Wikipedia talk:Eras/Compromise proposal

Dynamic Proposal
I noticed in the tutorial that dates are recommended to be placed in links: e.g., May 1, 1980 (my birthday). Why not place the era-signifier in a link too? i.e., March 15, 44 BC (the assassination of Julius Caesar). Just as the date and year can be styled according to user preferences, so too can the BC be converted to BCE dynamically, based on user preferences. Thus, registered users who are actually offended by BC/AD nomenclature can see their preferred style of naming eras across the board. The main reason for suggesting BC/AD as a default is that it already seems to be the dominant usage on Wikipedia (17113 matches for BC versus 2848 for BCE; but especially see titles such as 44 BC--now that I think of it, perhaps the link should instead be March 15, 44 BC). However, it is possible to combine this dynamic proposal with any other proposal on what should be default usage: for example, if CE is used in articles pertaining to Judaism, then CE could be converted to AD dynamically for those who have that setting, while those who have the opposite setting will see CE on all pages, including the Jesus article. This would not change occurences of BC/BCE/AD/CE that did not occur in a link, with either those letters alone in the link, or accompanied by just a number preceding the letters. Of course the guideline would remain that articles dealing entirely with the last two thousand years would not use either. (For disclosure, I am an atheist academic used to seeing CE/BCE in my reading and who usually writes CE/BCE. --Peter Kirby 21:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC))

Jesus article
I have to disagree with the statement that the primary article on Jesus is (or ever should be) construed as being restricted to him as a religious figure; he is also a figure of interest to history & there are historicity sections of the article. There are already articles like Christian views of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life which ARE from a religious viewpoint. I seriously doubt wikipedia articles that do not qualify their viewpoint in the title should EVER be restricted to being from a religious viewpoint. It is on this issue that the proposed compromise will likely hang. Btw, there has been peace on this issue in the Jesus article for some time.--JimWae 20:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC) Look at the Jesus article - it presently uses BOTH BC/AD & BCE/CE as a compromise. --JimWae 01:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the article on Jesus should not be written from a Christian point of view (since I'm an agnostic myself), I do think the article is (and should be) primarily about his role as a religious figure in Christianity, since that is the main reason for his notability (though certainly not the only reason). Kaldari 20:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kaldari - Jesus is only known as a religious figure. The texts we have about him concentrate almost exclusively on the last year before his crucifixion during which he went round Judea and Galilee preaching. He has no real identity other than as a religious figure. Just as WP's articles on the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi will show them as religious figures, the article on Jesus should clearly show him as a religious figure too.

It should be about Jesus, his role in Christianity being a major topic, but not exclusively. To do otherwise would violate NPOV --JimWae 21:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC). I agree it could be acceptable to use BC/AD in Christian views of Jesus & such, but endorsing a preference for an abbreviation that means either that Jesus is Lord (AD) or Jesus is Saviour(BC) in an article about Jesus is either taking a position on his divinity or simply choosing to simply overlook grounded objections to its use - either way a violation of NPOV. Change the proposal to articles about Jesus from a religious perspective and I could agree. Unfortunately, as the proposal is worded, it also proposes to change every article on wikipedia that deals with Jesus or Christianity into a POV article. --JimWae 23:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)


 * Accepting your reading of AD and BC as POV, I'm inclined to say that most of the articles you are referring to are already POV ("every article on wikipedia that deals with Jesus or Christianity"). Are you projecting that there is/would be a counter-consensus on these articles in favor of BCE/CE?  siafu 23:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that most articles concerning Jesus and Christianity currently either do not use era designations at all (as it is generally not necessary), or use BC/AD. In fact, this seems to be the case for every single article I have looked at. Thus I don't see how this proposal would actually change any articles to be POV articles, by your definition. As it stands right now, we already allow BC and AD in articles about Jesus (it just isn't officially stated in the style manual). So I don't see the logic behind your argument. By your definition, this proposal would be dramatically reducing the number of POV articles as articles about other religious topics would no longer use BC/AD. Kaldari 23:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the source of my query. It appears that this policy would only be codifying an already extant practice.  Is there some reason to suppose that this practice is likely to be otherwise overturned? siafu 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I should have said "endorsing a preference for BC/AD". Look at Jesus article - it uses both Common Era & AD--JimWae 01:32, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)


 * Yes, it uses both, but it still says Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Saviour, right? The BCE/CE that's added on doesn't change that. BCE/CE proponents gain nothing from the dual-use compromise seen on the Jesus article. It doesn't satisfy any of their criticisms of BC/AD. At least with my proposal more articles will actually be using BCE/CE. You should especially consider the fact that virtually no articles about Christianity actually need to use era designations, but a very large number of articles about judaism, buddhism, and hinduism do. Kaldari 04:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The policy, as stated, will NOT settle the issue on the Jesus article, since there is already disagreement about whether or not the article is (or ever should be) about Jesus as a religious figure. I have linked above 2 articles that clearly are about Jesus as a religious figure, but the main Jesus article is not restricted to him as a religious figure. I think, if the proposal passes, that the wikipedia founders would clearly weigh in that the Jesus article should NOT be restricted to religious views - for that would be POV. As for the awkward compromise, at least it shows sensitivity & that the authors are aware of the issue - which BC & AD (solely) on that page would not show. --JimWae 05:33, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)


 * Jim, this proposal is not about what subject matter the Jesus article should be restricted to. I think it is quite obvious that the Jesus article is primarily (but not exclusively) about Jesus' role as a religious figure. The article uses the word "God" over 50 times, for Christ's sake! Regardless, your assessment of this proposal is done in the wrong context, IMO. This proposal is not about judging how POV one style is over another. In Wikipedia, both styles are currently considered equal. Neither is considered more POV than the other. BC/AD and BCE/CE are both officially acceptable anywhere in Wikipedia. This proposal is not about changing that. If you want to change that, you should start your own proposal to declare BC/AD as POV. As long as BC/AD and BCE/CE are both considered acceptable anywhere in Wikipedia, it would be nice to give some guidance on where certain styles make more sense. This proposal is about trying to establish some sanity to our style practices and trying to avoid endless edit wars. On the Jesus article, I have only 2 points to make:
 * The dual-use compromise is a poor solution that serves no one's interests (other than certain egos) and is awkward for readers.
 * Even though a majority of people would prefer that BCE/CE be used on that article, you will never be able to get a decisive consensus on that or effectively enforce such a decision on the article due to the vocal minority that adamently opposes not using BC/AD there.
 * If you disagree with those statements, you should rightly oppose this proposal, but otherwise I think you are arguing against a strawman. Kaldari 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use BCE/CE in Hindu-related artices?
It's only really the articles on Buddhism and some on Judaism that use BCE/CE notation. It's irrelevant for religions younger than 2,000 years old (such as Islam), and from what I've seen, most of the articles on other faiths quite happily sit with BC in them. The proposal should be amended to replace "non-Christian religions" with "Buddhism" and allow it on some Judaism-oriented articles. It would be perverse to force BCE/CE notation on Hinduism-related articles, for example, as BCE/CE notation is virtually unknown in India. The other problem with the proposal is that "consensus" is not defined. 195.40.200.141
 * I must confess I am ignorant of which styles are used in India, but I imagine that most people in India will be using the Hindi wikipedia anyway. Also remember that there are more than 2 million Hindus in the U.S. alone (where BCE/CE is commonly used). As to the issue of consensus, if there is a vote, consensus will be specifically defined. Kaldari 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea; why don't you stop removing all references to BCE/CE from articles, while pretending you plan, one day, to remove references to AD as well. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * We really should be narrowing down this dispute, not increasing it by bringing in articles on Hinduism (where this dispute has not raged). Of the religions to consider - let's take them in turn: almost all if not all Buddhism-related articles already use BCE/CE notation. Let's accept that will not change. Most, but certainly not all, Judaism-related articles use BCE/CE notation, with the others using BC/AD notation. Let's also accept that as the status quo. As far as Christianity is concerned, we're only really talking about the Jesus article itself - all other dates in Christianity are within the last 2,000 years and no date notation is needed as there is no ambiguity between dates BC and AD to resolve.


 * As far as other religions are concerned, most others originated within the last 2,000 years, and so similarly there is nothing to disambiguate - we need neither AD nor CE. And as for the rest, such as Hinduism, they have quite happily always used BC/AD, and we really shouldn't go upsetting the applecart.


 * Perhaps we can agree on something, Jayjg, so let me offer a proposal that would help a lot of articles. Where all years referred to in an article relate to the year 100 or later, there really is nothing to disambiguate. Can we agree therefore that in that instance, we have no reference to either AD or CE?


 * And I'll get on to removing extraneous AD's soon. I'm being hampered by you, however, who keeps changing references to very recent years such as last year to be "2004 CE". No-one expects us to refer to last year as anything other than "2004".

A Modest Proposal
It would be simple enough to side-step the whole debate. Instead of fighting over BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, we should use AUC as the time basis. Since it's based on a fairly arbitrary starting point, there'll be no fighting over implied endorsement or rejection of a Christian POV. --Carnildo 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * AUC cannot be substituted for either BC/AD or BCE/CE because the first day of its year is not 1 January. The first day of the AUC year is Founder's Day (21 April) when Rome is said to have been founded by Romulus and Remus. During the early Christian centuries, Roman celebrations associated with Founder's Day sometimes conflicted with the solemnity of Lent which did not end until the Saturday before Easter Sunday. Thus the Church of Rome objected to any Easter date proposed by the Church of Alexandria that happended to be between 22 April and 25 April, inclusive. &mdash; Joe Kress 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't present a problem. 20 April, 47 AD would be 20 April, 799 AUC, while 21 April, 47 AD would be 21 April, 800 AUC. It's simply a matter of remembering that the new year isn't the same. --Carnildo
 * The problem is that there is no way we can correctly translate the CE years to AUC, if we don't know the date. And what about all events that are limited to a specific year? (Most old dates are not known) So much is tied to the years that it's cumbersome to describe them in other ways than the CE years. &mdash; Sverdrup 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with using AUC. I expect that most people will have no idea what it means. Maurreen 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to eat babies. They are not very nutritive. siafu 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support compromise proposal
I support the compromise proposal for the reasons given on the project page. I'd also like to thank Kaldari for this work. Maurreen 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst's compromise counter-proposal
I think there are great intentions and some very good ideas behind this proposal but I have one major concern that leads me to be opposed to it.

Central to this proposal is regarding BC/AD and BCE/CE as being POV. From this follows the idea that articles should use the style whose POV best suits the subject of the article.

There's a serious problem here: the proposal suggests that it's OK to assign a particular POV to an article, which contravenes NPOV policy. More practically, it puts Wikipedia editors in the position of having to judge whether an article is about a religious topic or not, and which religious topics are more suited to BC/AD and which are more suited to BCE/CE. That's just asking for trouble.

How would I do it? Well, here's my proposed revision of the entire section on Eras from the Manual of Style. See what you think:


 * Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable for denoting years in the Gregorian or Julian calendar. However, choosing either style of era name over the other can be controversial, since that choice may be seen by some as endorsing a particular point of view.  Wikipedia takes no position on whether either style connotes a point of view, but recognizes that the controversy exists both within and external to Wikipedia.  In order to avoid ongoing conflict regarding era naming styles, you should apply the following principles when choosing era names:


 * Avoid using era names except to reduce ambiguity. Write 2005 instead of AD 2005 or 2005 CE, unless events span the start of the Common Era.  BC and BCE are harder to avoid because of the inherent ambiguity with AD/CE dates, so this rule applies principally to AD and CE.
 * Be consistent within an article. An article may use BC/AD, BCE/CE, or some hybrid of the two to express dates, but it should express all dates requiring era names in the same way.
 * Favor a style that is friendly to the reader for the given subject. A good approach is to follow the style currently used in the relevant literature (considering both scholarly and general works), if one particular style is predominant.  Also consider whether the general readership would be familiar with the era name used.  If a less familiar era name or a different calendar is used, such as BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago) for articles about prehistory, expand these abbreviations on first use so that readers can quickly acquaint themselves with their meaning.
 * Obtain consensus before changing an article's existing style. Changes to an article's era naming style should first be proposed on the article's Talk page and consensus obtained in favor of the proposal before making the actual change.

Under these guidelines, I believe that we can avoid a lot of the endless POV warring. In particular, the question of a style's suitability for a certain article becomes a matter of looking at the external literature and at general usage, instead of trying to define what POV best fits the article. The guidelines also allow for hybrid approaches where necessary, so in cases like Jesus a compromise can be reached that is still deemed acceptable under Wikipedia's standards.

Alanyst 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a well-written proposal, and well thought out. siafu 22:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This proposal gives clear guidelines that will be of use to editors. Sunray 06:09, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I am opposed to the entire "reader-friendly" argument. Anyone who reads an encyclopedia expects to learn new things. To learn that scholars often use BCE and CE is not "unfriendly," it is useful information. I think many people are turning a mole-hill into a mountain, as if using BCE and CE will cause emotional distress to readers and turn many away. On the contrary, some readers will just learn that scholars use a different dating system. I think it makes sense to use BC and Ad when providing an account of a Christian POV. When providing accounts of a Jewish or other non-Christian POV, use BCE and CE. In all other areas, see if there is a general trend among scholars. If so, follow it; if not, discuss it among the contributors to the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  13:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps that section could be modified accordingly.  Sunray 14:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, would it make a difference if I said I thought BCE/CE could be considered the more reader-friendly style in many articles, even perhaps some that deal with ostensibly Christian topics? For example, an article about the historicity of Jesus might more appropriately follow the BCE/CE style if that is the common style used in the literature.  Likewise, BC/AD may be more reader-friendly even for certain non-Christian topics, especially if (as some have argued about Hinduism-related articles) the BCE/CE notation is virtually unknown to or unused by the people who tend to read and edit those topics.  But in my opinion, that's for the editors of each article to decide, and not for us to prejudice the decision one way or the other with rules about which article topics should use which particular style.
 * I agree that we want readers to learn new things, so unfamiliar terms shouldn't be rejected offhand. But there's a balance that needs to be struck according to the purposes and intended audience of the article, which can legitimately differ from those of other articles.  An "entry-level" article with a broad and shallow treatment of a topic should probably adhere to the vernacular, while an in-depth study useful for conducting scholarship should use scholarly jargon without fear of alienating the reader.  As the article's editors are best positioned to judge its purpose and target audience, they should be the ones to decide how to balance reader-friendliness and scholarly precision.  Just as substituting "Canis familiaris" for "dog" in an article about Snoopy (or "dog" for "Canis familiaris" in an article about canine biology) might be unnecessarily jarring to the reader, so might substituting "BCE" for "BC" be jarring in a general article whose audience is unacquainted with BCE/CE, just as using "BC" instead of "BCE" might be jarring in a scholarly article about Persian royalty.  The point is, there's no way to prescribe rules that will adequately decide the issue for even a fraction of the articles, so we should defer to the article editors and just give them guidelines to help them find the right balance themselves while focusing on arguments that can be substantiated (such as readability) instead of arguments that are much more subjective and emotional and POV (such as how "Christian" an article is). Alanyst 16:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User-friendliness is fundamentally important. If you adopt a style a reader does not like, that reader goes away and reads about the subject on another website or another publication that has a style he likes. Why after all do I choose to read The Times rather than The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or The Independent? They all have the same news. The answer comes down purely to style. "Thinking of the reader" is the most important principle of all - we should stick to it firmly. (Incidentally, to those who say accuracy is more important - I disagree, but note that readers of an encyclopaedia demand accuracy, and that is what makes it important.)

Readers do expect to learn something, but as Alanyst is getting at, they expect to learn something about the subject they are looking up - not something completely and utterly different. If I look up an article on Ramesses II, say, I want to learn something new about him - but I don't want to be confused by new date notations and to learn about them (If I want that, I'll search under "dates" or "date formats" or "eras" or something of that ilk).

We should also remember that WP is an international encyclopaedia. Our audience is the world, not US academia. We should therefore ask ourselves not "what do US scholars use?" but rather "what does the world use?". Here, the position is clear - the world uses BC/AD. Looking round the world, BCE/CE is virtually unknown in India. I have only ever seen it in the UK when looking at the occasional American book (though most of those use BC/AD anyway). In Australia, when BCE/CE notation was introduced in one exam paper, there were questions in Parliament complaining about it as there was a backlash against introduction of the notation. There was a similar backlash (although it did not, as far as I am aware reach Parliament) when the teaching of what BCE/CE notation meant was introduced into the English and Welsh national curriculum in 2002. The message is clear - BCE/CE notation is rarely known outside North America, and indeed there has been much offence taken when there have been attempts to introduce it. The message is clear: for WP the only user-friendly notation is BC/AD.

We should also bear in mind that BCE/CE notation is "politically correct" (and anything that is "politically correct" is viewed, certainly hear in Britain, with a great deal of suspicion - it announces immediately that the author has a political agenda, rather than a desire to impart facts). It's whole introduction in the US follows the "politically correct" style: (1) pick an innocuous phrase used by everyone without complaint; (2) decide some people might be offended by it (generally-speaking, without even bothering to check who is really offended by it anyway); (3) propose an alternative (forgetting that in so doing you are probably offending a great great many people more than are offended by the original terminology in the first place); (4) get at anyone who disagrees with you, forcefully and unrelentingly. Thankfully we in the UK have been spared the worst excesses of this vile movement that seeks to eliminate free speech and the right to hold an alternative opinion. Let's hope we can keep WP free from it too - WP will alienate so so many people if it ever does start introducing politically correct terms.

Going back to Alanyst's proposal - it is indeed a great improvement on Kaldari's. In the first bullet point the phrase "of the Common Era" should be replaced with "of the last 2,000 years" as it would be confusing otherwise (it presupposes people know what "Common Era" means in this context and I do not believe it is true - I for one would not have recognised its meaning in these terms before this WP debate). I don't understand the second bullet point. On the third bullet point the bit in brackets is tautologous. Jguk.


 * As Jguk nicely demonstrates, the problem with Alanyst's proposal is that is it still too ambiguous. It uses far more text to convey less actual guidance. Which style is more "friendly to readers" for a give topic seems just as open for debate as which style is less POV. Analyst's proposal is basically just restaing what is already stated in other guidelines and policies: base your content on a distillation of outside sources. We already know that that's how articles are supposed to be written. That hasn't helped prevent the problem at hand, however. I believe we need to codify some concrete agreements on specific areas if we are ever to substantially reduce the BCE/CE/BC/AD conflicts. Idologically, I actually prefer Alanyst's proposal, as it seems closer to a pure interpretation of WP policies, but practically, I think it is of limited usefulness in this situation. I think it would be far more useful to go ahead and define what is "more friendly" for readers of certain topics and put that in the style guide. In my opinion, it is more friendly to use BC/AD in Jesus articles and BCE/CE in non-Christian religious articles. I also think a lot of other editors feel the same way. If we can build consensus on that from the get-go, I think it would be a lot more useful than wasting space on more nebulous guidelines (which can still be interpreted by Jguk to mean that BC/AD should be the standard everywhere). Kaldari 19:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, whilst I'm sure it is not the intention of your proposal, it is not actually a compromise - it's really a proposal to move the notation used in articles on Hinduism (and a few other old religions) from the current BC/AD notation that they have always used to BCE/CE notation. Put like that (and I'm afraid that is the only effect of it), the proposal must fail. I have disagreed very much with Fred on this, but his comments below make sense. I would suggest two tweaks though (see below). Jguk

jon, since you're editing again, why not just login? Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definite decision
I suggest we "flip a coin," pick one and move on. As the BC-AD usage is more common let that be the default. However, if the editor of any article wishes to switch, after raising the question on the talk page and receiving no objection from any regular editor of the article, they should be able to so. Once switched, it could not be switched back. Fred Bauder 20:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Existing articles could be made consistent, but campaigns of changing era notation and edit warring over era notation sanctioned. Fred Bauder 20:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you allow articles to be changed to match a "BC/AD default", I don't see how you could reasonally expect to avoid campaigns of changing era notation and edit warring. If anything, I think such a guideline would exacerbate the current situation. Also, you should know that your suggestion was already offered in a proposal a while back by Jguk, which failed to gain consensus (although it also included other changes to the style guide). Kaldari 20:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fred Bauder (20:33, Jun 23, 2005 ), with the addition of the words " for at least 2 months" to the end of the final sentence. Can we vote on it? 22:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have disagreed very much with Fred on this issue, but I agree with him here, apart from three tweaks. (1) We all know actual changes often get noticed more than discussions on talk pages - there should be a "bedding down" time after any change; (2) No change should be permanent - it should be possible to change it back using the same approach; (3) There's no definition of "regular editor". Best to replace the term with "Wikipedian", Jguk 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has been proposed twice, once in either direction, and neither managed to achieve consensus. As I've stated before, it would be my preference to have a final decision, but it's become rather obvious that there is no consensus to be made, at least not at present. The status quo is also clearly not functional, as there are clearly parties who are willing to push forward their preferred notation without subjecting themselves to discussion or consensus; this is the real problem. Both Kaldari's and Alanyst's proposals are aimed at resolving that, and it's clear that we need such a clear guideline to elucidate the need for consensus on a case by case basis and to at least attempt to delineate which notation is preferred where. I do not believe Fred Bauder's proposition can be successful in any productive way, and I do believe that one of the two above compromises would be more successful. siafu 23:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I support any definite unambiguous solution. Fred Bauder 01:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I support is
 * As the BC-AD usage is more common let that be the default. However, if the editor of any article wishes to switch, after raising the question on the talk page and receiving no objection from any frequent editor of the article, they should be able to so. Once switched, an article could not be switched back for 2 months.
 * The definition of a frequent editor is one who has edited that article more than just copyediting, or wikification, more than 5 times each week for at least the month prior to the discussion. In the situation where there are no such frequent editors, or less than 3, editors fulfilling the same criteria, but for articles that linked to the page one month prior to the discussion shall count as frequent editors. If this fails to find at least 3 frequent editors, then this rule is to be recursively applied to articles, until at least 3 such editors have been found.

13:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problem
In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD

This phrase must be re-written. The borders of what constitutes "non-Christian" are very vague, e.g. is Judaism non-Christian before 0AD ? What about the bible? or the Old Testament? What about background information about what was going on in the first century AD?     13:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Its pretty clear that the main grievance against AD - BC comes from Jews and that to the extent the usage is offensive, it is mainly offensive to them. To other non-Christian cultures there is no real sting to the usage. However, we are committed under NPOV and our reluctance to tolerate POV forks we can't have separate articles regarding the Old Testament and Jewish history from a Christian and Jewish perspective (Which to my mind is the common sense solution -- needless to say it is almost impossible to have an article on Jesus which is any good which shares both perspectives). Fred Bauder 15:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Bible is certainly not "non-Christian". That's an easy one. And most general historical information is not a "religious topic". Kaldari 17:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen Muslims aren't too happy with BC/AD either, and they have strongly held beliefs about Jesus as well. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 16:05 (UTC)
 * Good point, do you have any suggestion for how to address that? Kaldari 28 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

I dispute Jayjg's premise - however, the whole point is irrelevant for Islam as it did not start till the 6th century. There's never any need to disambiguate a year: we need no date marker, jguk 28 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Jayjg, could you provide an example of where this would present a problem. The only article that comes to mind is Isa, but it seems that this article doesn't use era designations anyway. Still, it's an interesting delimma, hypothetically. Any suggestions? Kaldari 28 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Jesus is "our Lord" is, if anything more anathema in Islam than Judaism. As for articles in which it might be relevant, articles about Qur'anic figures come to mind, including Abraham, Isaac/Ishaq, Jacob/Yaqub, Ishmael, Moses, Job (Biblical figure), Haman (Islam), etc. As soon as their historicity is discussed (and in a decent article it would be), dates have to be mentioned.  Jayjg (talk)  28 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)


 * That's why I chose to designate articles concerning Jesus rather than articles concerning Christianity. I do not have a solution to the articles you mention, other than to seek consensus. But perhaps you were directing your comments to Fred and Jguk rather than to me, I'm not sure. Kaldari 28 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)
 * Uh...consensus was sought, and after a great deal of haranguing, achieved, at Talk:Jesus, leading to what you view as a bad choice (mention of both dating systems). Not to troll, but are we to take from this that you believe consensus is a bad thing?  Tomer TALK  July 1, 2005 04:29 (UTC)
 * You have a point. Maybe I should drop the Jesus section entirely as it seems to be a bit problematic and I don't think anyone's that enthusiastic about the prospect of changing it. Kaldari 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Part of the solution
I'd like to make the following proposal for comment. It clearly isn't a final answer to the whole issue, but is intended to be part thereof:


 * Where an article refers to dates wholly within the last 2,000 years, there is no ambiguity as to which dates are being referred to and therefore no need to use either "AD" or "CE", which should therefore not be used.

jguk 28 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)


 * I think that's already covered by the existing guideline:
 * Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE.
 * Kaldari 28 June 2005 20:56 (UTC)


 * Well that's not what happens now - and we really should get rid of the term "Common Era" in the guideline which I know I for one would have completely misunderstood had I seen it when I first came on to WP, jguk 28 June 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Put it to a vote?
I've read all of the feedback offered so far, and I still think the compromise is a good solution. BC/AD proponents get to use BC/AD on the Jesus article (to match all the other articles about Jesus), and BCE/CE proponents get to use BCE/CE on all the articles about Hinduism and Jainism (to match the articles on Buddhism, Judaism, etc.). At least this way we are slightly more consistent and hopefully avoid a few edit wars. Shall we put it to a vote to see if there is consensus? Kaldari 28 June 2005 21:53 (UTC)
 * May I humbly suggest making the vote a choice between your version and mine (with a third option to represent status quo)? Alanyst 28 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't we go with what the current editors on articles about Hinduism and Jainism are quite happy with - which is BC/AD notation. It's really only the Buddhist and some Jewish articles that have BCE/CE in them - we should be looking to contain this dispute, not widen it to where it does not belong, jguk 28 June 2005 23:16 (UTC)


 * How would you propose that such a vote be conducted? Kaldari 28 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)


 * Approval voting seems like a natural choice. Would that be acceptable? Alanyst 29 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you would judge consensus from approval voting. Kaldari 29 June 2005 04:00 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the point. First, this is not a full solution - it only relates to articles on religious issues. Second, it is not a compromise - it is saying that we should go into all the Hinduism articles (which overwhelmingly use BC/AD - hardly surprising as India does not in practice use BCE/CE notation) and force through a change so that they comply with what some US academics want. That's not a reasonable move, jguk 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)


 * Jguk -- I believe the compromise is in designating certain topics for each style. Do you have any compromise to offer? Maurreen 29 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)


 * Jguk, are you saying that BC/AD is commonly used in India, but not BCE/CE? If so, I would be surprised. Could you provide a source for this claim (hopefully more than just anecdotal evidence)? Kaldari 29 June 2005 17:42 (UTC)


 * Yes I am. Any google search will show BC/AD as the overwhelming favourite. I don't really know why you're surprised - political correctness developed in US and is most extreme there. Whilst some aspects have (unfortunately) been exported elsewhere, they (thankfully) have not caught on so much. I can't see why you think BC/AD notation would be a problem - particularly in a multi-religious country as India which, although it is Hindu majority, has a large Muslim minority and a significant Christian population. The debate some here have advanced on BCE/CE is quite simply anathema to what's happening around the world - though it may be archetypal of certain sectors of American society (particularly within certain universities). I'd be interested in knowing what makes you think Indians would not be using BC/AD notation (particularly as it is clear that, by an utterly overwhelming margin they do use it throughout India), jguk 29 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)


 * "Yes I am. Any google search will show BC/AD as the overwhelming favourite." That's not a source for a claim, but rather an unproven assertion. Do you have an proof of this? Jayjg (talk)  29 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Vote procedure
Here are a few options to consider. Please suggest others if you like.
 * 1) Voters pick top choice among Kaldari's proposal, Alanyst's proposal and the status quo. Then we have a runoff between the top two.
 * 2) Users vote approve or disapprove on Kaldari's proposal, Alanyst's proposal. If there is a clear consensus (need to decide first an appropriate ratio), the winner is whichever gets the most net approval (need to decide whether by ratio or raw number) wins.

Maybe the poll should run for a week, and maybe voting should be limited to discourage sockpuppetry. Maurreen 29 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)


 * The discussion doesn't seem to be bringing us any closer to each other. How about we do this:


 * 1) Use approval voting.
 * 2) List all these proposals for change.
 * 3) Use "support/oppose" votes.
 * 4) The winner would be whichever gets the highest ratio of support votes, as long as it is at least 80 percent and 10 support votes.
 * 5) If no change proposal qualifies as above, the style guide section stays as is.
 * 6) Eligible voters must have registered before June and have at least 100 edits.
 * 7) Run the vote for a week.
 * Please suggest improvements if you like. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Jguk's proposal
The problems with the earlier proposals are as follows:
 * They are incomplete - they look at a small number of articles, but do not give a clear rule for most of our articles
 * They are missing a key point - on the religious side virtually all our Buddhism-related articles and many of our Judaism-related articles use BCE/CE, but for other religions the point is either irrelevant (because the religion started after AD 1), or the contributors of articles of those religions have no problem whatsoever with using BC/AD notation, which is almost always used
 * For all these argument, when looked at on a worldwide view, BCE/CE notation is extremely rare. It is used by some US academics, and appears to have gained some limited currency outside academic circles in the US - however, BC/AD notation remains by far the dominant usage (90%+). Outside the US, BCE/CE notation is essentially restricted to some academics, and has gained no real currency outside academia. BC/AD notation is virtually the only usage seen.
 * Where there have been attempts to introduce BCE/CE notation outside (and sometimes inside) there has generally been quite a bit of offence taken - and also quite a bit of confusion too!

I think any compromise has to bear these points in mind. The best option would clearly be to think of our readers and use the most common and least offensive notation throughout - which would leave us using BC/AD notation everywhere. But unfortunately that option (which is the option WP chooses for every other instance where there is a clearly dominant form or usage in real life) is not going to gain universal support. As those who are most vociferous in the campaign to force BCE/CE notation onto WP are most concerned with Buddhism-related or Judaism-related articles, let's concede that those (but not Judaeo-Christian-related articles) will use BCE/CE notation. That will be a shame as it will alienate non-Buddhists and non-Jews who will be less inclined to read the articles as a result - but it appears some concession is necessary. In return, let's accept that BC/AD notation should be used elsewhere - but, in deference to those who do not like the usage, limit that usage to the level that is strictly necessary to introduce context. Let's likewise limit usage of BCE/CE on Buddhism- and Judaism- related articles to that strictly needed to introduce context.

Proposal details
In full this proposal is as follows:


 * Where articles refer to events occurring wholly within the last 2,000 years, there is no need to use any date marker (ie do not use AD or CE)
 * All Buddhism-related articles and those Judaism-related articles that are not Judaeo-Christian-related articles that include reference to events occurring outside the last 2,000 years will use BCE/CE notation
 * All other articles that include reference to events occurring outside the last 2,000 years will use BC/AD notation
 * Articles should only use BCE/BC/AD/CE notation to the extent necessary to establish context. Once context is clear, do not continue repeating "BC", "AD" or whatever.
 * Where a date is approximate - eg around 4000 BC or around 6000 BC, it may be more vivid and preferable to refer to "years ago", eg around 6,000 years ago, around 8,000 years ago.

jguk 29 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)


 * This is (intentionally) too restrictive of BCE/CE usage, and too vague as well; one could argue that all Judaism-related articles are "Judeo-Christian" related articles. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by too restrictive. It means that readers get to see the usage they know and expect for almost all articles, whilst conceding that perhaps Buddhist and Jewish readers (at least US-based ones), who are the more likely readers of Buddhist and Jewish-related articles, get to see usage they (at least if they are US-based) may expect. It's not my intention that many articles get classified as Judaeo-Christian - just a very very small number. If there's no obvious Christian element, then they won't be Judaeo-Christian. If you can think of a good way of defining this, please let me know - I'm just trying to recognise that the history of the Western world features Judaeo-Christian ideas very greatly. I suppose the most obvious example would be the Bible, but there really aren't too many such articles. I only mentioned the point so that the proposal is fully comprehensive and covers all bases, jguk 29 June 2005 21:35 (UTC)


 * There are articles about every book in the Bible and every character in the Bible. Most articles about religion (of which there are thousands) mention the Christian perspective or Christianity somewhere, even those about Judaism.  Jayjg (talk)  29 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to consider this as a proposal, however, I think it would have more weight (and a better chance of succeeding) if you provided some kind of documentation or sources for your arguments. I don't mean to be rude, but your credibility on this issue has been somewhat diminished by the RfA against you. I'm not sure if that many people are willing to consider your points without sources to back them up, especially considering the America-centric demographics of Wikipedia editors. Arguably, I haven't used any sources besides Encyclopedia Britannica myself, but it's a start. Perhaps I'll try to dig up some more sources myself. Kaldari 29 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)


 * I have to agree; in particular, the edits removing BCE/CE from 300 articles in 3 hours as an anonymous IP destroyed any remaining credibility as far as I was concerned. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)


 * The RfAr fully vindicates the stance I have been taken. The only "remedy" is to remind SouthernComfort and myself of the current guideline. I have kept within that guideline (except for accidental mistakes, for which I apologise) already for the last seven or so months. I can easily name half a dozen or more editors that have not done so. Jayjg is, of course, exaggerating. The edits I made in my absence as jguk were all fully within the current guideline - either they were removing notation for articles covering events fully within the last 2,000 years (for which their appears to me to be complete consensus on these pages), or to make articles consistent in their notation (which has always been in accordance with the guidelines and is explicitly recognised as reasonable behaviour by the ArbCom).


 * Remember, the only reason the RfAr was brought was because a small number of users attempted to implement Slrubenstein's failed proposal on the matter. I, along with others, reverted them. It is disappointing that Fred chose effectively to become an advocate for SC's cause, which caused neutral WP community members and the other ArbCom members a lot of grief. But Fred's position has been firmly rejected - as reflected by the lack of chastisement (other than recommending to me that I follow a guideline I have already been following for half a year!).


 * Referring directly to Kaldari's point - what sort of documentation would you like? It's somewhat unfair to ask me to provide a negative (ie that BCE/CE notation is not used) - although I'd note that any google searches, which I would suggest would be biased towards the US and academia (thereby overstating the popularity of BCE/CE notation) show a 90%+ preference for BC/AD noation. That almost all WP articles currently favour BC/AD notation can also easily be shown by google searches. The offence taken by introducing BCE/CE notation can be demonstrated through Hansard records in the New South Wales parliament, letters to English newspapers, comments received by those who have used BCE/CE in their websites, newspaper and website articles that demonstrate that users of BCE/CE notation recognise that it needs to be explained to their audiences. All of this is readily available. Perhaps Kaldari should question those advocating the usage and supposed "popularity" of BCE/CE notation - he would find that their claims are built on sand. I myself was surprised how weak their argument and evidence was when subjected to scrutiny. From what they were saying I was expecting to find the notation an awful lot more popular and well-understood than it in fact is. As far as scrutiny is concerned, it can withstand none, jguk 29 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)


 * Bringing up the RfAr is a red herring, and we would all do well to avoid it and focus on the proposal rather than debating the credibility of the person who presented it and getting into a knockdown. siafu 29 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would also note that my proposal has five bullet points. I would hope that points 1, 4 and 5 were not considered particularly controversial - and then it would just be a matter of agreeing, or slightly modifying, bullet points 2 and 3, jguk 29 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)
 * 5 is obviously controversial as well; it is wordy, conversational, and context dependent. And if you can't back up claims (e.g. that BC/AD is far more popular in India etc.) then please don't make them. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)


 * "The edits I made in my absence as jguk were all fully within the current guideline - either they were removing notation for articles covering events fully within the last 2,000 years (for which their appears to me to be complete consensus on these pages), or to make articles consistent in their notation (which has always been in accordance with the guidelines and is explicitly recognised as reasonable behaviour by the ArbCom)." Really? Explain these edits, then:   Explain why you remove CE from pages but not AD from those same pages:   As has always been abundantly clear, your claim to be "making articles consistent with their notation" is another disingenuous statement, since you only use it to change mixed pages to BC/AD, regardless of the proponderance of uses on the page, and alternatively, when that won't work in your favour, you invoke "earliest usage" instead.  I would be more honest if you were to simply admit your purpose is to remove BCE/CE from Wikipedia, not promote guideline adherence. Jayjg (talk)  29 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)


 * Seriously, it doesn't matter to this proposal how Jguk has or has not behaved ever. If you want to fight over that, I ask that you please take it elsewhere (user talk perhaps), and not defeat the purpose of this discussion. siafu 29 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)


 * Ack, it seems I have opened a can of worms. Suffice it to say, I am fully aware of the case against both Jguk and SouthernComfort et al. Regardless of the facts of the case, I only meant to say that the effect of the RfA is that the parties involved are no longer considered "unbiased" by the majority of editors. Thus it may require extra effort to build a case from such a position. Let's put the RfA issue behind us, however, and concentrate on the issues at hand. Kaldari 29 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)


 * Jguk, your proposal is less of a compromise than that proposed by Kaldari or Alanyst. And I support the request others have made for evidence of your claims. Maurreen 30 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. For the reasons noted above, Kaldari's and Alanyst's proposals aren't solutions (as they only cover a small proportion of our articles), and contain no element of compromise (their effect is to change over to BCE/CE notation in some more articles, without saying anything else about other articles). That may not be their intention, but it is their effect, jguk 30 June 2005 05:21 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how my proposal, at least, is limited to only a certain number of articles, or how it unfairly tilts toward either style. In fact, it's based on the following principles:
 * Apply to all articles where era names might be used.
 * Avoid inherent bias in the guidelines toward or against either style; the nature of each article, its audience, and the relevant literature, as understood by the article's editors, is what should sway the decision one way or the other.
 * Allow decisions to be made at the individual article level by the article's editors, who are best qualified to judge which style is most appropriate for the article.
 * Encourage debates based on verifiable facts (the relevant literature) instead of perceptions (POV interpretations).
 * Give due consideration both to scholarly language and to the vernacular.
 * Make it difficult for individual editors to switch an article's style unilaterally, by requiring consensus before the change is made; and provide a "legal" justification for swift reverts of unilateral changes.
 * Incorporate the good guidelines that are already stated in the Manual of Style.
 * And in general, the idea is to "teach the people correct principles, and let them govern themselves". Instead of imposing a blanket rule that is guaranteed to offend or chafe certain users, we trust each article's editors to make the right call and provide a way to amicably resolve disputes if they arise, via factual argument and voting to determine the consensus.
 * If you don't think my proposal is consistent with these principles, please tell me specifically what you think is inconsistent, so I can fix it. If you just disagree with these principles, as you are certainly free to do, then you should not support my proposal if/when it comes time to vote on it.  Alanyst 30 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is Kaldari's proposal, not yours, that wouldn't apply to all articles. The substance of your first bullet point, I agree with - it's just I would phrase it differently. The second bullet point I also agree with (my proposal does not replicate it as my proposal as a whole would remove the need for it). The real problem is the third and fourth bullet points. Of course language changes, and in fifty years time the position may be different (in which case WP should reflect that) but for now and the foreseeable future the common vernacular is overwhelmingly in favour of BC/AD notation for everything. It's not even close. Also, many many more readers will be unfamiliar with BCE/CE notation than with BC/AD notation. So every time we'd approach your third bullet point we would conclude that we'd use BC/AD notation. That's not a problem for me - and I think it would be the most sensible one for WP as we should put our readers first and strive to keep WP's international appeal. However, I doubt that's a conclusion that those who have been politicking for change will like. The fourth bullet point does not make sense once we've had the third bullet point - you are saying that once we have determined what the most appropriate terminology is, we then discuss it again on the talk page and presumably allow more politicking to override what has already been concluded as the most sensible approach.


 * I'm also concerned that your proposal would allow for page-by-page warring (especially as it is difficult to define "consensus", particularly on pages that are not visited often).


 * Addressing your points in order - with a view to perhaps getting them fixed:
 * Yes it would apply to all pages - but it doesn't necessarily give a solution (see your fourth bullet point)
 * Right, it intentionally does not prescribe a predetermined solution, but it does provide guidance on how to arrive at one. Alanyst
 * The audience is anyone worldwide who may look to the web to find something out. If any editor does not want that audience they are better off looking for another site with a more focused audience. Your wording is not neutral yet either. "Common Era" is pretty much jargon and not understood by experts. That's why I prefer references to the last 2,000 years. (There is a much more commonly understood term for the same thing, which is "Christian Era", but I doubt that's a good replacement in these circumstances.)
 * I disagree with your conception of what the audience is. The audience is anyone worldwide who wants to learn about that particular subject.  Part of learning about the subject is becoming familiar with the jargon associated with that subject, so if BCE/CE is the standard in the literature, it should probably be the standard in the article&mdash;but that's up to the article's editors to decide. Alanyst
 * As for "Common Era", I was simply taking the phrasing from the existing style guide. I thought about saying "events that span the meridian" but I was afraid "meridian" might be confusing.  Anyhow, you might not like "Common Era" but that's a legitimate name for the current era, and I think there's enough context in the rest of the bullet point to convey what it means if someone is indeed unfamiliar with it.  I don't like "last 2000 years" because it's too imprecise: are we saying that we need AD/CE markers for the year 4? Alanyst
 * I disagree with this. Editors may be too close to the subject or may not be used to writing for a worldwide audience. It is useful for non-experts to suggest improvements and rejig articles so they can be understood by more people. We see this on many pages. We are writing to inform the world, not for a narrow band of academics.
 * I agree that it's generally useful for non-experts to contribute to an article, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Rather, I'm suggesting that waltzing into an article that one knows nothing about and summarily imposing one's favorite era naming style is not likely to result in the more appropriate style being selected for the article.  To prevent this from happening, we require the editor to have some familiarity with the article, as evidenced by the fact that they have contributed to it, so that they're more likely to understand the factors that might affect the appropriateness of a particular style. Alanyst
 * Verifiability is important in a general context - but it isn't an issue here. If an event happened in 201 BC we shouldn't have it down as happening in 205 BC or 205 BCE.
 * You misunderstand: by "verifiable" I mean being able to verify someone's argument about which style is appropriate for the article, by showing examples or counterexamples from the relevant literature (scholarly or general or some mixture of the two, depending on the tone of the article). Alanyst
 * This is the problem. What is due consideration. As noted above, the vernacular (at present and for the foreseeable future) always uses BC/AD notation, and overwhelmingly so. To my mind the overwhelming general preference for BC/AD notation means that it is irrelevant whether a particular academic paper or textbook uses BC/AD or BCE/CE notation. The due consideration stops when the vernacular gives so definitive result. No doubt some will disagree with me on the point, but how is the circle squared?
 * I think "the vernacular" can vary according to the article. For an in-depth study of Persian royalty, BCE/CE may be the vernacular.  Perhaps this is a bit of an abuse of the word "vernacular", but what I'm trying to get at is that we should use the style that people familiar with the subject are expected to converse in.  If most conversation about the subject occurs in scholarly journals, the scholarly jargon is the vernacular.  On the other hand, if most conversation about the subject is on a less formal level, patterns of general English usage should carry greater weight. Alanyst
 * What is consensus, particularly on a little visited page? (This is a major problem with your proposal, I'm afraid.)
 * Consensus is the weight of opinion by the editors who care enough about a subject to contribute to an article on that subject. It doesn't matter how many there are; if only one person edits the article, they get to decide which style to use.  As more people get involved, the consensus may change, but it requires more people to get involved in order to change the style, and at some point the article stabilizes either because one side prevails or because a compromise is struck, a la Jesus.  If the page hasn't had much editing activity for some time, the "consensus" is the status quo because nobody has made an effort to change anything.  In that case, if somebody did want to change the existing style, they'd simply have to announce their intentions on the article's talk page, wait a few days, and proceed with the change if nobody has objected, since at that point they're presumably the sole editor of that article (for purposes of determining consensus). Alanyst
 * An alternative is just to accept the guidelines as currently stated in the MoS. Had SouthernComfort and friends done that, we wouldn't have had this long discussion and heated debate.
 * I'd be grateful for similar comments on my proposal. Perhaps then we could see what we can bring together, jguk 30 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Jguk, your proposal is less of a compromise because it codifies BC/AD for the vast majority of articles. The other proposals above seem to more equal in splitting any codification. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)

I agree with Maurreen. This is no compromise. CDThieme 30 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)


 * Since anybody devising a consistent style guide will tell you that you pick one style, which should be the one that sits easiest with your readers, and stick to it, this is clearly a compromise. Of course, the most respectful thing to do for our readers would be to use language we know they understand, are most familiar with, and which is least likely to cause offence to them. That would be to use BC/AD throughout WP. It is regrettable that a small number of PC politicos are unwilling to put our readers first, but it is clear that some compromise is necessary, and that is why I have proposed one, jguk 30 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)


 * Having a differing belief from your unwavering assertion that the supposed "comfort" of our readers overrides all other concerns does not make a person one of a "small number of PC politicos unwilling to put our readers first." It is regrettable that individuals will insist on formulating a shadow conspiracy of self-centered jerks instead of recognizing that there are those who, in good faith, disagree.  Furthermore, wikipedia is not required to be consistent, except where it creates some sort of practical problem.  It's obvious that with this issue the greatest "practical problem" is edit warring, which could be resolved through an inconsistent compromise. siafu 30 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Well, jguk's proposal is a compromise of sorts, but not one that is really helpful. It seems that there previous proposals have all agreed on at least one point, that being that the preferred way of deciding which era name to use is through discussion and consensus. Rather than try to resolve broad guidelines, (and honestly, this is what, the sixth proposal put forward to try and do that?) it may be better to simply codify/reaffirm this central point and indicate that this issue should be decided on an article-by-article or possibly subject-by-subject basis. siafu 30 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Yes, you might be right. That's why I copied the proposal below. Does anyone object? Maurreen 1 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

Citing some evidence on usage
I think one of the cruxes of this debate is what you define as "the relevant literature". Jguk, you claim that use of BC/AD is "overwhelming" and "by far the dominant usage". However, it is important in this case to note where BCE/CE is commonly used, which is within academic literature (which tends to be more heavily weighted by Wikipedia editors):

"The [BCE/CE] system is gaining popularity among most historians..." - from a NASA Newsletter

"Some historical and theological academic works do use the CE/BCE designations, although publications on non-religious issues tend not to bother. It is expected that the use of the two new terms will increase in the future..." - BBC

Although I don't know any percentages, it seems like a significant number of academic journals suggest or require the use of BCE/CE.

The Smithsonian Institute uses BCE/CE and so does Encyclopedia Britannica (which also uses BC/AD).

If you primarily consider academic sources, the use of BCE/CE is not uncommon.

If, however, you are searching Google, you will see a heavy preference for BC/AD by a ratio of 6 to 1 over BCE/CE.

So not only is this debate about POV, but also about what types of sources are relavent to Wikipedia (which may depend on the topic). Further research on usage would be useful (as opposed to blanket statements without any evidence). I'm especially interested in the difference in usage between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kaldari 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken. It is the language of our readers, not of academic sources, that is important. If we were writing for Jewish American academics we may well choose a different style. But they alone are not our readership, which is anyone who may search for information in English on the net. We should therefore use terms and styles they will be familiar and comfortable with: our readers must come first.


 * Academic writings from longer back than 20 or 30 years ago exclusively used BC/AD - and there are plenty of those on all historical issues. Your own quote notes that the BBC state that on non-religious issues BC/AD is the overwhelming favourite even in academia. Encyclopaedia overwhelmingly prefers BC/AD notation (it is very very few of its articles that use BCE/CE notation). Incidentally I have checked the websites of the leading museums in Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata in India - all of those (as far as I can see) use BC/AD throughout, even referring to things like 1958 AD, where we'd just refer to 1958. I've never seen BC/AD in the UK (except in the odd book imported from America). Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen a UK style guide that even refers to BCE/CE, even to say not to use it. In New South Wales, changing one instance of BC to BCE in one exam paper prompted angry questions in both chambers of parliament. As far as I can tell, outside N America, BCE/CE are very rarely used (just being limited to some, but by no means all, university academics). And the google searches I've done, which I would expect to be biased towards the US and academia (ie to overstate BCE/CE usage) come out at 9 to 1 in favour of BC/AD notation. I don't know where your 6 to 1 figure comes from, but that also shows an overwhelming preference for BC/AD anyway.


 * As far as usage in the US is concerned, I am not clear - but I do know that the claims of some of WP's more enthusiastic proponents of BCE/CE notation tend not to bear up to scrutiny. For instance - are you aware that the term "Christian Era" is much much more common than "Common Era" and that many dictionaries that have an entry for "Common Era" have that entry just saying "see Christian Era"? jguk 30 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)


 * My statistic of 6 to 1 on Google was found by picking a random number, 500, and searching for both "500 BC" and "500 BCE". That gave me 203,000 to 31,600 or 6.4 to 1. What test did you use? Kaldari 30 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)


 * That is strange. I tried Google “500 bc” and got 4,220,000, while “500 bce” was 345,000.
 * Another Google test is “christian-era” which yeilds 223,000, twice as many as “common-era” with 107,000.
 * It has been claimed that CE/BCE is favoured by academics. Since its use in is single percentage figures, there must be a great interest in history by many non-academics occupying academic posts writing non-academic articles.  The claim is nonsense. --ClemMcGann 11:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What's a bigger nonsense is why we should take note of what style academics (and in particular American academics) favour. We're writing for everyone, not just them, jguk 12:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal adapted from Wikipedia talk:Eras
I believe this was proposed by violet/riga.

Favouring one style of era name over another is controversial. It is recommended, but not required, that editors not replace the currently used style of era name with another until the change has been proposed on the article's talk page and a consensus (or lack of opposition within a reasonable time) to make the change has been achieved. Maurreen 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Voting is now open
After reviewing the discussion of this proposal, it seems that a large number of people support parts of it, but not the whole thing. Taking this into consideration, I have decided to break the proposal up into separate pieces for voting. Since this makes the voting more complex than I was anticipating, I will not be including other proposals as part of the voting. Other editors, however, are welcome to hold their own votes on different era proposals. I only ask that they not be held until after August 1 in order to minimize confusion. If you would like to vote on the compromise proposal, please visit the voting page. Discussion of the proposal should still be held here rather than on the voting page. Kaldari 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since discussion had died down for a fortnight, it seemed this idea was dead in the water. This seems like an inappropriate way to bring it forward again. We really need to get away from this NPOV nonsense, which quite clearly has been rejected on all front already, and start thinking of our readers. Bringing this vote now, without further notice, isn't right, jguk 06:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume you're able to adequately demonstrate how "this NPOV nonsense" has been rejected on all fronts? I see no evidence of that myself. siafu 22:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

difference between current guideline and proposed
I assume the absence of this section in the proposal:

"In articles about prehistory, if you use BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them."

doesn't mean that it is going to be removed... - Omegatron 21:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, right you are. Kaldari 22:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica
The project page states: For the record, Encyclopedia Britannica uses BC/AD for articles related to Jesus, such as Christianity.
 * It should add and 6,700 other articles, while 216 articles use BCE - --ClemMcGann 23:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC))


 * I really don't think it's worth adding an aside, otherwise we'd be adding a lot more all over the place until we're overloaded, jguk 06:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you count them? Maurreen 05:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The implication from the Project page is that Encyclopedia Britannica only uses BC/AD for articles related to Jesus
 * Whereas ''Encyclopedia Britannica uses BC/AD for almost all articles, except for some on non-Christian religions --ClemMcGann 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

vote?
I saw a notice that there is currently a vote on a proposal to change the style manual, but it is not clear to me (1) what the proposal is and (2) where the vote is. Can someone explain, please? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The proposal is at Eras/Compromise proposal and the vote is at Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting. Kaldari 20:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, SR

A true compromise
How's this for a compromise... to get rid of the bickering once and for all, rather than using 'AD' and 'CE' all over the pedia, we should simply not use either of them. Simply refer to a year as 1980 and everyone will understand which year that is. This does not solve the issue of 'BC' or 'BCE' years but that doesn't come up all that often in the first place. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that where an article only refers to dates within the last 2,000 years that no date notation is required. I don't think anyone has really opposed this - it's just a shame that this point of agreement hasn't been written down officially anywhere, jguk 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why does everyone keep bringing up this point? Has anyone actually read the guidelines??! It already says that you should only use era designations when necessary: "Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era". Kaldari 23:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, good. Please tell me when it is ever necessary to designate an era? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, you cannot be serious. If you are taking about (for example), the Roman Empire, and you say the year 80, it could just as easily be AD as it could be BC. &rarr;Raul654 16:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The natural assumption when there is no date modifier is that it is a year AD. Seems reasonable to me, jguk 18:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is reasonable, however 80 does not look like a date, 80 AD does.--ClemMcGann 19:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We could always refer to "the year 80", jguk 20:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Date most relevant to article topic, with conversion link
I suggest that the calendar system used in an article be that most relevant to the article's topic, with links to a standard (a la as used for measurements) or to a conversion tool (a la as done for ISBNs and map coordinates).

For example, purely Christian articles would use BC/AD, purely Jewish articles would use Mosaic dates, purely Islamic articles would use Mohammedan dates, etc. Then either:
 * The system indicator after the year (e.g. "BC") would then wikilink to a converter for major calendar systems, or
 * The whole year value wikilinks to the page for the corresponding BCE year (e.g. 1492).

- Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The most relevant date style for any English-language article meant for a general worldwide audience is BC/AD as it is the only notation generally understood by that audience. It is only if you want to restrict your audience for an article substantially that you'd use anything else. It's a great shame that almost all our articles about the largest religions are of a poor quality, as various editors try to impose their biases and push away comments from others who may help to present a more neutral view. We really shouldn't be encouraging further worsening of these articles, jguk 07:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)