Wikipedia talk:Eras/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Renaming this page

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

Writing policy

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

Extreme simplification

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

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

Well, that would depend on the merits of the case. If you know about non-Christian cultures and religions and about how and why BCE and CE are used by people who study those subjects, you could explain why you oppose it on article talk pages, user talk pages or at the appropriate wikiproject. If you don't, you could find somebody that does and agrees with you to take it furher.

So far, the only arguments I've heard for this to be regulated any further were that either CE and BCE are somehow anti-Christian (which is clearly not true, since many Christians of different traditions use it), or that AD and BC are somehow pro-Christian (which would be true only if they were rarely used in the real world), or that our readers are so stupid that they won't be able to figure out what CE and BCE mean (which, as said elsewhere, is a poor reason for deciding conventions in an enyclopedia). Not enough to prove the need to micromanage year notation. Zocky 09:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Explaining BCE/CE

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

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

zoney ♣ talk 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I think Zocky is mistaken here - he is assuming that all readers have a certain basic knowledge of certain things. This is untrue - particularly when we are dealing on a worldwide basis. I know all about 1066 and all that - it's general knowledge here. But is it general knowledge everywhere: India, Pakistan, United States? We should make editorial decisions on how best to inform readers - and that is by using words and phrases they are most likely to know, and styles with which they are most familiar. Zocky is right that we should not make suppositions - but in this case we know almost everyone understands BC/AD, that by at least a 9:1 majority they prefer BC/AD notation - and are making suppositions about how well known BCE/CE are understood. Should we not go with the known? jguk 12:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

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

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

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

Jguk's view - stated in full for the first time

I laid off outlining my views in full during the NPOV/POV dispute - but now that proposal has failed and it is clear we are not going to get agreement on the NPOV/POV thing, we must move on. Hopefully by outlining my thoughts it will help us towards a sensible conclusion.

Readers

To my mind the reader is the most important thing. I, and I think most people, contribute to WP in the hope that what I add will be read. Indeed, any publication (including web-based publication) should put its readers first. I know this view is not universally held, but to me the reader must always come first.

Putting the readers first is always important when considering style and approach - we should use language our reader understands. After all, a class of 14 year olds will not understand a complicated mathematical proof - but they could understand the broad concepts if put to them in plain language. We should also adopt a style the reader likes - this is fundamentally important, as if we don't do that the reader goes elsewhere. After all, why do I read The Times rather than The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian or The Independent? They have exactly the same news in them. But I read The Times solely because I prefer the style.

So who are our readers? That's an important question. I am arguing that we should pick a style our readers will understand, be familiar with, and will like (and I know not all readers will be happy with the same style). Also, we will get a different answer for different audiences - an journal for US academics will necessarily adopt a different style from an English town's amateur historical society.

Our readers are anyone who reads English who may look for encyclopaedic information on the web. A broad mix. Americans, Canadians, Britons, Irish, Indians, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders, Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. etc. the list goes on. Lots of different people with different backgrounds, different ages and different knowledge-levels.

Having identified our readers, we ask ourselves what's the most appropriate style. In this case we know that BC/AD notation is very well understood, has been used as a standard worldwide, and continues to be used as a worldwide standard. Google (which is probably biased towards BCE/CE usage as it will be biased towards US and academic usage here) suggests BC/AD notation is preferred over BCE/CE notation in a ratio of 9:1. The issue isn't even close. There is also the point that many do not understand BCE/CE or like BCE/CE notation. After all, even so much as teaching what BCE/CE means did not enter the English National Curriculum until 2002. Prima facie there is no reason for any English people who haven't studied history under the National Curriculum since 2002 to have even heard of the term. Similar situations persist throughout the world.

Why we are where we are

Up to the recent NPOV/POV discussion, WP had in practice taken the following approach:

• Almost all articles used BC/AD notation (where appropriate)
• However almost all articles on Buddhism used BCE/CE notation (where appropriate)
• A slight majority of articles on Judaism used BCE/CE notation, though a significant minority used BC/AD notation
• There were a very small number of other articles that used BCE/CE notation (certainly under 400, probably lower)
• A fair number of articles that used BCE/CE notation over time changed to BC/AD notation. This was not because of a conscious effort to change, but more because new editors came along and used BC/AD notation (without amending the BCE/CE notation) - and then at some time the notation was made consistent within that page to what was then the majority notation (BC/AD)

It's worth asking why this is the case. It's clearly not because of any whole-hearted campaign by anybody. It's happened naturally. And this must be because that is what our reader-editors use. Naturally. Not to make a point - it's what they are most familiar with, what they understand and what they are most comfortable with. Essentially, where we are now is further evidence of the style we should adopt.

Comparators

We have a number of competitors - Britannica and Encarta are probably the best known. They possibly have slightly different audiences for us in that Britannica's will have a more British slant, and Encarta's will have a more American slant, but they both see their audience as being worldwide - and not too dissimilar to ours. They are commercial ventures, for whom number of paying readers is paramount. It is coincidence that both of those prefer the BC/AD convention.

Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of our readers and our reader-editors are likely to be most at ease using BC/AD notation. (Many may be confused by BCE/CE notation too.) If we want to appeal to as many readers as possible (which, by default, will mean we appeal to as many editors and potential editors as possible) we should adopt the style preferred by most. There is some evidence that on articles connected with Buddhism and some articles connected with Judaism that we should come to the opposite conclusion - and preferring BCE/CE for Buddhism, and allowing a mixture of BC/AD and BCE/CE notation for Judaism.

Proposed way forward

Before the recent dispute, the practice was to allow articles to adopt either style, and to recommend strongly against deliberately changin the style. This approach is the one we adopt on the American v British English disputes, and the one that naturally beds down to what most readers and editors prefer. I have outlined where this approach has taken us above. I strongly recommend that we formalise this approach going forward - it will give our readers what they want and put no impediment in the way of WP growing. Kind regards, and for those of you who made it to the end, thank you for your time, jguk 19:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk says: "[T]he practice was to allow articles to adopt either style, and to recommend strongly against deliberately changin the style." As discussed at the top of this page, this approach has only been "practice" for some. Perhaps you missed my comment above. I will repeat part of it here:

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

To continue insisting it is (or was) current practice is arguable and counter productive, IMO. Sunray 19:49, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Controversial edits often lead to edit wars. When a person has their edits reverted by more than one person they should not keep changing it back. Other people should also not change it back, and discussion should take place. The change from BC/AD to BCE/CE is obviously controversial and should not be insisted upon without such discussion. The article should remain in its original state (prior to any argument) while the discussions continue. That is the fairest thing to do. violet/riga (t) 20:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A policy proposal

Like many others, I have read through the options on the Project Page and I'm still scratching my head. So here's a proposal:

• We make the current provisions of the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) a policy.
• We add to it only one thing: An emphasis on consensus on dates and numbers between the authors of a particular article.
• This can be done by a simple statement and a link to Wikipedia:Consensus, thus:
  • "In determining whether to use BC/AD, or BCE/CE, authors of an article will be guided by consensus."

Could we perhaps put this up for vote? It is not a big step from where we are now and we might get general agreement to abide by it.

Ideally, it would be nice to have a guideline as to when a particular form of notation would be appropriate. Such as: "Normally BC/AD is the default position on the English Wikipedia, however, BCE/CE is approprate for articles on non-Christian topics pertaining to non-Christian regions of the world." However, I'm not sure we could get consensus on this. Sunray 19:30, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

The first part of your suggestion is exactly what this vote is about. The second should never, and will never, be accepted. violet/riga (t) 19:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

O.k. Could you please describe how someone would vote if they wanted an outcome such as I've described? Sunray 19:50, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

It depends if you think the discussion should take place before or after the change. If you think that the change should be done and then discussed then you are "favouring the change". If you think that the change should not be done until discussion has taken place (and consensus reached) you should vote for the first variation of "favour discussion". violet/riga (t) 20:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Favouring the change" seems ambiguous to me. What change? I need to think about this. Sunray 20:17, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

"Favouring the change" refers to the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa, and a vote for that means that you think the discussion should take place only if someone objects to the change. violet/riga (t) 20:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

First, we shouldn't rush to vote - only talking will lead to a conclusion we can all live with.

Second, is Sunray saying that under no circumstances should our readers be a concern to us? If not, when should they be? jguk 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Our readers are always our first concern. This is an encyclopedia—a place for learning. There has already been a good discussion about this (see Explaining BCE/CE, above). I agree with violet/riga's point: "... it should be policy to link the first occurance." Sunray 20:14, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Let's stay at the point we agree on - that our readers should always be our first concern/top priority - and see if others agree on that point too. If so, and I hope it will be, perhaps it can form a useful starting point towards reconciliation on this. Kind regards, jguk 22:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Our (potential) readers should never be our first concern. Accuracy should always be our first concern. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The priority is the readers. In WP's case, we quickly come to the conclusion that accuracy is fundamental. This isn't true generally - readers of The Onion or the Uncyclopaedia, for example, do not want accuracy. For something like The Beano, accuracy has no real meaning, jguk 07:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. While the readership is very important, and it seems that everyone is in agreement on that, wikipedia does more than pander to popularity. While many people may not understand BCE/CE, most are also likely not to understand MYA, but that does not mean that wikipedia should avoid using that notation in articles on geology or evolutionary biology. If the use of CE/BCE is in fact a better, more accurate, more NPOV, prettier, whatever standard then it would be appropriate for wikipedia to consider its use, and it needs to be determined which standard serves the purposes of the encyclopedia better. Much of the debate that's been presented on this topic has been derailed in one way or another, starting with the proposal being presented based purely on NPOV issues, but also the many assertions that it's not the "commonly used" convention. Wikipedia is not written in any "common" sort of language; that is, the language used here does not resemble that used by all (or almost all) of us at home, on the street, or on the phone. We have both an great opportunity and a responsibility to do more than just present the reader with the most "commonly accepted" versions of things. If it serves the mission of wikipedia better, it shoudl be used. If not, it shouldn't. siafu 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That most people do not understand MYA most certainly does mean that we have to be careful about its use. It certainly should never be used without explanation, and even then, I imagine there are very few articles that look better with it. Besides, this is diverting us from the main point here, jguk 07:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, this is the main point here. Your claim is that we should be presenting the readers with the notation with which they are most comfortable, in order to please them. I hold that that is not our primary concern. Additionally, the fact that The Onion or the Unencyclopedia are not concerned with accuracy does not bear on this discussion either. The purpose of wikipedia is not to make our readers laugh, not to entertain, but to inform, therefore while accuracy isn't important to humorous publications, it is the first priority for wikipedia. siafu 13:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy is important because we are an encyclopaedia and readers of an encyclopaedia demand accuracy. Our readers look for it, that is why it is fundamental.

However, this is, of course, an aside. This dispute is not about accuracy, it is about style. My point, however, that in my opinion readers should be our primary concern, remains. Kind regards, jguk 18:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case, do you feel that our article about Ockham's Razor should be at Occam's Razor or Ockham's Razor? This is an example of accuracy and style colliding. These two concerns are not necessarily separable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a subject I am familiar with, so am unable to comment. It seems unrelated to the current discussion though, jguk 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, "Of course we're concerned with accuracy, we're an encyclopedia. This is about style." My point is that accuracy and style can conflict with each other. Where they do, accuracy should trump style. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, the accuracy question is a red herring as it pertains to the era name debate. Switching between BC/AD and BCE/CE (or any other era naming convention) does not affect accuracy at all. What does factor into this debate? Some have argued that the choice of era name can be more or less NPOV than another; others dispute that assertion—but at least there is a question of NPOV. And there seems to be widespread agreement that matters of style should factor into the era name question. (Anyhow, it seems that this policy/M.o.S. proposal centers more on how to resolve disputes around era names, not on prescribing any particular era name style.) But I suggest that we drop the subject of accuracy, as important as it may be as a core Wikipedia principle, because it simply has nothing to do with this debate. Alanyst 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I concede that accuracy is not relevant directly, and I may have focussed on it more than was appropriate. What I'm really intent on making clear, however, is that writing to our audience is not necessarily our prime concern. It's important, certainly, but at the same time if one of these two standards serves the principles of the project better, whether it is or is not the most common or most expected by the readers, we should use that one instead of simply following the general status quo. siafu 03:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just say that readability and NPOV and all the other Wikipedia principles are important, and that when they conflict we need to find an appropriate balance? Readability shouldn't be automatically overridden by conflicting concerns, but neither should it be elevated above all else. And which balance should be struck is probably dependent quite a bit on the particular article involved in the matter, so a one-size-fits-all policy to establish a particular standard is likely not to work. That's why I like this proposed policy (or MoS amendment, or hybrid, whatever it is): most of the alternatives provide a way to solve the problem at the local article level, with guidelines on how to resolve disputes without resorting to endless edit wars. It also nicely undermines any era-name POV warriors by forcing them to fight the same battle in many places in order to convert articles to their favored standard, while providing the useful contributors with the power to stop unwarranted conversion as well as to make needed changes. Alanyst 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's argument (his "view stated in full for the first time") basically amounted to the following:

1. Our primary concern is writing to the audience

2. BC/AD is what our audience is familiar with

3. We should use BC/AD

I was taking issue with the major premise of the argument, since it's my view that this is not the case and there are other factors that are more important. For example, I personally believe that BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD, and the readability concern is not such a huge issue (it's not like "Before the Common Era" is rocket science, or like anyone would be offended by it). However, I also hold that it's important for the MoS to choose one of these over the other instead of being agnostic about it; even if BC/AD is chosen I think that's preferable to having both in use. Doing so (using both) is just going to make things excessively complicated. siafu 13:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But that's not going to happen as we saw in the other vote. We aren't going to be able to gain consensus on which to choose, hence this vote. violet/riga (t) 13:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Except the other vote wasn't really designed that way. Certainly it seems that the slim consensus was not in favor of switching over to BCE/CE, but we haven't had a vote wherein the editors were forced to choose one over the other. Of course I'm going to vote here and respect whatever comes out of it, but I needed to be heard (read?) first. siafu 13:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to choose one era naming style as the standard Wikipedia-wide. Clearly there are articles where BCE/CE is more appropriate, and equally clearly there are articles where BC/AD or even a non-Gregorian approach is more appropriate. And there are plenty of articles where it's not clear which is more appropriate (or even whether there is a "more appropriate" choice). So, I think we should strive to avoid declaring a style as "the winner" and instead focus on crafting a policy that allows the question to be resolved at the individual article level while discouraging edit wars. I would be opposed to any policy that required BC/AD or BCE/CE or any other style to be used as the universal era naming standard in Wikipedia. There's no reason they can't coexist. Sure, we want consistency within each article, but even then the editors can achieve a compromise (see Jesus) if choosing just one style is problematic. The important thing is to provide a resolution process for style disputes, not to pre-emptively resolve them. Alanyst 14:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV claim here promotes division

Exactly - in fact to claim that BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD is to claim that those editors who support BC/AD are POV pushers in disguise. Most Wikipedians are very committed to the NPOV as both an ideal and as the practical way to build an excellent encyclopedia. This continued insistence that one style is NPOV and the other is Christian POV: 1) insults one group (as they see themselves as promoting NPOV and some BC/AD proponents are not Christian), 2) does not recognize that both systems are used to indicate the beginning of an era based upon a religious event (wrongfully determined but a fact we can not avoid), and 3) further divides us as Wikipedians. We need a workable style that recognizes the value of both systems and provides a framework for discussion on the relevant talk pages on what is appropriate for each article rather than more rules. Trödel|talk 14:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere am I implying that the editors who use either system are POV-pushers. I referred to the terms only, and not the pople. siafu 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the discussion here has been professional. I still think that is one of the reasons that I, for one, had a visceral negative reaction to the change at the beginning - because I didn't see my view as violating NPOV.

In these heated discussions where the evidence of NPOV is not obvious, it does a disservice when there is a continuous insistance that one view is NPOV and the other is not, not be cause of any intended implication, but because it is a reasonable inference from the discussion that to oppose the view claimed to be NPOV is to oppose a cherished value of the community. People identify themselves with their viewpoint especially if they think it is neutral and to insist that it is not is often viewed more personally. Trödel|talk 16:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)