to use these terms in a non-Christian context. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst, I agree with you about Thursday because there aren't many worshipers of Thor these days, and because if worshipers of Thor went around the world converting people to Thor-worship or killing them, it was a very very long time ago. But it was not at all long ago that Christians killed non-Christians, and quite recently that Christians went around the world trying to convert non-Christians; indeed, it still happens today. You can't compare AD with Thursday because the contexts are so different. Sociologists have studied relations of domination for a very long time, and have discovered that the dominant position is often "unmarked" -- for example, if Whites are talking about a White musician they will just say "x, the pianist" but many times if the musician is Black they will say "x the Black pianist." They may think that they do not hate Blacks, they may not think they are discriminating against Blacks, but it is nevertheless evidence of the inequality between Whites and Blacks. Slaveowners thought their slaves were happy; rich people think poor people could be rich if they just weren't so lazy. These are not strictly analogous to the case at hand, but that isn't why I bring these examples up. My point is that people who are in a privileged position seldom admit it and often do not even see it. People who are not in a privileged position, however, are acutely sensitive to these power dynamics (which is why you hear a lot of Whites telling Blacks they are "too sensitive" or "have an attitude problem" but seldom the other way around). My point: the very claim that AD and BC are NPOV, which I do believe you sincerely believe, is actually just more evidence of how POV they are. The effect of claiming that they are NPOV is either to compel everyone else to accept your POV unquestioningly, or to enable you to tell anyone who says "No, they are not neutral, and you are trying to impose your view of the world on me" that they are being ridiculous &— in other words, to tell people you disagree with to shut up, or to enable you simply not to listen to them. Don't listen to all the people whom you offend, if it makes you happy. But don't kid yourself that these terms are NPOV, claiming so is just the newest scam to get people who are different from you to be like you. I can respect you, but don't think you can compel me to be like you Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that no member of a privileged group can successfully argue the neutrality of anything, whereas the mere assertion of POV in any matter by a non-privileged person immediately makes it so. Do you feel that a term that once carried a POV can ever become neutral? If so, what are the criteria for it becoming so, and can a person who shares the POV it once carried successfully argue for its neutrality or use it in a neutral way? Can a non-privileged person's complaint of POV-ness actually be a matter of their own personal interpretation and not actual proof of POV? What is the POV-ness of a term that is considered NPOV by many privileged and non-privileged people alike, but POV by a smaller number of non-privileged (and even some privileged) people? Where does one draw the POV line when there is a neutral interpretation available? Alanyst 19:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I have heard it all. How can one argue against this type of logic? User:Slrubenstein wrote: My point: the very claim that AD and BC are NPOV, which I do believe you sincerely believe, is actually just more evidence of how POV they are. - --ClemMcGann 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst, I am afraid you are getting defensive, which might mean I was offensive. If so, I apologize. But you misunderstand my point. I explicitly said that a once POV term can become NPOV, and I explained why this hasn't happened for the particular term in question. I also explained the criteria. I am sorry you missed it, but all I would do is repeat exactly what I wrote at the very beginning of my comment to you, to which you just responded. As for your other questions: no, I never suggested that a member of a minority or dominated group cannot make POV claims, the do so all the times. From the very beginning of this discussion I gave an example of a POV claim I could make and all Jews could make; I admitted that it would be POV, and said that for that reason I would not use it — I am sorry you missed this too (it was in my response to Grace Note, in this section). Nor did I ever claim that members of a majority or dominant group are incapable of making NPOV claims; I did not say that, and nothing I wrote above suggests that. The fact that there are Christian Whites who use BCE and CE is simple proof that they can make NPOV claims. The fact that a Christian contributing to this article might write "According to the New Testament, Jesus was resurrected ..." as opposed to the POV "Three days later, Jesus was resurrected" is another perfectly good example of a Christian making an NPOV claim. I regret that you so completely misinterpreted my words.

I will try again: Alanyst, our NPOV policy states,

Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

All I was trying to explain above, is that this is another example of an unconscious bias. It is not a geographical bias, as in the example in our policy. But it is still an unconscious bias, and one that I am trying to explain to you. My point is that members of a dominant group often do not recognize that some things they say or do are not universally shared but rather reflect their particular point of view. Note my use of the word "often." "Often" does not mean "always." But I do believe this is a fact. How to respond? Simple: listen, with an open mind, to people different from you, and understand that they may legitimately see something in your words or deeds that you do not see. This does not believe that any and all complaints by members of a minority or dominated group are true by any means. It only means that you concede that you may be wrong and they may be right. How do you find out? Through a conversation, of course. And for a couple of days I and several other people, including non-Jews, have given reasons for our objections to BC/AD. You also ask, "Can a non-privileged person's complaint of POV-ness actually be a matter of their own personal interpretation and not actual proof of POV?" The answer is, of course! Of course my criticism of BC/AD reflects my point of view. In fact, I thought that in my last few comments I have been making that clear! But Alanyst, the fact that my objection to AD reflects my POV does not mean that CE is POV. I object to AD because I am not Christian. But your objections to CE are not because you are not Jewish. And I am not asking you to give up your own POV. You are more than welcome to use AD when expressing your personal views. Similarly, I can use 5765 when expressing my views. But if we are going to write an article that is NPOV, we need to come up with something we can have in common. I will give up 5765 and share your Gregorian calendar because it is something most people today have in common. But that does not mean that most people have in common a belief that Jesus is Lord. If you want to participate in a common sphere with people who are different from you, you can't expect people to use "AD." As I said, that does not mean I insist you use 5765. But it seems evident to me that to say that "this is the 2005th year of our Lord Jesus Christ" is point of view, but saying "this is the year 2005 by convention (a convention between people of different faiths) is both accurate and NPOV. There is nothing particularly "Jewish" about BCE/CE. BCE/CE only means that this is a calendar that people of different faith's have in common. Yes, it is implied that the reason that they have this calendar in common is not because they all believe in Jesus Christ as Lord; the reason they have this calendar in common is purely by convention. I just do not see how anyone can be offended by or object to this! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

A call to reason

Latest comment: 19 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion

I'm quite surprised by Slrubenstein's comments. From what I've seen in the past, he usually seeks to comment on controversial subjects in a scholarly and unpassioned way.

Suppose I make the statement "Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44BC". 99.9% of people would take that statement as conveying the information that Caesar was murdered 2048 years ago.

From what I can see Slrubenstein is interpreting that statement as meaning that Caesar was murdered 2048 years ago, and Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour!

Nope, I never said that, in fact I have said the opposite. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary - you have said that using BC/AD notation is inappropriate because it suggests a view that Jesus is Christ. It doesn't - it's just a way of denoting dates, jguk 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to "AD" and "BC" for that reason. But I am not opposed to saying "Ceaser was assasinated in 44BCE." I do not at all object to saying when Ceasar was assasinated, only to attaching to that date BC." You seem to think they are inseperable. They are not. This is a fact; since people say "44BCE" it is an irrefutable fact that the "44" and the "BC" necessarily go together. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

He also seems to take the view that his viewpoint is NPOV and anyone who disagrees with him is biased.

Nope, I never said this and have in fact argued the opposite. It sounds like you did not read what I wrote, but I addressed this point explicitly and said the opposite of what you suggest. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You have made it clear that you see your view as NPOV and alternative views as POV. If this weren't the case we would not be having this argument and this talk page would be much shorter, jguk 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I said "BCE" is NPOV. I do not "own" this view, it is shared by many people. My point of view would be that Caeser died in the year 3716. That is my POV. I have never insisted that Wikipedia use this date. "BCE" is something we can have in common, despite our different points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. No one has enslaved you, violated your rights, or forced you to dispute that Ceasar died in 3716 or 2048. You can use whichever method of reckoning you choose, the Christian method or the Jewish calender. Whichever you choose to favour, we will respectfully call your POV. Nobs 02:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I do use 5765 when I want to. But Wikipedia has an NPOV policy that all editors must accept. I accept it — do you? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I use accepted convention (accepted over 2 millenium by diverse cultures, not necessarily accepeted by the contemporary generation). I do this for 2 reasons, (1) personal acceptance of the Christian spiritual heritage I willingly embrace (2) tradition. Likewise I have the deepest respect and understanding of other methods of time reckoning, Judaic, BCE/CE and sidereal. BCE/Ce has its place and usage. The non-Chrisitan, atheist & rationalists should stick to their own method of time reckoning which is sidereal, and not (hypocritically might be a term used here) pretend to wish to continue reckoning time from the Time of Christ while pushing their godless POV. Common in Christian and Jewish circles which invented the term, refers to common worship and common deity. It does not refer to profane and vulgar, which is atheists and rationalists POV that all humantiy shares. Nobs 17:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are going to get nowhere whilst he digs his heels.

The problem, as I stated above, is many people are personalizing this. You are personalizing it right now, which is unfair and unfortunate. There are many people who have voted, and argued, for BCE/CE — more than those who voted for AD. Do not put this all on me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You have been guilty of personalising this yourself - such as calling people who disagree with yourself "ignorant". Also, the whole tenet of your position is that people are being pro-Christ just by using BC/AD. Not only is this wrong, you are bringing people's religion into this discussion (which, as you know, is a highly personal thing). We really should remove all talk of religion from this discussion, but no doubt you will not agree to that jguk 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I identify people's claims as ignorant when the claims about our NPOV policy are not true. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you ought to read the policy yourself. It clearly states that we should express all views. It equally clearly states that it does not suggest using "neutral" language etc. It is quite specific that what you are suggesting is not "NPOV". A neutral POV is a POV! Even if you feel a viewpoint is neutral, this makes it neutral, not "NPOV". NPOV is all views, not neutral views. In any article, we do not simply write what we consider to be the neutral view of affairs; we write all opinions, with the amount of space given to them corresponding to how widely they are held. You are in fact arguing for one POV, albeit what you feel is neutral, and against NPOV. Grace Note 23:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

To diffuse the situation, I do suggest that the article does not use "BC" or "AD" more than is necessary - this means that all references to years after 1 BC do not need to be prefixed by "AD", except for the first reference to a year after 1 BC.

I would like to thank Analyst for improving the quality of discussion singlehanded - he makes many good points. I also suggest that this discussion is getting us nowhere. The article has got noticeable poorer in the last 2 or 3 months, and almost all the discussion on talk is about 2 or 3 letters! Kind regards, jguk 19:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I wrote a paragraph explaining how it is that you have no idea what NPOV is. You never responded to it, so I assume you ignored it. Nevertheless, you do not understand what NPOV is (I know this from statements you have written, including the one I responded to about your ignorance concerning NPOV). It doesn't matter what you think about me. This article, like all articles, should be NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read all your comments on this subject. I disagree with most of them. That does not make me ignorant. I have explained how NPOV takes us here to using BC/AD notation. You are unable to argue for BCE/CE without expressing your personal politico-religious views. Yet you somehow equate a position that can only be defended by reference to your personal viewpoint with NPOV. That is where you are sorely mistaken. Kind regards, jguk 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

AD which means "in the year of our Lord" is inherantly POV, how could you deny it? Here is the comment I am specifically thinking about. I quote your explanation of NPOV, which indeed is ignorant, and quote our policy. You never responded to this comment of mine.

Jguk is so incredibly wrong it amazes me. Above, MPerel asks Jguk to respond to my criticism of his view and he replies "It is NPOV because we use it merely because it is the most common formulation." This is simply wrong. W-R-O-N-G. I have explained why several times. The popularity of a phrase or the frequency of its use has nothing at all to do with its neutrality. Why don't we look at the actual NPOV policy (which, Jimbo has said, is non-negotiable):

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

That Jesus is Christ is not a fact no matter how many people believe so. That Jesus is Lord is not a fact no matter how many people believe so. On the contrary, that Jesus is Christ and that Jesus is Lord is, undeniably, incontrovertably, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." Even if four billion people believed Jesus is Christ, to assert this as a fact would violate NPOV. I have asked several people to explain why BCE/CE violates NPOV and no one can give me an answer. But I can explain very simply why it is NPOV. First, it claims that the Gregorian calendar is common to many different groups. This is a fact. Second, it implies that many people do not accept Jesus as Christ or Lord. This too is a fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The above references are dealt with in the title of the article Jesus as opposed to Jesus Christ. The discussion is time reckoning, not the divinity of Jesus. That the Christian method of time reckoning has become universal is a historical fact. It's acceptance by non-Christians has been, and remains, voluntary. All persons, of whatever culture and society are free to reckon time by whatever conventions they choose. There is no "victimhood" arguement here. BCE/CE convention originated among Christian and Jewish scholars as a NPOV, respecting each others beliefs. What is being proposed now is a POV, as Slrubenstein says: "That Jesus is Christ is not a fact". Personally, I've always liked the BCE/CE convention because it did respect all views. But if it is to become a standard to deny Christ and promote the POV of atheism, I think custom and tradition takes precedence. Nobs 02:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I fear you may be misunderstanding me. When I say that BCE/CE means that Jesus was Christ is "not a fact," I did not mean that Christians are "wrong." I think you misunderstand me because I did not express myself well. What I meant was, BCE and CE are agnostic as to whether Jesus was Christ and Lord; what I meant was that BCE/CE acknowledges that not all people consider the divinity of Jesus a fact. That is all. I hope this is clearer, and I hope it makes sense to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

We are NOT dealing with facts here - we are discussing whether using the letters "AD", "BC", "BCE" and "CE" to denote dates is NPOV or not. No-one is suggesting we assert that Jesus is Christ. Using AD/BC notation DOES NOT ASSERT THIS. They are a date convention. If you interpret anything else into it, you are quite frankly misinterpreting it. That is why people have drawn analogies to the etymology of the names of the days of the week or the months of the year.

I really can't understand why you can't see this. You are manufacturing "offence" where you know there is none. You are saying that people are insinuating things you know they are not insinuating (which only ends up in giving genuine offence to others). It really beggars belief that you can't look beyond the end of your nose here, jguk 21:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to follow this dispute, but I can't figure it out. Obviously BC/AD has historical precidence. However, using it violates NPOV, since it implies an acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. It may be a POV I agree with, but that doesn't make it any less of a POV. Steve's assessment is solid. I can see an emotional reason for holding on to BC/AD, I can see a "conventional" reason - but I can't find an NPOV reason for using it. If NPOV is non-negotiable, we must use some other system (and in this case BCE/CE is preferable to BP, since we are now at -55 BP). Guettarda 21:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD DOES NOT IMPLY AN ACCEPTANCE OF JESUS AS THE CHRIST!!!! This is the lie that Slrubenstein is trying to propagate.

It's a two letter date marker! That's what it means. Why go into a detailed etymology of the abbreviation? That's nonsensical. Words and phrases (and acronyms) change their meanings over time. We don't go back years and years and re-create their old meanings. There's no exception here.

As a date marker (and the most common date marker used around the world), how can it possibly be POV? jguk 21:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, your hysterics do not help. Either BC/AD are arbitrary, or they actually stand for something. If you believe they are arbitrary, then it shouldnot matter to you at all what letters we use, and BCE and CE should be equally acceptable. But you keep arguing — why do you care, if they are just letters? You do care. Obviously, making other people use AD and BC is important to you. I do not understand why, but I do nknow it is wrong. AD and BC do stand for something. That is a fact. You may not know what they stand for, but I do, and I see the POV. This should not surprise you — I am sure that almost every editor at Wikipedia has written something that violated NPOV policy, and they didn't know why, and needed someone to tell them. That is all that is going on here. As I explained above (and you still haven't responded to this) your claim that if something is common it is NPOV is false and has nothing to do with our NPOV policy. It just doesn't matter how many people use BC/AD or not. You simply do not understand our NPOV policy. It states,

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

You can argue all you want. But it is a fact that BC stands for "before Christ" and that represents a point of view. As such it violates our NPOV policy. You can scream at the top of your voice that many people do not know what the letters mean, so it doesn't matter. But it is a fact that many people do know what these letters mean, and that is enough to raise NPOV issues. You are so intent in forcing me to accept your beliefs (even the belief that "Christ" is something everyone should take for granted and just use, pretending the word means nothing). You just can't stand the fact that I refuse to cave in to your pressure, your pressure that I take for granted what most White Anglo Saxon Protestants take for granted. Too bad. The very fact that I and many others will not bow to your will is itself proof that your beliefs are not universal, not natural. They are your beliefs, not mine, and stop acting like everyone thinks the way you do. This is the antithesis of our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - I just surveyed some people in my office - all with college degrees - less than a third (and all but one of those were attorneys) knew that AD is Latin for Year of the Lord, a few thought it stood for "after death". Most knew it was latin (or roman) had something to do with Jesus but had no clue as to what it meant. None of the poeple who knew what it meant answered yes to the question "Do you think 'Year of our Lord' when you see AD?" All said no. This is why I think this debate is a group purposefully feigning offense in order to make a change to convention for whatever reason.

However, as you can see from my edits, the proposed compromise (that no one is discussing) refers to years as 4 BC if that is what they are and year 4 without any abbrievation for others. This should be acceptable to all because

It avoids the supposed POV of AD (which I dispute - but am willing to compromise)
Follows the convention used already 60 BC, 5, 1642, etc. and allows the wikilinks to be used without the pipe modifier i.e. "|"
It uses the conventional and widely understood BC

Trödel|talk 21:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Troedel, I have to ask why you don't want to include both systems? That's the NPOV solution. Both views are included and catered for. NPOV does not mean "most neutral". It means "everyone represented". It's so easily done that I'm astonished that we're still arguing about it (but probably shouldn't be).Grace Note 23:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree, Trodel. It's not a group claiming offense where there is none, it is a group that is looking to avoid POV. I'll admit that I use the AD/BC convention when discussing history informally and I even used it about 10 minutes ago in an edit summary without a second thought, but when I am being careful I use the CE/BCE convention because is derived on the most common basis possible as Slrubenstein pointed out. That most people are unable to appreciate that AD has religous point of view implied in the emytology, does not remove the POV from it's usage. I seem to think the CE/BCE convention would be appealing to the widest possible audience. Even if some users didn't understand it immeditially because they were used to AD/BC, it's not like it takes more than 10 seconds to click on a wikilink to find out what it means. Better yet, why don't we request that the CE/BCE versus BC/AD convention be written to be user-configurable like the current method of displaying dates in various formats is? -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring the compromise - and bringing no objections to it. Addtiionally, the change makes [Criticism of Wikipedia|access to wikipedia more difficult to the audience]] and we are wasting time arguing about an esoteric issue because no one thinks about the meaning of the terms - just like the weekday and month examples. The point is that both are equally POV and both can be equally NPOV - because they are both based on the erroneous date of a person that is controversial. But that is the convention as it is used. Trödel|talk 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well-said, Socrates-Jedi. Trodel writes, "This is why I think this debate is a group purposefully feigning offense in order to make a change to convention for whatever reason." This statement is itself offensive. You can ask all your friends, co-workers, and neighbors what AD means and they can all say "I dunno." All that means is that you do not happen to know people who do. You can ask all your friends, co-workers, and neighbors whether they care what AD means and they can all say "not me." All that means is that you do not happen to know any people who care. But for you to leap from the fact that you don't know anyone who cares to the conclusion that those people who care are faking it is patronizing and insulting. Like Jguk, you have to accept the fact that not everyone in the world thinks like you. Not everyone in this world thinks like your friends, neighbors, and co-workers. You are claiming that "If you disagree with me, you are faking it" is pure and simple arrogance. There are people who know, and who care. They are not faking it. Please re-read the NPOV policy. You are acting as if the fact that your beliefs are common, no other view is legitimate. This is the opposite of NPOV. Our policy states,

"First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

The only way to comply with NPOV policy is to say "Some people use CE, others use AD." — that is okay. But to assert that something is x number of years before Christ — as if believing in Christ is something that should not even be question – is to assert a point of view as if it were a fact and that is wrong. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You are easily offended. And trying to explain why you are offended instead of addressing the substantive question I asked - which is why not just use BC and not AD. There is no reason to use CE or AD - it is assumed. And to explain on every page that some people use CE others use AD is ridiculously complex and would force many articles to discuss a subject that is not the topic of the article. Trödel|talk 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean about just using "BC and not AD." If you are suggesting that all positive dates be unmarked (i.e. we just say "4" rather than "4 AD" — well, this is a compromise position I will accept without any complaint, though I wonder how hothers feel. However "BC" is just as much a problem as "AD" because it means "BC is Before Christ." And I have expleained why that violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can talk about compromise. Slrubenstein has eloquently expressed opposition to "BC" and yet he is willing to support a compromise that includes both views. However, you are not. It's beyond amazement that those who oppose compromise are those who don't actually have a dog in the race! Troedel, explain to me how your use of BC and not BC/BCE is acceptable within the bounds of a policy that says that all views must be represented. Just saying "you're manufacturing the offence" does not wish away the other view, even if it has some truth to it. Grace Note 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, I'm not sure whether or not you understood Trödel's recommendation. As I read it, he's calling for discarding AD and CE altogether, and using a tag to identify only "negative years". His recommendation is to use BC, apparently, rather than BCE. So we're really back to square one. It's not actually a constructive recommendation IMHO, since it doesn't address Slrubenstein's gripe against BC/AD at all, it merely tries to deflect the issue by acting like it doesn't exist. More of the same ol' tripe. Tomer ^TALK 03:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I understood Troedel's suggestion very well. It simply beggared belief that he is making it. I think your analysis is spot on. Grace Note 03:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Troedel's suggestion is very sensible in the sense that it does not try to overplay the need for using the date markers BC and AD. I disagree with him in two respects. AD does need to be used where there is some doubt as to whether a year is BC or AD. In an article that runs in time order, this would mean using AD on first instance of such a date, but not thereafter. Similarly, BC only needs to be used where there may be some confusion. So an article on an Egyptian pharoah, for instance, needs only to refer to "BC" once, and can drop the letters thereafter.

Troedel's observation that any "offence" found in using BC/AD is feigned or entirely manufactured is, of course, spot on. They are date markers and have no meaning other than date markers. Cf decimal points or minus signs. You would be deliberately misreading the convention if you read anything more into the notation. Kind regards, jguk 11:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I repeated my critique of your views above, and asked you for a second time to respond to them — and you barely responded. I expressed my reasons again (in the paragraph starting "Jguk, your hysterics do not help." and you haven't (cannot?) respond to that either. Instead, you just continue to protest that your point of view is the true point of view. Jguk, you must have a very small mind if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is faking it. What kind of world do you live in, where everyone has to agree with you? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)