Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Discussion

Note: Use the main talk page or the formally proposed alternative options listing to discuss and vote for alternatives.

---

ANNOUNCEMENT: My primary purpose in presenting this proposal was not to take a poll, but to provoke discussion. Although there have been many comments (a few, especially among the “opposed” votes, quite thoughtful), I do not think there has really been much discussion, much dialogue. Many people state their views, without discussing them with people who have different views. One small example: although I and a few others have written comments and questions to people voting “no,” few if any of the people who oppose the proposal have asked questions of any of the sixty or so people who have voted “yes.” Moreover, it is a shame that most critics of the proposal direct their opposition to me, when so many other people support the proposal. Wikipedia is a community, a community needs to communicate, and the ideal form of communication is an open-minded discussion among people of opposing views.

I know that I am a polarizing figure for many people. Therefore, I will step out of this discussion for several days (Aside from maintenance chores). I hope that when I am gone, people on both sides of the issue will talk more to one another, asking questions and responding in ways that invite more discussion. Adios.Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Comments in favor of the proposal

• In response to James F: "As an atheist I find the thought of cloaking the imperialism of a Christian dating system behind "non-Christian" names abhorrently vile, and amazingly POV." - I think this misses the point completely, and perhaps SLR's distinction is misunderstood. There is no "non-imperialist" dating system ATP, unless we want to adopt something radical, which Im in favor of. By your argument BCE and BC are simply interchangeable, and the distinction is only a disguise. What else is there to use? Certainly anything Gregorian is going to express the bias you mention. -SV|t 00:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well that is your own fault.

• I think that Slrubenstein has done Wikipedia a service by summarizing the problem so thoroughly. I think it important to use BCE/CE for non-Christian subjects or non-Christian parts of the world. It supports the NPOV policy to do so and it is respectful to other cultures. Sunray 00:49, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

• Slrubenstein should be upgraded to sainthood for his tremendous work and excellent service provided to Wikipedia. Thank you, good sir, for the great summary of the debate. The mere size of the summary is enough to convince me to your side. Adraeus 01:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• BCE/CE have been used in many scholarly contexts such as history textbooks and historical non-fiction. I recently read Guns, Germs, and Steel, which used the BCE/CE system quite well, and had a little introduction about it, which I will check for any useful info to this debate. Andre (talk) 11:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• In the absence of a Universal dating system, using BCE/CE is a courtesy to non-Christian users, and demonstrates a sensitivity to other cultures, by avoiding the explicit (even if abbreviated) reference to "Christ" or "Domini", and the forced acknowledgement it implies (although, of course, the starting point is kept the same, but that is then only a matter of convenient convention). If I was contributing history articles to an Arab-country site I would resent having to refer to Muhammad's Hijra every time I write a date: it would feel like religious intoxication. Or imagine if Japan was forcing everybody dealing with Japan to comply to its Imperial Eras dating system! BCE/CE is a very sensible solution, already accepted by most of the scientific community. PHG 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• As for other editors, the BCE/CE system is so well-entrenched in the academic, semi-academic, and to a lesser but still significant extent in the popular non-fiction worlds that it looks very old-fashioned when I see a work using BC/AD. The idea that the use of BCE/CE is unusual or minor simply doesn't stand up to examination. That it's NPoV is also pretty obviously; it doesn't make any reference, explicit or implicit, to the truth of any belief system — it merely avoids such reference altogether. (The attempted analogy with days of the week fails: they derive from more than one extinct belief system, and are taken by no-one as involving a PoV, whereas the BC/AD system derives from one extant belief system, and is taken by many to be PoV.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• BCE and CE has already approved by the scientific community. Using the term BC and AD is considered to be uncomfortable for non-Christian users, because it represent the Birth of Christ and the Anno Domini - meaning the Year of Our Lord, or the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Sam Biswas 11:44, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

---

ANNOUNCEMENT: My primary purpose in presenting this proposal was not to take a poll, but to provoke discussion. Although there have been many comments (a few, especially among the “opposed” votes, quite thoughtful), I do not think there has really been much discussion, much dialogue. Many people state their views, without discussing them with people who have different views. One small example: although I and a few others have written comments and questions to people voting “no,” few if any of the people who oppose the proposal have asked questions of any of the sixty or so people who have voted “yes.” Moreover, it is a shame that most critics of the proposal direct their opposition to me, when so many other people support the proposal. Wikipedia is a community, a community needs to communicate, and the ideal form of communication is an open-minded discussion among people of opposing views.

I know that I am a polarizing figure for many people. Therefore, I will step out of this discussion for several days (Aside from maintenance chores). I hope that when I am gone, people on both sides of the issue will talk more to one another, asking questions and responding in ways that invite more discussion. Adios.Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Comments against the proposal

When I use a day of the week (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.) in an article, am I exhibiting a pro-pagan POV, because the days of the week are named after pagan gods? When I refer to the month of July or August, am I exhibiting a pro-Roman POV, because these months are named after Roman leaders? No. The days of the week and the month names have been in such common usage for such a long time that their origin is not really relevant anymore. While most people know the origin of the words, seeing "Thursday" doesn't trigger thoughts about Thor, nor does seeing "August" make people think about Augustus. Similarly, seeing "B.C." doesn't trigger thoughts about Christ. They are all such accepted parts of a date that no-one thinks of anything but dates when they see them. On the other hand, when I see "B.C.E." somewhere, I personally find it jarring and find myself thinking about political correctness. Someone who is sufficiently distracted might hold that using BC/AD is NPOV and BCE/CE is POV, which is the exact opposite of what the policy proposal states at the start. I'm not saying that I hold this point of view (I believe that both date formats are NPOV), but I think that this point-of-view is missing from this argument.

Since I believe that both date formats are NPOV, I believe this is a style issue, not an NPOV issue. The MoS is in general fairly liberal about what is accepted, and I think this is a Good Thing. We should welcome contributions from anyone. What would have happened if, when I was first starting out on Wikipedia, I had written an article using British English spelling, and someone had changed it to American English spelling, and then when I changed it back and insisted that the article should use British English, I was denounced as a "POV vandal" and threatened with a block? I think I would have quit Wikipedia almost 3,000 edits ago. Similarly, I would not want to alienate anyone who wants to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, regardless of what date format they want to use.

In some cases, it may make more sense to use BCE/CE than BC/AD, just like in some articles it makes more sense to use British English spelling than American English spelling. Just like a certain POV may be exhibited in the choice of spelling used in certain articles such as War of 1812, a certain POV may be exhibited in the date format used in certain articles (Jesus might be such an example). However, in most cases, the date format used is benign and we should be open to either. JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Jyolkowski, thank you for very thoughtful comments. However, I did try to anticipate them here [1] and here [2]. I'd appreciate hearing more about why these specific arguments did not pursuade you. On the other hand, you have already taken the time to write a lot and if you think you don't have anything to add of course I understand that. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm so accustomed to seeing "BC/AD" that I find seeing "BCE/CE" to be disruptive, and I believe that there are others who feel the way I do. I would like these people to be able to think about the article content when reading an article, not about why this date system was used. Could some people feel the same about seeing "BC/AD"? Definitely. But I don't think we shouldn't force one date format on everyone, people should be permitted to write in whatever date format they're comfortable using. Also, everyone knows what BC/AD are. Does everyone know what BCE/CE are? I had no idea what these terms were until I went to university (~10 years ago). While we would link the first usage of these terms anyway so people can follow the links, I want to ensure that our encyclopedia articles are sufficiently accessible. JYolkowski // talk 01:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. The MOST important of which is what you said yourself: (and that is mentioned below): any Gregorian is going to express bias. Period. As I was reading this I was so incredibly amazed that you did not notice what you were saying. I love this statement, for example: Although the Gregorian calendar was created as a specifically Christian calendar, many non-Christians were forced to use it, and many more were encouraged to use it. The Gregorian calendar is now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." The EXACT same thing can be said about the terms BC/AD: Although the terms BC/AD were created as specifically Christian terminology, many non-Christians were forced to use them, and many more were encouraged to use them. The terms BC/AD are now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." Your entire argument in favour of the Gregorian Calendar is: everyone uses it, so it must be OK. That's a terrible argument. besides you're not really trying to argue in favour of the Gregorian Calendar, you're trying to defend the origin of the terms BCE/CE.

You profoundly misconstrue and misunderstand the argument; either you are not reading it closely, or suffer from the unconscious bias I discuss. Yes, people share the Gregorian calendar by whiuch this year is 2005. But they do so because it is a convention, not because they share the religion. It is precisely the religion that they do not share, which is expressed by tersm like "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini." You fail to understand that people can share some things, but not other things. BCE and CE acknowledges that people share some things, but not other things. Note, I am not making a value judgement. I am not saying that "everyone shares the Gregorian calendar, so that is okay." I am saying that people share the Gregorian calendar, which is a fact — like it or not. And I am saying that not everyone shares the belief that Jesus is Christ and Lord — this too is a fact, like it or not. It sounds like you not only do not like this fact, it freaks you out. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly, I don't suffer from an unconscious bias against BCE/CE, I have a very conscious bias against BCE/CE (that isn't evident?). Likewise, you have a bias against the AD/BC system, this however, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. I don't misunderstand your argument, I understand it perfectly (I just love it when I debate people, and people think that since I don't agree with them I must misunderstand their argument).

You are not being honest. You do misunderstand me, and there are two proofs coming up. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Not being honest? I misunderstand me? --Ctachme 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yikes! My goof, I corrected it above! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't fail to understand that people can share some things, but not other things. I know that perfectly. However, your application of that argument to this situation is flawed, you're saying that the Gregorian calendar has nothing to do with the terms you call it by. You're attacking the AD/BC system, but just leaving the calendar alone,

Here is the first proof. You think there is something wrong with attacking AD/BC but not attacking the Gregorian calendar; that to attack one you must attack the other, to accept one you must accedpt the other. This is exactly what I mean when I say "You fail to understand that people can share some things, but not other things." You fail to understand that people can share the Gregorian calendar, but not share AD/BC. You say you understand that people can share one thing and not another, but when given a concrete example, you deny it. But wait, the second proof is even better.

That is exactly what I'm saying (wait... I'm agreeing with you?), I DON'T understand how people can share one but not the other. That must be what I'm not getting, please explain better.--Ctachme 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will try. The classic, albeit mythical example is from the movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy(and, in my opinion, an awful movie) when at the very beginning we learn that there are many more uses to a coke bottle than most Westerners think (I hope you have seen the movie) — the point is, the !Kung share the coke bottle with us, but do not use it the way we do i.e. do not share its uses. A real example is what West Indians did with excess (garbage) oil-drums — they turned themn into steel-drums (musical instruments). You can't call it an oil drum any more, because it is used for an entirely new purpose &mdasn; even if it is not only made out of the same stuff as oil-drums, they are actually made out of oil-drums. The argument rests on the fact that most things people do and even say can be reinterpreted. Let's just say, non-Christians have taken the Gregorian calendar from the Christians and have reinterpreted it. Does this make sense? There are many people who reject AD and BC. I think they are saying that using AD and BC would falsely suggest that they have not reinterpreted it, rather, it means exactly the same thing to them as it means to Christians. On the contrary, they use BCE and CE to signal that they reinterpret it. Does this make sense? If it does, I would ask you to consider going back over the relevant section in the policy proposal and see if you can read it in a new light. Respectfully, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

like that makes it any better even though it's still based entirely on the birth of Jesus. Likewise, you could say people share the BC/AD terminology, which is a fact — like it or not. This is entirely as valid as saying people share the Gregorian calendar. Frankly, I don't understand what you are saying at all.

Here it is! You admit you do not understand me at all! This is precisely what I meant when I wrote "You profoundly misconstrue and misunderstand the argument" (note how "misunderstand" is in my sentence and in yours; that signals agreement). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I used misunderstand in the philosophical sense... as in, I don't understand how you could possibly belive what you do... not "I don't comprehend the words you are saying".--Ctachme 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You yourself said that just because everyone uses it doesn't mean it's ok: That many books use a POV term does not make that POV term NPOV. The EXACT same thing can be said about the Gregorian calendar. Just because everyone uses it doesn't mean it's NPOV. BUT... you said "people share the Gregorian calendar, which is a fact — like it or not." I think this is a direct contradiction. --Ctachme 02:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, that is not to say there isn't possibly a better system to choose! I can think of one right now, one that is far superior to your BCE/CE system, and one that we must adopt for all the reasons you have said against BC/AD apply also to the Gregorian Calendar. This system is entirely NPOV, which as you say, is non negotiable. Likewise, some of the flaws in BCE/CE (such as the claim that it is just BC/AD in another name, and that BCE/CE is still fundamentally POV). This system is shared by the global community (even if they don't know it). This is a calendar based on Geologic Epochs. This year is Holocene 11570, or for shorthand, just H11570. Additionally, there may be some error in the dating of the beginning of the Holocene Epoch, but as long as we establish a standard, an error of a few years is OK, as long as everyone is the same. Why is this system clearly better? Besides being NPOV, it also eliminates the need for 2 eras while dealing with the vast majority of human history. Previously with the outdated and POV Gregorian calendar, a large number of years relating to human history were in the NEGATIVES, this is horribly wrong. You cannot have negative time, so having negative years is foolish and confusing. While we are at calendar reform, we need to do this, because our current system of 12 months × X weeks × 7 days + .256363051 leap days is POV (based on roman and norse gods... your arguments apply to those to, and you can't just write off those as 'dead religions' because you said... the intent does not matter, so even though nobody is trying to support a nonexistent religion, we really are). This is the system we need to use, because it is NPOV and logical: 13 months of 4 weeks of 7 days + 1.256363051 leap days. This is much better: every month (named after the numbers, so we have month 0, month 1, etc...) has the exact same # of days (likewise, named after the numbers, day 0, day 1, etc...) and there are the exact same # of weeks in each month. Weeks, month, days they all evenly fit into the year except for the 1.256363051 leap days.

Obviously, I'm not seriously proposing this (unless of course people are crazy enough to support it... I know I am). What I'm saying is that there are relics of POV all over the dating system. Only with complete reform can you eliminate POV, and that reform cannot be instigated here. Wikipedia is a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. BCE/CE is nothing more than a pathetic little patch on a horrible illogical and difficult to use system. Lastly, I'm not point any fingers, but people that insist on being Politically Correct really tick me off :D --Ctachme 01:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you reject the entire NPOV policy as being "Politically Correct?"Slrubenstein | Talk

No of course not, I see a big difference between PCness and NPOV. I reject PCness because it is an attempt to control people's thoughts bias by changing what you call something, not how you think about something. The two concepts are entirely different. Words become derogatory NOT because of what they are, but because of the meaning behind them. Changing the words does NOT change the meaning behind them. Likewise, changing what you CALL the eras of the gregorian calendar does not change the fact you are still using it. PCness is a half-effort, a facade, nothing more.

However, the policy of NPOV is entirely different. It is about changing the actual meaning, if not the words. I support this entirely. --Ctachme 02:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to vote against this proposal simply because I think it is too sweeping in its imposition of the POV that BCE/CE is less POV than BC/AD. I concur with previous statements that B/CE is POV. On the other hand, saying that the only NPOV system would be to use years Before Now (I believe I called this system BTY when I mentioned it on Talk:Jesus) is also POV, since it clearly indicates that the present is the only valid timeframe from which to view history. We could propose to use BJ, for "Before Jesus" (thought I'd better clarify that I wasn't talking about Slrubenstein's "sodomy" reference above...), vs. ABJ (oh my...), but I don't think inventing a new system just for Wikipedia is a very good way to go either. I'm afraid I see the years we use, no matter what letters we attach to them, as an expression of a POV, albeit a widespread POV and a generally accepted dating system (again, because of how widely spread this POV is). As has been pointed out by others, this system is deeply flawed, and the illogic of it was the basis for my arguments against its use specifically in the Jesus article (cf. Talk:Jesus. (To repeat my assertion there: it sounds ridiculous to say "Jesus was born as early as 6 BC." How can he be born before he was born? 6 years, in fact, before he was born?!) That is the only reason I have argued in favor of using B/CE in the Jesus article, eventhough I agree with Slrubenstein's POV that this is, in fact, 5765. Heavy-handedly saying Wikipedia is going to use only B/CE is in conflict with several WP policies, including NPOV. I'm not going to go through and list them, but I'm sure someone else will be happy to do so if my assertion is challenged. I don't think using BC/AD is POV, eventhough the terms themselves, when coined, clearly endorsed a POV. There is a not-so-subtle and very important difference. Incidentally, in the write-up, Anno Domini is consistently mistranslated as "in the year of our Lord". The correct translation is "in the Lord's year". There is a big difference. Clearly, saying "our Lord" is a very different thing from saying "the Lord". Incidentally, I just looked up "Anno domini" in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Ed....where it defines "Anno Domini" as "in the (given) year since the beginning of the Christian Era" (emphasis mine). Interestingly enough, the next entry is "anno mundi", which is defined as "in the (given) year since the supposed creation of the world" (again, the emphasis is mine...). Maybe I'm reading something into the text, but to me, the use of "supposed" would constitute a gross violation of NPOV! Maybe we should let Webster know... :-p Tomer ^TALK 02:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

If there was ever an example of PC gone mad, it is your examples from Webster's. My advice, ifyou want to know what these words mean, is look for a Latin-English dictionary. In any event, if you want to suggest an alternate (less sweeping?) proposal, feel free to use this article's talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Since I learned Latin as a schoolboy, I can tell you what anno domini means without the assistance of a dictionary. As for a less-sweeping alternative, I don't really have one. I think the whole system sucks, and that tacking on a different set of letters is about as sensible as wearing a new dress (B/CE) with old shoes (except on Purim, of course). It doesn't fix the system's inherent flaws and other problems, it just tries to paint a less hideous face on it. Tomer ^TALK 03:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be patronizing with the Latin dictionary comment, my intention was only to mock Webster's. I assumed you know the real meaning and no disrespect was meant, Slrubenstein | Talk 04:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I do have something of a proposal, sketchy, at best...but ultimately, I think, more acceptable in its scope to most ppl who care about this discussion at all...please see this proposal's talk page. Tomer ^TALK 03:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

A personal note: I have no argument with people voting as they wish. But I am disappointed that — with the exception of a few very thoughtful comments (as many or more opposed as in favor) – the discussion centers on the very first paragraph of the proposal, and no one has yet to argue for or against any of the specific arguments and reasons detailed in the proposal. I think this is an embarrasment to the level of wiki-dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you're being personal, I will too - I read the whole thing, and the reasoning gets awfully tortured. A reference to the Belgian Congo is a transparent attempt to play the guilt card, and it's simply not ever going to influence my view on how to write English prose. I favor BC/AD mostly because my authorities do - historians of ancient Greece and Rome probably use specific "BC" dates more than anyone, and I can't find a single Greece/Rome book on my shelf that uses "BCE" rather than "BC" in its thicket of dates. When the OCD switches to BCE/CE, I will favor it then. We have so many more serious NPOV problems to work on that my main embarassment is that this borderline triviality is sucking up so much time and attention. Stan 13:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In responce to a few of the points above. While quantity and popularity have nothing to do with neutrality, this isn't about a position... it's about language. Under Naming Conventions it is made clear that it is best to be readable, that is... "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I do not believe that when most people read AD 1600 that they are reading outright "In The Year Of Our Lord Sixteen Hundred" but rather that the two letters have become a "word" in and of themselves... much in the way that people will say "ATM Machine" or "Pin Number" even if this is -technically- redundant. The abbreviation has become a seperate word as far as grammar goes. When it comes to words, understanding is tantamount. As far as being Anti-Christian [3], it has nothing to do with the words "Before" "Common" and/or "Era". It has more to do with the fact that AD/BC are so common that when reading CE/BCE, the average reader will automatically replace the term CE/BCE into AD/BC in their own heads, and the process of translation emphasizes the differences between the two. CE/BCE isn't automatically translated into "A date that I recognize", but rather into AD/BC, and that leads the mind to question "Why the change" which leads directly to the point that "The person using CE/BCE doesn't want to mention Jesus even via the etymology of a word" which leads to "Mentioning Jesus must be a terrible thing" which is, in fact, anti-christian. Note that in this chain of thought, I say etymology of a word. When an abreviation is used enough, it becomes a WORD. The etymology of "Pumpernickle" is "Goblin Fart" but you probably don't think about goblins farting when you say the word... you mean the bread, not the breaking of wind. Likewise, to most people, AD 1600 refers to a year, not a form of worship. To deliberately avoid AD/BC, ironically, MAKES a word religiosly charged, whereas normally it is not. AD/BC is, under normal circumstances, automatically translated in most people's heads as "a year I recognize". Heck, remove the AD entirely... 1990 I recognize as "A year I lived through, and I can recall these facts about this year, and in the back of my mind I know that this is the gregorian dating system which, more formally, would be written as AD 1990, a year that I recognize". I can easily say that using CE/BCE does negate the Christian faith, because it calls to attention the religious aspect of the commonly accepted term, and then negates it as an active thing. Likewise, I can say that using the terms AD/BC does not negate the religious practises of any other faith, because unless attention is called to it, there is generally no religious connotation to the term. If you must stop to think about the religious aspect to AD/BC, it would be in the same respect as analyzing the origins of CE/BCE... namely that the numbering system is tied to the date of a significant person in Christian history. The dating system is due to Christian influences, and this can be recognized no matter which term you use. Fieari 21:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

General Discussion

Thank you, SlR, for taking the time to outline this issue so comprehensively and clearly. El_C 22:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have received an e-mail from Anita Wolff, the Deputy Editor of Encyclopedia Britannica. She writes, "Britannica uses the BC-AD method of designating centuries because it is the most commonly accepted and widely used system for most of the world. Especially in some scientific contexts, or when it is thought preferable to use a system that does not refer to Christianity, we use the BCE/CE designation that does not change the year itself but only the reference point. At times other dating systems may be referred to--AH for Islam, or some local system such as the Jewish or Chinese calendar, with the corresponding dates given in BC/AD." So basically they use BC-AD except in a few circumstances - scientific contexts being one. When they use other local systems they put the corresponding dates in the BC/AD format. I'm adding this information because I feel it is important to see what others are doing about this issue. If you wish to add information from other sources, such as publishers, perhaps we can make a seperate section? --Silversmith 19:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I generally have no preference for either BC or BCE (or AD or CE). As a Christian, I use BC/AD throughout my day. But I have no problem at all if a non-Christian or secular or "neutral" source (not sure that true neutrality is actually possible, but the idea of it is, anyway) uses BCE or CE. The problem for me is, however, that BC and AD have become simply a part of our culture and have, in many ways, lost their connection with Christianity. Actually, most non-Christians would concur that the life of Jesus Christ was a major world event that altered the course of history. So, BC and AD don't necessarily mean anything different than "pre-FDR" in reference to the U.S. presidency, "pre-Beatles" in rock and roll history, or "antebellum" regarding America before the Civil War; they are simply terms relating to a major historic event (in this case, the life of Christ). Again, though, let me reiterate - I have no great preference one way or the other. Thanks for reading. KHM03 22:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, and speaking sincerely. I tried to address the points you raised in this section [4] and wonder if you find them convincing. However, I do understand your general openmindedness and you may not care enough to explore the arguments in detail, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

A good argument, as with this entire page. Maybe the bottom line for me is that if BC/AD are truly offending someone, then I don't mind "replacing" those terms with BCE/CE. So much of the gospel is already filled with controversy (Jesus as divine, Resurrection, etc.) that I'd hate for anyone to get bogged down in BC/AD. We need to pick our battles, and I can't believe that Christians really think this is one worth fighting! Hope it all works out; thanks for your work! KHM03 11:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There are so many phrases used in modern English that used to be related to religion but no longer are. "Oh my god!" does not imply a cry out to a monotheistic deity. Language evolves and, while I am fully aware of the meaning of AD, I do not think of any Christianity-related meaning when I see/use it. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Even such an innocent word as good bye derives from the Christian source 'God be with ye'. Certainly within certain contexts it may be appropriate to use a different notation, but as a general policy it is denying us a connection to our history. --Neo 23:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to address the points you raised in this section [5] and wonder if you find them convincing. Please remember, that the whole point of our NPOV policy is to consider that people have views different from yours, that our policies cannot favor your (my, our) own views over others. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As a pagan-friendly agnostic, BC/AD does not bother me in the least. In fact, it should be maintained because to use BCE and CE IS POV, as it assumes that common usage is somehow wrong. Why can't we just make this part of the Preferences, like date formatting? RickK 23:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

But Rick, don't all (or at least, many) changes made to comply with NPOV imply that the common usage is "wrong" (in the sense that it is POV? I am not claiming that belief in Christ is wrong, only that the claim that belief in Christ is not a POV, is wrong). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a fascinating debate. As a Christian (agendas are best unhidden), I'm comfortable with AD/BC, but I concede that they are very problematic in general discourse. (You say that 'Jesus is Lord' is not a fact but an opinion - I suppose one might pedantically say that even that is an opinion - but let's agree that 'Jesus is Lord' is a very contentious claim.) My problem is that although I do not want to defend AD/BC - as they are professions of faith - I don't really care for the alternatives. Common to whom? You suggests that the calendar is common in its usage- yes, but we are speaking of dates of the Common Era - to whom, and in what sense is the era common? My personal preference would be to speak of dates before and after the 'Christian calendar' - that avoids professions of faith - and keeps us to the facts - this is a Christian Calendar (as there are Chinese, Muslim and Jewish ones) – this calendar takes its reference from a Christian claim to the dating of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course many who use the calendar are not Christians - but then we speak of 'Arabic numerals' and ‘English language’, without worrying about how many of the users are Arabs or Anglo-Saxons. Of course this option is no use - unless Wikipedia adopts its own notation - and that's useless. Given that, I'd rather not force a choice between the two problematic alternatives - let each editor use their own (as with US and English spellings). Incidentally, I believe that is the policy of most academic publishers - I recently published with Continuum and they raised no objections to my choice of AD/BC.--Doc Glasgow 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

These are very thoughtful comment. I don't think I agree with you, but I really appreciate your reflections, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

To take the discussion of an ‘alternative system’ forward from my remarks above, ideally, I would favour 'BCC and CC' – ‘before’ and ‘after’ Christian calendar. That would be a factual description – not a profession of faith as AD/BC – which I think is the valid root of the objection. However, in reality I think this is a non-starter. It would leave Wikipedia with a system no-one outside the community would understand. However, the logic of your rejection of the 'popularity' argument would be that this shouldn't matter, even if AD and CE are the popular choices, if they are POV - then we must use something else, even if it is less popular. But, personally, I think the popularity argument must carry some weight.

I think, for many Christians, it is the wish to avoid the fact that it is a Christian calendar that is the difficulty - rather than a defence of AD/BC and their obvious 'profession of faith'. Removing the Christian references – and denying the fact that it is a Christian system, raises the (perhaps unjustified) suspicion that there is an anti-Christian, wishing to deny Christian cultural influence, rather than a ‘neutral’ agenda behind it. If I were to suggest that ‘Arabic numerals’ be renamed ‘common numerals’ on the basis that they were now common to various languages, and alphabets, I think my motives would come under suspicion.

Without a radical alternative, I think there is no NPOV usage here – and thus both should be permitted – no-one forced to use a system they are uncomfortable with. Whilst I do not object to CE BCE – I for one would not use it – and I do object to being compelled. The debate is very interesting – and it is a test of how ‘libertarian’ liberal culture should be. --Doc Glasgow 12:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This thorough and lucid proposal has provoked me to some reflection. I tend to use CE/BCE when writing as an archaeologist/historian and AD/BC when writing as a journalist. I recognise that AD/BC has the echoes of Christian connotations but so does much of English language usage. What I had not appreciated before reading this proposal was that CE/BCE has Judaeo-Christian connotations. I remember learning that CE is variously interpreted as "Christian Era" and "Common Era". I had not thought about the POV inherent in "Common Era"; but there it is—implicitly elevating the divergence of Christianity from Judaism above the foundation of Islam or some other cusp that is significant to a social/cultural/religious group. I now see the AD/BC vs CE/BCE divide in the same light as British and American spellings. Some people prefer one; some the other. Neither is wrong nor more right. --Theo (Talk) 23:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I too have heard of "Christian Era" and frankly have no objection to that. I thought I anticipated your argument in [6] and wonder if you have a more specific response to that section. If I understand your argument, though, before concluding that "BC" and "BCE" represent two different points of view, I would point out that "BC" and "BCE" refer to different "facts" (or "fact-claims") BC represents the fact-claim that Jesus was Christ. BCE represents the fact-claim that we live in a world dominated by the Christian calendar, but not by the Christian religion. I think these are two different kinds of fact-claims; the first is a contentious POV, the other is a pretty uncontentious description of the world today. This is one reason I think BC is a "point of view" but "BCE" is not a "point of view. By the way, I do not understand what you mean that BCE/CE represents a view that elevates "the divergence of Christianity from Judaism above the foundation of Islam or some other cusp that is significant to a social/cultural/religious group." I don't think it does, and didn't think that I suggested this. I think BCE/CE acknowledges the divergence of Christianity from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., and the elevation of a calendar devised by Christians and shared by non-Christians. Am I misunderstanding you, or are you misunderstanding me? I know that much of what I wrote comes from a Jewish point of view because I am Jewish and want to be clear about my point of view. But I do think that much of what I wrote would be shared by a Muslim, Hindu, or atheist, and has nothing to do with Judaism. I guess I thought of the references to a Jewish POV as examples rather than primary evidence or major elements of the argument. I think that Jews, Muslims, Hindus all have more reasonable grounds to not want to use the words "Before Christ" or "Anno DOmini" than Christians have for not wanting to say "Common Era" or "Before the Common Era." I also know many examples I got from other websites refer to the split between Judaism and Christianity, but I think that is because in the US, and in Europe (until recently, that is) the Jews were the exemplary "minority group" or at least minority religion. Again, I see this as an example of a larger argument, not the argument itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, I disagree with you that BCE is neutral.

The widely held belief that Jesus is/was Christ by the community that established the modern Western calendar is as inherent to the use of the chosen fixed point in that calendar as is the use of the abbreviation BC. Very few people say "Before Christ" in this context; almost everyone says "beecee". And whilst popularity may not be a good guide to NPOV, it is a certain guide to convention.

The reason why I think that BCE/CE represents a view that elevates "the divergence of Christianity from Judaism above the foundation of Islam or some other cusp that is significant to a social/cultural/religious group" is that you characterised the "Common Era" as that which was shared by Christians and Jews. I accept that it is also that shared by Hindus and and Buddhists. It is not, however, shared with Islam. Whilst I do not wish to advocate anything so absurd, the truly NPOV solution is to cite each year as AD/AH/CE and any other major calendar system. I am not advocating that we write "Before Christ" or "Anno Domini" against every date; I think that AD/BC are widely accepted conventional labels largely divorced from their original sense. And, since some readers find them offensive, we should allow editors to use whatever form with which they are most comfortable and, just as we do with dates and spelling, we should either enable the choice to be a software-supported user preference or respect the established usage within each separate article.

I imagine that the "many examples [that you] got from other websites refer to the split between Judaism and Christianity" because (according to my hazy recollections of my undergraduate studies) CE/BCE was originally a construct by Judaic scholars who were working outside the Jewish academic community.

--Theo (Talk) 01:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, as I explained in the proposal, it looks like Christians actually devised the BCE/CE system a hundred (or more) years ago. Also, I never wrote that the Gregorian calendar is shared "only" by Christians and Jews, or shared by Christians and Jews "alone" — or even, shared by Christians and Jews period. Every time I talked about the calendar being shared, I mentioned other people besides Jews. Also, I do believe it is shared by Mulsims as well. I do not mean that in Muslim countries or in Muslims' personal lives Muslims use anything other than AH, but Muslims do participate in global political, economic, and cultural events and surely in these use the Gregorian calendar, as I suggested, for convenience and as a convention. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that I have some apologies to tender. Please forgive me for valuing my flawed memories over your sourced research about the origins of CE/BCE. Also, upon closer reading, I see that "The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history." was a citation from elsewhere. I read it as your own statement and I saw it as exclusive. I still feel that the Common/Christian Era prioritises the hwilhom accepted date of Jesus' birth over other religious and secular cusps as much as does AD/BC. I contend that replacing secularised labels with secular labels does not significantly reduce the connotations of the object of those labels. I acknowledge that AD/BC gives offence to a significant number of religious non-Christians who mentally expand the abbreviations to their original forms and perceive their use as an endorsement of Christianity. Indeed, I have greater sympathy (albeit no empathy) with that view than with those who percieve CE/BCE as an affront to their world-view. Ultimately, however, the consensus of the English-speaking world appears to be that AD/BC has no real significance other than as calendar labels, that a minority find it offensive, and that another minority is offended by CE/BCE. I believe that the implementation of a user preference is a better solution to this issue than a policy mandate for or against either system. Curiously, I am now more opposed to this policy than I was when I started this general discussion. --Theo (Talk) 12:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As I noted on the talkpage for Jesus, Wikipedia does not exclude POVs, which is what you are seeking to do. NPOV specifically does not call for us to write in a "neutral" way. The policy even explicitly says that is not what we do. It calls for us to express all views. The view that 4 BC is, erm, 4 BC is widely held and that should be reflected. I agree that the view that that is not acceptable should also be reflected and it's my belief that 4 BC/BCE shows that. I think that the discussion is very much complicated by the fact that it's largely those offended who interpret the dating system as having to do with "our Lord" or "the Messiah". I'm among those who just sees them as just letters, whose significance is gone -- dead metaphors, if you will. I'm afraid I believe that this sort of argument that views that some find offensive must be excluded must be opposed strenuously because it so flatly contradicts NPOV policy. Grace Note 00:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, I agree that Wikipedia should not exclude POVs, and I thought I stated clearly in the proposal itself that I think BC and AD should be used when appropriate. My only objection is to when they are presented not as a POV (a POV you are right to say should not be excluded as such), but as NPOV. As to your seeing them just as letters, well, that confuses me because then you are saying that they do not express a POV, when you started out defending including POVs in the article. In any case, I just want to remind you that the whole purpose of NPOV is to deal with the fact that not all people think the same. I believe you when you say they are just letters to you. But to other people, they are not just letters. This situation requires an NPOV solution, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This quote is from our NPOV policy. It explains why we can't make exclusions, why we have to cater to more than one POV. Our style guide does not say we should use one form over the other. The only way to be neutral is to use both, as using either by itself obviously makes some people unhappy. It has been shown on the Jesus article how both forms can be used in the one article quite successfully. Those who are fighting to have "their way" are the ones who are violating the Wikipedia spirit. We need to be accepting of the views, feelings and beliefs of every reader of Wikipedia (keeping in mind this is the English Wikipedia), which is why we can't ignore BCE/CE, and which is why we can't put aside BC/AD.
"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 01:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith is, as usual disingenuous. I responded to this argument here [7]. He either has not taken the time to read it (in which case, why comment?), has not understood it (in which case, why comment), or has no response to my argument (in which case he will just repeat himself — oops, that is what he is doing now). What is certain is that Silversmith does not understand or NPOV policy, as he takes quotes out of context and tries to apply them inappropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, it would appear you have not understood what I have written. If you did, you would realize that we are almost arguing the same thing, just slightly diferently, becuase you are saying lets use both "where appropriate", whilst I'm saying use both together, or at the least don't put a preference of one over the other. Since I'm so fond of repeating myself you may want to look at Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement and also our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy in regards to some of your comments. Please try and be civil, particularly as I'm the one who suggested what you are doing here in the first place [8], to which you replied at the time: "I do not see the point to or value of this proposal." You seem determined to oppose everything I say without regard, then accuse me of not reading or understanding what you write. --Silversmith 03:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, I appreciate your patient reply and do apologize for letting my feelings of frustration get the best of my. Maybe it is true that I misunderstand you, but I assure you I do read what you write, and try to understand it. I am sorry I questioned your respect for my words. Be that as it may, I still disagree with you and if you are willing to put more time into it, I'd like to explain to you why. The easiest way to do this is for you to go to this article's talk page (I think Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Tomer makes a point similar to yours, and I provide a lengthy — but, I earnestly hope, apropos – response that I think also responds to your comments here. In the end we may still disagree, but if you have the time to read my response to Tomer on the talk page, I would like to know what you think. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

From the Chicago Manual of Style [9]:

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.

Which is pretty much how I feel about it. BCE/CE is the most neutral and most scholarly, let's just go with that. But it's not a big deal either way, unless we are hell-bent on making it one. --Fastfission 01:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As a non-Christian non-Jew non-Muslim, I'm not greatly bothered by "B.C.". I have always assumed, perhaps ignorantly, that "Jesus" and "Christ" were two names of the same person. In any case, I don't much care about the difference and the sense of "before Jesus" is clearly correct (give or take the calendrical error).

"A.D." however, is another matter. It is clearly P.O.V. to refer to any year as "the year of our lord" in full, scarcely less to write that in Latin, and I don't think the abbreviation loses all of that sense. —Ashley Y 01:52, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

FYI, "Christ" is a title, not a name. It is the Greek word for the Hebrew "Moshiach," which is translated into English as "Messiah." Jews (at least, back then) thought the messiah was a King who would liberate the Jews from Roman rule (that never happened). Christians believe the messiah saves humanity from its sins. I am guessing you do not believe that Jesus was messiah in either of these senses. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to sound glib (although I would like to lighten the mood a bit if possible)...both BC/AD and B/CE are POV, as are any other proposals. While "time" is not a human construct, "history" and its perception clearly are, and always will be. And a little more of my POV: Messiah comes from the Hebrew word "mashiach". Moshi's ach is Aharon.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 02:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you got me to smile with that one — a biiig smile. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously something that Slrubenstein feels very strongly about, and I would like to thank him for a cogent and thorough discussion of the issues. However, I don't think there is any way of escaping the fact that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are both POV. One reflecting millenia of Christian influence on western thought and life, and the other a reflection of the growing diversity of modern life and a not so subtle statement that it is wrong to impose Christian views on other cultures. Of course, even BCE/CE does not avoid the Christian heritage of the year one. [If people really wanted to avoid religious overtones, we'd probably switch to something more like the geologic calendar, where everything is measured in years before 1950 (a fairly arbitrary date). Of course, talking about living in annum -55 does feel a little awkward.] Though both BCE/CE and BC/AD strike me as POV, I am willing to concede that BCE/CE is probably a marginal improvement over BC/AD. But whatever its marginal virtue, it doesn't escape the fact that it is still far less common and less understood in the everyday world, the world for which Wikipedia is written. For me, I can't justify making Wikipedia less readable for a marginal improvment in POV. Maybe someday most people will understand BCE/CE and it will be a sensible switch, but in my opinion that is probably at least a generation of school children away. Sorry. Dragons flight 03:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The argument that something should not be because the commoner will not understand is fallacious and invalid on Wikipedia, where subjects such subjects can be linked to, written and read about. By the way, BC/AD is religiocentric or as some writers have described, Christocentric. Adraeus 03:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No apology needed, and I do appreciate your kind remarks. If I may, I would like to ask you to think about changing your vote — not now, not today, just think about it for a while. I ask for two reasons. First, you write "Though both BCE/CE and BC/AD strike me as POV, I am willing to concede that BCE/CE is probably a marginal improvement over BC/AD." and in NPOV issues I think even a marginal improvement is worth it, since the policy is a pillar of Wikipedia. But I also ask because I take seriously your observation that BCE and CE are less common than AD and BC. I am not going to rehash my argument about popularity and NPOV [10]. But I do ask that you reflect on the first pillar of Wikipedia: that this is an encyclopedia. I do not mean to patronize, but let me quote the first paragraph of our article on the topic:

An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. The term comes from the Greek εγκύκλιος παιδεία (enkuklios paideia), literally "in a circle of instruction", and more generally connoting "a well-rounded education".

I ask you only to consider the importance of our project as a means of educating people about things (including issues in scholarly, ethical, and political debate) they do not yet know. Respectfully Slrubenstein | Talk 03:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The analogy I would give is the following. When one is describing, for example, the wildlife in an article on Africa it might be technically correct and in some sense instructive to use scientific names for lions, rhinos, giraffes, etc. However, saying Panthera leo, Diceros bicornis, and Giraffa camelopardalis is going to be hard for most people to recognize and contribute very little to the article. In most contexts, I feel basically the same way about BCE/CE. I don't see any reason why someone reading an article on, for example, the History of ancient Egypt or Language should have to stop to go find out what CE/BCE mean. In some sense using CE/BCE is instructional and, in my opinion, more NPOV but this virtue is offset by the fact that the common person who wants to learn about Egypt or language would find the article harder to understand. I strongly agree that Wikipedia is a means of educating people, but in my opinion this means that general articles need to be accessible to a general audience and not bogged down in terminology that the typical reader might have trouble with. Obviously, there are some contexts where the CE/BCE vs. AD/BC distinction is worth making and explaining (e.g. Jesus), but in my opinion these are the exception rather than the rule. Dragons flight

In response to Adraeus's comment that it should be sufficient to link BCE/CE, so that an uninformed reader can read more, I would also add that even when BCE/CE is used, I rarely see it linked in an informative way. Common practice is to write dates like 1000 BCE which simply points to 1000 BC and provides no explanation for where BCE comes from other than letting a reader guess that BCE = BC. For dates like 250 CE, maybe someone would think to link [[Common Era|CE]], but in my observation it is simply more common to leave it unliked or even leave off the AD/CE so that dates are assumed to be common era unless labelled BC/BCE. So not only does it seem to me to be undesirable to force readers to learn about dating conventions in order to learn about unrelated topics, but in practice we do not often make it easy for them to do so. This is not a very strong argument since people like Slrubenstein may be inclined to search through Wikipedia and ensure that BCE/CE are linked everywhere they occur. However, if one is going to create policy that makes things harder on the typical reader and harder on the typical editor (e.g. ensuring that links are provided whenever CE/BCE is used), then you ought to have a strong reason for it. In my judgment, the marginal improvment in POV does not fall in that category. Dragons flight 09:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I propose to remove from Wikipedia all instances of "etc." because it is in Latin and therefore conveys a matter of opinion about the relative superiority of Latin over English, which is an abhorrent violation of our NPOV policy. While we're at it, let's change all instances of "he or she" to "sie" because the use of the former embodies a value statement about the number of actual genders there are in humanity, which is again a gross violation of NPOV policy. Oh, strike that, my use of 'humanity' there is POV because animals are people too, and to exclude them from consideration is awfully POV. Oh, and aliens too. It is argued by some people (weasel words, I know) that aliens exist and are sentient. Maybe they only have one gender? This reinforces that we must remove "he" and "she" from articles. We have a NPOV policy specifically for situations like this. But seriously, if BC/AD comprises an NPOV violation, BCE/CE is just as much a violation of NPOV. It implies that the common era (which suggests modern development) began with the birth of Jesus, since that is where the Gregorian calendar supposedly begins. CE therefore says to people "this modern era of development started with the birth of Jesus". The calendar is a religious calendar inherently, and attempting to remove any reference to religion by simply renaming the notation for it is silly. The only way to remove any existing POV would be for Wikipedia to make up its own calendar. Anyway, the result of this poll probably won't be binding (it has no quorum provision). - Mark 03:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You write "But seriously, if BC/AD comprises an NPOV violation, BCE/CE is just as much a violation of NPOV. It implies that the common era (which suggests modern development) began with the birth of Jesus, since that is where the Gregorian calendar supposedly begins." You are mistaken. It is not the term BCE/CE that suggests that the common era starts with Jesus' birth, it is the fact that many non-Christians actually use the Gregorian calendar that proves that this is a common era. BCE/CE only reflects that fact. Or did you not read my proposael, especially here [11] which refutes your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not read your proposal thoroughly. You're not the only person to suggest switching entirely to BCE/CE, and to tell you the truth it gets tiring having to read through the same arguments and vote on the same thing time and time again. As Common Era points out, the two terms are synonymous. The connotations that come with the terms are largely the same. Following your reasoning in the section you reference above, the term "Common Era" is POV because it implies the birth of Christ brought about a new era of cooperation between Judaism and Christianity and international harmony. Or something like that. As I see it, the only POV reduction that such a change could bring about is AD meaning "in the year of the Lord". That's POV, I agree. - Mark 04:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Mark, I appreciate your forthright reply. For what it is worth I want to clarify one thing: I am not suggesting that "the term "Common Era" is POV because it implies the birth of Christ brought about a new era of cooperation between Judaism and Christianity and international harmony." What I wrote was this: that common era implies that many non-Christians use the Gregorian calendar "in common" (and the reason for my proposal is that they nevertheless do not hold Christian faith in common). I think both claims are accurate facts, and I do not claim anything more than that. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand you. I merely meant that even if we adopted your policy, there would still be some POV in the nomenclature. I respect what you are saying, and agree with it to a small extent, but disagree that it should become Wikipedia policy to make BCE/CE standard. - Mark 05:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you are a dishonest bastard. After I showed on Talk:Jesus that your argument had nothing to do with existing Wikipedia:neutral point of view policy, but rather deals only with your notions of what would be "culturally neutral language", you try to stack the deck in your favor by creating a page that claims in its title that this is a "neutral point of view" debate. Gene Nygaard 03:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You have a right to think I am dishonest. But to call me a bastard is a violation of our personal attack policy. In any event, you did not show this on the Talk:Jesus page. On the contrary, I explained in detail why you are wrong, wrong, wrong. As to your "trying to stack the deck" complaint, it is just pathetic. I am proposing a revision of a policy, as is every editor's right. Anyone has a right to disagree with me, and I created sections here in which people could express their reasons for opposing the proposal, and in which they could vote against the proposal. Please explain to me in what universe this constitutes "stacking the deck." Or do you not really know what that phrase means? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You did not "explain in detail why you are wrong, wrong, wrong." You answered in one sentence which wandered off in some other direction.

You deliberately tried to stack the deck in several ways

• The title of the article, which presupposes the fact that the debate is about neutral point of view.
• By phrasing it as a "defense of BC/AD"
• In your characterization of that "defense" as only people claiming that "it is NPOV" for one of four reasons, and ignoring the fact that several people who have argued against it don't make any such claim, but rather claim that this is not something that is covered by the Wikipedia:neutral point of view policy.
• By deleting my comment pointing out that this is not the case.

Those are just some of the more obvious ways. Gene Nygaard 07:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is good to avoid hypocrisy. Don't tell Gene to avoid personal attacks if you are going to slur others without apology. — Chameleon 04:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason I haven't apologized is because it was not a slur but an objective and I thought constructive comment. You wrote, "after Jayjg attempted to, let's say, stuff the ballot box by writing to as many Jewish editors as possible" which is playing the race card. As a matter of fact, we do not know the race of all the people who participate in the discussion, and many of the people Jayjg communicated with are not Jewish. But just means you are getting your facts wrong. The reason I characterized your comment as "vague anti-Semitism" (and I used "vague" deliberately) is because of the insinuation that people would oppose your position because they are Jewish — as if they cannot have other reasons, reasons shared by many Wikipedians. Even if I were not Jewish, I would be making this proposal, and many non-Jews support it. Don't bring editors' race into it, it is offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be an wiktionary:Offendocrat. You still haven't apologised for the personal attack. — Chameleon 05:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be a victim. Our decisions define us. We must be responsible for our behavior in order to co-exist with those who share this world with us. Our behavior, our actions, is our responsibility; thus, if you are offended by a comment and you seek an apology, then perhaps you should ask yourself, "Why do I seek apology from those I can forgive for the trespasses I perceive?" To perceive something as offensive is emotionally irresponsible, and to describe something as offensive is objectively inconsiderate. Have you thought critically on the context in which the perceived offensive comment was written? Have you considered that you are capable of err and may have misperceived the intent of the so-called offender? Before you question the integrity of another, I dare you to question your own. Adraeus 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What a load of irrelevant rubbish. This has nothing to do with whether I am "capable of err", but with having a level playing field. If the No Personal Attacks policy stops me from saying something like "Slrubenstein is a religious bigot", it has to stop him calling me an anti-Semite. — Chameleon 11:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim it is NPOV. I claim that neutral point of view is totally irrelevant to this argument. Gene Nygaard 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. And I have explained why you are wrong. (and these comments from a guy who doesn't even know the difference between mass and weight!) Slrubenstein | Talk 03:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think it is relevant to this discussion, Slrubenstein. But I just cannot pass up an opportunity to argue with some fool who thinks that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure some quantity that varies with the strength of the local gravitational field. We should not do so; we do not do so; we have never done so.

• What do you suppose it means when my bag of sugar says "Net weight 4 lb (1.81 kg)"? Those kilograms, and those pounds, are both units of mass. That is the meaning used any time anybody talks about "net weight", which is a concept of commerce, not of physics, and for which physics jargon usage is totally inappropriate.
• What do you suppose it means if a bar of platinum has a troy weight of 401.23 troy ounces? Note that dealers in precious metals are a little bit smarter than you are. There is one significant way in which the troy units of weight differ from their avoirdupois cousins, and from grams and kilograms as well—they have never spawned units of force of the same name. There is no troy ounce force, and there never has been one. Gene Nygaard 14:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha! I finally figured out the relevance. I'd simply forgotten to take into account the way your mind works, Slrubenstein:

• A delusion that weight is always something different from mass has every iota as much relevance to the discussion at hand as a delusion that this argument has something to do with NPOV policy, which deals with making sure that two conflicting points of view are both presented, fairly. Gene Nygaard 13:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Gene, if you want to know my reasons for why I think BC/AD are POV and BCE/CE are NPOV, read my proposal. If you disagree, fine, you disagree. I can live with you disagreeing with me. Can you live with me disagreeing with you? It seems not, since you want to change the name of my proposal. Look, it is my proposal. Agree, disagree, but don't change it. You think the title "stacks the deck?" What possible reasoning can you have? You disagree with me, and hate the title, so from that I infer that the title only makes people who disagree with me disagree more. If you disagree with me I have provided you with ample space to explain your criticisms, in the general discussion, in the discussion against the proposal, and in the talk page. And I have given you as place to vote no. What more do you want? Well, whatever else you want, do not change my proposal. Disagree with me, but don't change my words. Anyway, as I said, it all comes down to this: I can live with you disagreeing with me. Can you live with me disagreeing with you? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Question for those who believe BC/AD is not POV

(Creating a subsection to General Discussion which is obviously becoming lengthy)

Question for those who believe BC/AD is not POV: Would you feel the same if the acronymns appended to the year stood for a sanskrit abbreviation that meant "I offer my respectful obeisances unto Lord Krishna"? Would you argue that it's been commonly used for centuries and most people don't know what the acronymn really stands for anyway? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Or to put it in perspective, what if BC meant "Before the birth of the Messiah Krishna", and AD meant "In the year of our Lord Krishna"? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't have an issue with Easter being on the date of a pagan holiday. So I guess not. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I am misinformed about Easter (double checked the Wikipedia article). However, if it was in common parlance then I would not have an issue with it. It would not mean that I am condoning the religion. Looking at 1 Corinthians 8, I see that Paul wrote that "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.". - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem with it. That's why I gladly use the standard English names for the days of the week despite their origins in a belief system to which I do not adhere. It's the same scenario. Alanyst 07:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

But, for example, if "Thorsday" was actually worded "The Day of our Lord and Messiah Thor" and Western society was dominated by followers of Nordic myth who believed Thor was god, would you be against a cultural trend toward a more neutral term that described the fifth day of the week? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if instead of "The Day of our Lord and Messaih Thor" it was TDLMT, I would have no problem with it. And I definitely have no problem with using Thorsday. Fieari 22:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm an agnostic, I believe that Jesus, while not "Lord" in any sense, at least existed. I don't place even that much credence in Thor. Nevertheless, I have no problem with "BC/AD" or with "Thursday". I also don't have a problem with using "manufacturing" to mean the opposite of "making by hand", although it comes from Latin roots meaning the latter. Origins are worth knowing but aren't dispositive. JamesMLane 23:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

A personal comment: I have no argument with people voting as they wish. But I am disappointed that — with the exception of some exceptionally thoughtful comments (as many or as more opposed as in favor) – the discussion centers on the very first paragraph of the proposal, and no one has yet to argue for or against any of the specific arguments and reasons detailed in the proposal. I think this is an embarrasment to the level of wiki-dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hey! I read the whole thing! (Several times in fact...) What I'm seeing is that most of the commentary doesn't sound like people haven't read it, but that they've developed an opinion about it and begun formulating a response to it by the end of the first paragraph...and that the paragraphs that follow do little, if anything, to sway their positions. Then again, there are the same argumentative antagonists from Talk:Jesus who appear to be reading as little here as they were there. OK, that's my personal comment. I really shouldn't be talking in this section anyways, since I never said I thought BC/AD wasn't POV.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just because they can't eloquently respond to a point doesn't mean they don't disagree with the point. Faulty reasoning to a true statement doesn't make the statement false. A true statement is true regardless of the words someone uses to explain it. I don't think that fully explaining a point so that the opposite side agrees is necessary to have that view. Fieari 22:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A personal observation: Far too much, for my comfort at least, of the discussion happening here, especially in the voting sections, is all about people trying to prop up their own POVs, rather than dealing with the issue(s) at hand: namely, "does the usage of BC/AD constitute a violation of the set-in-stone-policy requiring NPOV?" While I would say that yes, it does, I also think that wiping BC/AD out of Wikipedia constitutes a violation of several other set-in-stone WP policies. Don't block me for saying this, but I'm on the verge of blanking out the voting sections entirely (in keeping with the fact that, after all, WP is not a democracy), as it seems people are going there to wage a war of numbers vs. commenting here to the comment section, or going to the talk page, and waging a far more important war of words and ideas, and getting involved in a more productive discussion about how to proceed. Tomer ^TALK 12:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst's response

I think I need to clarify my position as represented by Slrubenstein above (search for my username in the page to find those instances). I hasten to add that I believe any misrepresentations he made were done in good faith.

First of all, I wish to make clear that it is only my sense of style, and not my belief system, that is offended by the BCE/CE nomenclature. I have tried to make clear that I consider BC/AD and BCE/CE equally NPOV, and from that premise argue against BCE/CE on stylistic grounds only. The bulk of my contribution to this debate has been to show how BC/AD can have a neutral meaning, which is a proposition with which Slrubenstein and others disagree.

Slrubenstein equates my statement "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." to the "it's popular" argument. I base my argument not on the number of people who have used it, but the diversity of people who have used it under interpretations that are clearly different from the POV meaning that Slrubenstein et al. assign as the exclusive meaning for those terms. I am confident that many non-Christians, including Jews, Muslims, and atheists, have both read and used the BC/AD terminology without concerns about misrepresenting their own beliefs. (Some of the opponents of this proposal include themselves in this group by their comments below.) This shows that BC/AD can be both used and interpreted in a neutral way. I do not believe that Slrubenstein has addressed this argument.

This does not discount the fact that some are offended by the BC/AD terminology, Slrubenstein being representative of such. The problem is that the fact that someone is offended by some particular term does not inherently make that using that term a violation of NPOV. If it were, Wikipedia could be shut down by people maliciously claiming to be offended at everything that was written. (I do not claim that those offended by BC/AD are malicious.) Clearly, though a person's taking offense may be indicative of POV, it is insufficient to establish it.

I am not satisfied with the attempts to explain the difference between BC/AD and Thursday. Quoting Slrubenstein's argument:

As to the question, why is it that BC/AD express an unconscious bias when "Thursday" does not? 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.

This argument conflicts with another statement of Slrubenstein's:

But more importantly, how wide-spread a practice is simply has nothing to do with NPOV.

And it seems further to suffer from a fatal injection of POV from Slrubenstein himself: that BC/AD is POV because of the crimes committed in the name of Christianity against non-Christians. Not only does this ignore crimes committed in the other direction, but it also suggests that any symbol or term that originated in Christianity is tainted with POV that only becomes neutral when one can say "there aren't very many worshipers of Christ these days" and "if worshipers of Christ went around converting people to Christianity or killing them, it was a very very long time ago." The real distinction between BC/AD and Thursday is that Slrubenstein and others perceive Christianity to be a threat, and Thor-worship is not so perceived. But this is of course not an objective reason for rejecting one and accepting the other.

Finally, Slrubenstein's entire argument is based on one major presupposition: that "400 AD" represents a proposition—a statement with a truth value—and not just a date value. In other words, "400 AD" is equivalent in his interpretation as "400 CE and Jesus is Lord". While he is free to treat each occurrence of BC or AD as a proposition, he is not free to impose this way of thinking on everyone else. In the modern English vernacular, BC and AD are simply date markers, not logical propositions. This is the clearest way I can think of to state my argument that BC/AD are neutral terms in the English vernacular, and since that is the language of the English Wikipedia, BC/AD is NPOV.

I do sincerely thank Slrubenstein for his efforts spent in placing this debate in a more appropriate arena of discourse than the Talk:Jesus page. Alanyst 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A brief response. I think Alanyst misunderstands my argument in two places. First, that the Gregorian calendar is widespread, and that pupularity is not relevant to NPOV, do not contradict. I am not saying that the fact that the gregorian calendar is widespread is proof that it is NPOV; I am saying that the fact that the Gregorian calendar is widescpreas means people have it "in common" which explains the meaning of "Common Era." Second, I am not saying AD and BC are POV because they spread through Christian European colonial and imperialist expansion. I am saying they are POV because they reflect specifically Christian ideas. On a personal note, I very much appreciate the kind and constructive tone of Alanyst's comments, and the thoughtfulness of their contents. If it is not clear to others, I quotes or refered to Alanyst only because (1) I wanted to make it clear I was expressing issues real people have, not my own hypothetical ideas, and (2) I believed that Alanyst's views, or at least my interpretation of them, are widely shared. I do apologize if I misunderstoos any of them, or misrepresented any of them, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of some middle ground

1. Why does this have to be an either/or vote (which look like the vote is going very roughly 50/50 anyway, so there is going to be no Wikipedia:Consensus)? My personal opinion is that the policy should be similar to what the Manual of Style says for British English vs. American English. For articles where it makes sense, such as those on Christianity and all its various branches, permutations and subtopics, the dating should be BC and AD (an abbreviation for Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ")). Elsewhere, it should be editor's choice (with links to BCE and CE when they are used), with no edit wars over the issue. BlankVerse ∅ 13:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
   • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article". This is a compromise similar in sprit to the spelling compromise. Gdr 13:05, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Exactly - the current status of using what is appropriate for the article by the editors of that article is middle ground and what this proposal is trying to overturn. Trödel|talk 13:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

All you are arguing, BlankVerse ∅ , is that this isn't an NPOV question and that we should keep the current policy in the Manual of Style. Why don't you just vote against the proposed change? Gene Nygaard 13:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not really an either/or vote, as voting oppose will stay with the current system, which allows for both. The reason we are really having this debate is because of the revert war on Jesus. I haven't voted as yet because my preference now is for doing the same for AD/CE that we do for the dates, Ie. user preference, which Angela and Chameleon have both suggested. Until we do something like that, I'm sure there will continue to be disputes and revert wars. --Silversmith 13:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on my proposal on how to implement preferences on the talk page. Pcb21| Pete 13:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I support this user preference idea, but not implemented with templates - see comments on Pete's talk not sure where to put comments on this. Trödel|talk 14:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Gene Nygaard is correct: the question is, is this issue a matter of style, or of NPOV. If you truly believe it is of style and not NPOV, vote against my proposal. If you think it is about NPOV, please just read my proposal carefully and think about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The proposal I assume applies to articles written henceforth forward. Question: How does this apply to the use of historic materials? Must they be revised or disclaimed to be in compliance with Wiki's NPOV policy? Nobs 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

So by appeasing other cultures whom the majority are Christian and use bc/ad and probably could care less. You are now purposely making this a religious topic and in doing so pissing odd Christians which I am guessing most countries who use Wikipedia are from Christian faith. You are also pissing off people who grew up with the bc/ad usage who are not religious and see bce/ce being crow barred down our throats is so pointless and selfish on your parts. Do yourself a favor and stop making Wikipedia look so petty and agenda driven. I’m pretty sure BC/AD are still more widely used and no one has died from the usage. Why not appease everyone and use both together? CE 2021 AD

BC/AD and BCE/CE -- too narrowly focused

Why only BC/AD and BCE/CE? Let's take a reality check. This is a narrow focus for such an important matter. Bishop James Ussher calculated Anno Mundi that dates creation as 4004 years before the current calendrical era, using what both Jews and Christians acknowledge as scripture, and 2005AD/2005CE is actually 6009AM. (Ussher actually calculated that it was sunset on the 22nd October of that year.) Others say it was 3761 years before that we should add to the number of years, others again that it was 4000. Others again date the calendar from the creation of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, in 530BCE, so we could also use that. Another system goes back to the completion of the First Temple, said to be 1000BCE for a system called Anno Depositionis. See some of these discussed at Calendar era. In short, people, widen your narrow view and REALLY get a neutral POV. Am I stirring? Only a lot! Peter Ellis 14:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Peter, a major reason I proposed this was to initiate a discussion of, and raise consciousness about, NPOV and in this context I appreciate your comments and welcome more. From a practical point of view, though, I think it makes sense to deal with one case at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine, Slrubenstein, I understand this, yet I was merely pointing out that there ARE other time references in some degree of use that COULD be used by several sides as acceptable substitutes when the debate becomes acrimonious. Frankly, it might make more sense to calculate the dates from the birth or death date of some neutral and non-'European'/Mediterranean personage, such as Genghis Khan or Nelson Mandela, or from the date of a notable world event such as the explosion of Krakatoa (27 August 1883) or a calculable Transit of Venus (e.g. the first predicted by 'Western' science being 7 December 1631). Again, I stir. Peter Ellis 05:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we keep BC, but not AD ?

(Starting another subsection for easy editing)

I agree AD has NPOV problems, so let's use it carefully. But I think BC is fine. BC, to me, means Before Common era. Can we keep the use of BC ? -- PFHLai 14:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

• BC does not mean "Before Jesus was born", it means "Before the Messiah". It's no less POV than "In the year of our Lord". What this question boils down to is, do we adhere to NPOV even when it is inconvenient or clashes with our prior perception of the world? In essence, this is no different from the old "Armenian Genocide" or "Mainland China" arguments. We try to force people to adhere to the community norms which are based on our reading of NPOV. Why does this only apply to minorities? The majority usage in English is BC/AD. No one disputes that. But given that it is not NPOV, we should change it, or discard NPOV. I agree that voting is evil - this page proves that. Among non-Jewish Wikipedians this pretty much amounts to a left-versus-right roll call. We simply line up and register our POVs. Can't we simply step outside of our POVs for a minute and read the proposal and answer it on its merit? Religion isn't the issue here - I am Christian. But analysis of the issue - is it POV to call our dates Before the birth of the Messiah and In the year of our Lord? Common usage does not trump NPOV. Maybe we should discard NPOV and replace it with the reality of Majority POV. But if that is your view, be honest, and start a proposal to replace NPOV with MPOV. If NPOV is non-negotiable, then Wikipedia is forced to adopt something other than BC/AD. Simple enough. Guettarda 21:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope the "your view" in Guettarda's comment above doesn't mean my view.

Anyway, can we just use BC to mean both Before C-whatever, and not use AD nor CE unless it's really needed (i.e. context-dependent) ? This is common usage, anyway. -- PFHLai 00:03, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Sorry, only the first part was addressed directly to you. But, as for the second part - if you believe that BC/AD is POV (and I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is not) then NPOV requires that we not use it. Of course, in most cases we don't use either, we just state the year and AD/CE is implied. Guettarda 19:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think PFHLai has a point. BC might mean Brown Cow, or Before Christ or Before Common or Baloney Cramoney. I think it is an excellent NPOV compromise to keep using BC (as long as it is not spelled out) and eschew the use of AD 99.999% of the time (AD has to be explained in wikipedia, but should not be used). If you really want to hold onto your uncompromisingly pure logic then propose a brand new wikipedia-unique specific standard like -800 for 800 BC. Then only wikipedians would understand it but it would be undeniably NPOV. As a side note, I think we should stop using the word Thursday because it refers to Thor and I am not Norse. I suggest we replace it with the name Weekday4. MPS 16:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

BC, as used in dating, means, "Before Christ". We can't expect to write an encyclopaedia in which we just make up words or abbreviations and expect anyone to take us seriously. Days of the week lack alternatives - we're stuck with 4 days named after Germanic gods (not Norse, the Anglo-Saxons named the week days), and three days named after Roman or older pagan gods (Saturn, the Sun God and the Moon God). BCE/CE is a well established alternative to BC/AD. It may not be quite NPOV itself, but it's closer to NPOV than the alternative. Thus, we have a choice, abandon BC/AD, or abandon NPOV. Simple enough. Guettarda 22:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE is a well established alternative simply because in the 1960's and 1970's academics decided that it was politically correct. They didn't vote on it, they simply started using it and had the same sorts of discussions we are having now. Some people took them seriously because in order to enter the academic field, you had to adopt the language used by academics. Others thought it was a dumb idea and kept using BC. In the same way, wikipedia is a place where proposed standards within the community may be discussed and adopted (or discussed and rejected!). So, regarding the original issue under discussion: The significance of the year 1 CE is that that's when Jesus was originally thought to be born. It just happens to be the year in history that some monk a thousand years ago picked as a point of reference. He could have just as easily chosen another date but that is not for us to speculate on. Referencing a date as BC does not in itself commit you to believing in a Christ or being Christian; it just commits you to referencing that year. If we feel that Anno Domini is a loaded term, then we should drop it. But there's no need to throw the baby (BC) out with the bath water (AD). Your dichotomy of BC/AD versus NPOV is a false choice. MPS 14:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the Talk page, this isn't a PC question. Sure, that might be why BCE/CE was adopted (although the origins are older). At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_original_formulation_of_NPOV it says, for example:

An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

If we say AD 2005 we are saying, "In the year of Our Lord". That is POV, it assumes that Jesus is God - a POV I accept, but still a POV. What we need to say is 2005 "in what Christians believe to be the time of their God". The closest we have to that is CE (with "Common Era" being another way of saying "what Christians believe to be the time of their God"). BC is the same issue - because it says "before the time of the Messiah" (Christ = Messiah). What we need to say is, "Before the time of the person that Christians believe to be the Messiah". How is this a false choice? (Incidentally, AH would not be POV, because it is simply based on an event, the flight from Mecca. If instead it was "in the time of the Prophet Muhammad" it would be POV, because the idea that Muhammad is a messanger from God is an opinion which is not universally acknowledged). Guettarda 18:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a false choice because Pflai's proposal on the table was to reject the use of AD but adopt the use of BC since it could have multiple interpretations including the neutral interpretation that it is just two apolitical letters like AM and PM. Your false choice, (BC/AD) or (NPOV) ignores the possibility of using NPOV options like (BC but not AD) or (BC/CE). Let me summarize the argument for adopting (BC but not AD): BC is a common usage that has no offensive political connotations for millions of people of a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds. Forcing adoption of (BCE/CE) for these people would add unnecessary and significant cognitive dissonance. AD is of rarer useage and relatively easy to eliminate from common usage with few repercussions. BC, if adopted into standard use, could mean Before the Common Era or it could mean Before Christ or it could be two letters that indicate an era prior to the year 1 CE. Even if one takes BC to mean Before Christ, it would not be offensive to a Jewish mindset that still waits on a coming Messiah (a Christ) but does not hold belief in the particular Messiahship of a man named Jesus. MPS 19:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

We can't just re-define BC to mean <whatever you want it to mean>. The abbreviation has a meaning, and that meaning is Before Christ (in English). (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate#Is_Meaning_Only_What_is_Intended.3F.

As for: it would not be offensive to a Jewish mindset that still waits on a coming Messiah (a Christ) but does not hold belief in the particular Messiahship of a man named Jesus -

1. If Slr and Jayjg, who are both Jewish, find the usage offensive, that weakens the argument. And that still doesn't answer for people who aren't looking for a Messiah.
2. Since we stop using "before the Messiah" at (about) the time Jesus was born, you can't pretend that it doesn't refer to Jesus' being the Messiah. Anything else stretches credulity.

Something can be offensive and NPOV. Something can be inoffensive and POV. The argument that millions of non-Christians use it doesn't change the underlying POV. We said the Lord's Prayer every morning in school - Christians, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics. Few people were offended. It was just something you did. The NPOV policy celarly states": Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. It does not say that NPOV is that which does no offend. That which does not offend is PC (or at least that's what PC is/was supposed to be). BC is not and can never be without bias because it advotes for the Messiah. Therefore, it is not NPOV. Simple enough. Guettarda 21:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

All good points, indeed. we want to be NPOV and sensitive to good faith criticism, but ultimately cannot seek to please everyone. I would argue that Slr and Jayjig are not offended in the aghast "we are opressed peoples" sense, but more in the annoyed "you are offending my sensibilities" sense. This is the same offense some Christians feel when the BCE/CE is suggested. (I like the example given way above of changing Arabic Numerals to "Common Numerals", as if to say there's something wrong with calling them Arabic). With regards to your last point ("BC can never be without bias") I would argue that as long as we date things to around the time Jesus was born, there's GOING to be a Christian-o-centric bias. Shuffling around what letters we use to describe it won't fool anyone and wont change whether it's POV. MPS

The difference is between saying "In the year of our Lord" vs. saying "In what Christians consider to be the year of their Lord". One asserts an opinion, the other describes an opinion. The Gregorian calendar is pretty much standard. The aim is not to revise the way we date things, its to change an assertion to a description of an assertion. And that is the heart of NPOV. Guettarda 23:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

WE ARE NOT ARGUING OVER AD!!!!!!!! I maintain that BC is vastly less "offensive" and therefore sustainable. Also, Thursday is a name, not an assertion, and it is similarly benign. Was it Wittgenstein that said that most philosphical problems reduce to a difference in the meaning of words? I think there is middle ground here, and I maintain BC/CE would minimize dissent on both sides. MPS 01:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't see the difference - both AD and BC are POV, and thus, are not compatible with NPOV policy. Offending sensibilities (ie, PC) is secondary to NPOV in Wikipedia. In other areas of life I believe differently. But in Wikipedia NPOV trumps PC. Guettarda 19:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wording of the proposal

I feel like the wording of some of the points in the proposal are comming on a bit strong. Saying things like "This argument must be dismissed out of hand" repeatedly does not necessarily make the argument false. There may be counter-arguments to your counter-arguments (counter-counter-arguments, so to speak) which the language written here seems to dismiss out of hand. Also, is it fair to have responces to objections to CE/BCE but not responces to your dismissal of the arguments for AD/BC? Fieari 22:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is polemical, of course, because it is a polemic; I am making a proposal and trying to be very up-front with my reasons. It is of course my opinion that "this argument must be dismissed out of hand." But it is anyone's right to say "I disagree, and here is why ..." I am afraid I do not understand your last question. Do you mean, in my proposal I should have presented an account of the defense for the "AD/BC is NPOV" position? I cannot do it, because I do not know what those arguments are and could not represent them. But it is not my responsibility to provide a rebuttal to my arguments that AD/BC are POV" (the reason I provided accounts of other arguments against my position is simply because I know what they are, based on the discussion on the Talk:Jesus page). But just because I do not know what these arguments are does not mean that they are excluded from this debate. After my proposal, I have three discussion sections: in support of my proposal, in opposition to my proposal, and general discussion. I do not see how I am excluding or prohibiting responses to my dismissal of the arguments for AD/BC. If any one has a response, a counter-argument, a defense, by all means they can explain it in the "opposed" or "general" discussion sections, or on the talk page.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If you do not understand your opponent's arguments, I think you are missing something. Often, contentious debates arise simply because the sides don't take a moment to digest what the other side is saying. I congratulate you for still making an attempt to present both sides, but it is your job to understand the other debates sides. It is far easier to rebut once you have understood. Ambush Commander 02:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Christian or not?

Using a non-Gregorian dating system is not feasible for Wikipedia, but there are these two date-marker conventions which are reasonable to adopt. Not everyone is familiar with the CE/BCE convention, but many people are, and Wikipedia is supposed to be an educational experience anyway, and hyperlinks can clear up any confusion.

One of these conventions (for people who know what the abbreviations expand to) makes reference to a particular religious figure; the other one doesn't. Clearly removing reference to the founder of Christianity is reducing the association of the dating system with Christianity. This is something of a "culture war" loss for Christians who want their religion to be as omni-present as possible. But we live in a multi-religious society, and it's unfair and offensive to some to leave explicitly religious language from a particular sect or tradition in community affairs.

Is changing language from potentially offensive to alternative forms an example of political correctness? Yes. But there are reasonable changes to demand (like saying "black" or "African-American" instead of "nigger") and there are unreasonable changes (like saying "vertically challenged" instead of "short"). For people who aren't offended by AD/BC, don't see the connection with Jesus, or generally just don't care -- well, that's fine. I'm not offended by people who use AD/BC because it's conventional, and I wouldn't label them all as culturally insensitive for doing so. I can see why they argue against the change because they don't want to put lots of work into something that they find pointless. But in this case, there are plenty of other people who are willing to implement the change and fix any future usage.

Simply in terms of awkwardness, I find the change to be an improvement, since it changes the expansion from an archaic, non-English phrase, into one which is more comprehensible and also more factually accurate. In terms of sectarian affairs...well,the first place I encountered the CE/BCE dating system was actually in religion class at the Catholic high school I attended. So at least some Christians see this as a reasonable accommodation in a multi-cultural and multi-sectarian world. After all, they get to keep their dating system and their claim to its historical roots.

At first, I did find the new system somewhat jarring, but I quickly got used to it. (I interpreted "Common Era" to mean "the era that we are all living in right now", not "the era that Jews and Christians share".) Now I read AD and CE dates for semantic meaning more or less transparently. But the "AD" definitely does have more of an 19th-century gravestone feel, where acknowledgment of Christianity is exactly what is intended.

Personally, I would rather see an encyclopedia-wide convention. I don't particularly see any reason to us AD/BC anywhere except in direct quotes. Even when the encyclopedia is talking about Jesus, it should be doing in a neutral and respectful fashion. We have enough mixed conventions as it is. -- Beland 22:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Mom is now Mrs. Larson

When I was a small child, I used to spend a lot of time at my friend Tom Larson's house. His mother was real nice and it kind of became a habit for me to call her Mom. Now I'm grown up and I call her Mrs. Larson. Why? because she's not my mom, she's Tom's mom.

I call Jesus Jesus, Christians call him Christ the Lord. --Tom_Larsons_Friend

Edit war

Slrubenstien has lost the vote on the proposal that he called himself, but this hasn't stopped him from going out and beginning an edit war by making changes on BC to BCE and AD to CE despite the lack of consensus to do such a thing. He has gotten User:SouthernComfort and User:Sunray to work with him to enforce his non-policy. When User:Jguk called them on it, and reverted the changes they were making despite the lack of consensus to do so (and even going against the majority of the votes on the subject), they filed a requrest for arbitration against him. VIoletriga and I have been trying to revert their changes, but the three of them are in cahoots to enforce this non-policy even though they have clearly lost the vote. RickK 22:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

AD/BC dating isn't mandated by policy either. That issue is moot. Edit wars, however, can be governed. In my opinion, you and Violetriga are simply perpetuating the cycle — disagreeable behavior for admins. By the way, if BCE/CE and AD/BC are really synonymous, why does it matter? There's no policy mandating either option. If the arbitration case uses either dating system as a foundation, the case will be inherently dead. Adraeus 00:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

What about the days of the week?

To be consistent, advocates of CE/BCE to replace AD/BC must also reject the current words to label the days of the week in English. These reflect the onetime worship of the moon (Monday), the sun (Sunday), and worship of the various deities; Thor (Thursday), Wotan (Wednesday), Tiu (Tuesday), Saturn (Saturday), and Frige (Friday). So far as I know, none of the advocates of the switch to CE/BCE have any problem with the days of the week. Why not? The answer is that they have a problem with Christianity, but ignore other religious traditions whose relics pervade common speech. The critics of AD/BC are not consistent, and certainly not neutral. Esf456 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)esf456

I suspect that the actual reason for it has nothing to do with that, but rather with the fact that virtually no one knows what the days of the week are named after and that they're a much more ingrained convention. BCE/CE is a much easier change to make because people hardly use BC/AD save in historical articles anyway. We don't say that I was born in 1985 CE, but rather that I was born in 1985. As such I think it is perfectly reasonable to make the switch as it is A) easy to do and B) only has an impact on historical articles anyway. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few things which have traditional religious meanings. Shall we rename the days of the week since they are inspired by norse mythology? What about "Holiday" or it's original "Holy Day". "Enthusiasm" means someone who is divinely inspired. A Bulletin is a pronouncement by the papacy. The months are all named after greek mythology! I'm really tired of this Pagan POV imposed on me. Religious symbology is a part of the English language and articles written in english should reflect their most common usages. Anyone using BCE/CE intentionally is trying to neuter a language that is beyond neutering. --Mrdakadoc (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)