Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/sandbox

BC/AC Debate
Why are BC and AD preferred over BCE and CE? Is this the appropriate place to ask this? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is by no means an exhaustive argument, but here's the comment I left on OldakQuill's talk page a few minutes ago, jguk 21:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC):

Deleted as entire debate pasted bellow

Kind regards, and thank you for your time, jguk 20:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is an exhaustive answer. I don't agree with all the points, but it's a well-thought-out description. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

One point that no one seems to have made below: CE is often interpreted to stand for "Christian era", not "common era". If interpreted in this way, I think it's quite NPOV -- simply stating fact ("this is when Christians start counting") without endorsing it. And I don't agree at all with other users' contention that BCE and CE are not widely understood. At least among Jews, they are used as a matter of course, in both scholarly and popular contexts; I believe that other non-Christian communities (pagans, Muslims, ...) do the same. I think that BCE and CE are the appropriate choice for Wikipedia, as they're about as neutral as you can get without a radical calendar change. Frankly, I fail to see why anyone seriously wants to keep AD and BC, since they're so POV and Christocentric. An argument could be made for leaving existing instances of them, but using them in new writing (particularly in non-Christianity-related articles) is not a great idea, IMHO. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 08:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If new articles should be writtern with BCE/CE what argument could be made that old articles should keep BC/AD? If NPOV requires the former for new articles why wouldn't it require it for old articles? For basic things like date format should we not strive for consistancy? --JK the unwise 09:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In every other context, WP prefers the most commonly used term over a less well used term. Based on this principle, if there's to be a requirement to always use one form of notation, we'd use BC/AD. Also, using BCE/CE is often seen as politically correct and therefore POV - in short, I strongly disagree with you that using BCE/CE is NPOV, jguk 10:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it not seen as pollitically correct because it is neutral? That is, it is accuesed of being 'PC' because it is intended to avoid offence of non-Christians.--JK the unwise 11:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (still undecied on the issule)


 * Political correctness (how I hate that term!) is not POV itself. In fact, it usually results from a desire for NPOV. Sometimes that desire is applied overzealously, but I don't think this is one of those times. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 16:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the intention of using BCE/CE is to minimise offence, then, unfortunately, that intention is not borne out in practice. For example, in both the United Kingdom and Australia offence has been caused by politically motivated people changing BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation. (See our article on Common Era for sources.) Also, it's hard to see what can be offensive about a well-established date convention - it seems you can only get offended by it if you deliberately set out to be offended. OK, the current terminology has its history as a Christian description, but so what? It's not as though, when reduced to two letters, it's ramming religion down anyone's throats - so there's no need to change on that account, just as there's no reason to change other dating terminology on religious reasons. Our date system already contains "honours" to the gods Saturn, the Sun, the Moon, Tiu, Woden, Thor, Frigge, Januus and Mars, and the goddess Juno. It also "honours" Julius and Augustus Caesar - none of whom I, or anyone else, would particularly care to worship nowadays. And yet, is not everyone happy with these pagan denominators? jguk 12:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's extremely hard for me to see why anyone reasonable would get offended by BCE/CE, but that's not the case for BC/AD -- the phrase "anno domini" presupposes an agreement that Jesus is lord, and thus is POV. The links cited in the Common Era article really don't go far toward explaining why people are offended by BCE/CE. On the other hand, the Chicago Manual of Style -- a very well-respected source also cited in the article -- says:
 * "The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated. Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so."
 * As far as keeping BC and AD in current articles, my thinking was that even if these are decided to be deprecated on Wikipedia, I see no reason to have a rash of edits suddenly changing all the instances of their use.
 * Since you mentioned the pagan naming of the days of the week, I should point out that the Quakers did indeed object to these names and simply numbered the days and months. This practice seems to have declined in recent years, but I have been to Quaker meetinghouses whose signs say that meetings take place on First Day.
 * Finally, the pagan names are not quite parallel. Enough linguistic change has occurred that probably most English speakers are not particularly aware that (say) Wednesday was originally "Odin's day". The same is not true of BC and AD, where most people know that these stand for "before Christ" and "anno domini". --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 16:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is the deliberate changing of BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation that was found offensive in the UK and Australia, not the BCE/CE notation of itself. They are just abbreviations and not of themselves offensive.


 * You'd be surprised how many don't know what BC and AD stand for! Besides, when kept as a two-letter abbreviation, they are merely a convenient device for dating things - nothing more, and that is how they are interpreted. (Incidentally, the Chicago Manual of Style, on its webpage, lists under FAQs that it is not aware of any great BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate - which makes me wonder why we have a number of promoters (as opposed to just users) of BCE/CE notation on WP), jguk 17:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secularisation of dates
from User talk:OldakQuill Page

Just wondered what your motivation for doing this is? Not religious myself (far from) but I still refer to dates using BC, so do most people I think. Never herd BCE being used before. Google search for "1000 BC" = 'about 174,000' Google search for "1000 BCE" about 20,100. BC seems to win. (True they might not all be dates). What is Wikipedia policy? --JK the unwise 20:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't convert BC/AD to BCE/CE. First, in the interests of greater understanding (everyone understands BC/AD, far fewer understand BCE/CE). Second, it causes great offence. You may be interested in our article on Common Era, which notes that BCE/CE is only really used in museums and academic circles, is not generally understood, and which has caused surprise and some outrage both in the UK and Australia (to the extent that the New South Wales education secretary had to concede that an exam paper should not have preferred BCE notation). You will also note that Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly authorises the use of BC/AD notation. Thanks, jguk 21:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been doing it for a year here and there - it is extremely appropriate. To the first point - Google is not always the best judge of what is appropriate - what is widespread is not the same as what is correct. There may be more results for "American Indians" than for "Native Americans" - but this does not mean the former is appropriate to use on Wikipedia. Secondly, I do not think the idea that BCE/CE is not understood is patronising nonesense - I just asked a couple of friends and they all know what is meant by BCE/CE. In a worst case scenario the individual will have to either deduce from "3000 BCE" what it means or, worse yet, click a link! Third point, offence - please tell me who find this use offensive? I live in the UK and it certainly does not cause offense or "outrage" here - not at all. I consider it offensive that 2005 be marked the "year of our lord" (Anno Domini) by Wikipedia, an NPOV organisation. It certainly defies my secular sensibilities in regards to encyclopaedia writing: we should not show pro-Christian bias. I think this brings me back to the point of "understanding" - when something becomes POV but it is better understood, it is not more appropriate. To use another race comparison: Eskimo is better understoon, Inuit is vastly preferred. Just as many Inuits do not "eat blood", many encyclopaedic topics are nothing to do with Jesus Christ. This is not to say that BC/AD is sometimes permissable: it should be allowed to pass in Christian articles which directly relate to the subject - but no where else. Weight training is not religious. I will continue to persue NPOV and non-religiousness in Wikipedia content: religious interference will not be tolerated. You will also notice that the Manual of Style clearly authorises the use of BCE/CE notation - thus, do not repeatedly revert my work. --Oldak Quill 23:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Still not sure. Things can loose their religious conotations and BC is widely used and understood. Most people don't even know that AD means 'year of our lord'. But you seem to have some good points. Would it not be better, however, to find somewere to debate this, so we can have an agreed Wikipedia policy insteed of your one person crusade?--JK the unwise 11:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Losing the religious connotation is the point - BCE/CE are both easily understood. People may not know that "Eskimo" means "blood eater" - does not make this acceptable. I think no policy is preferable - we can get on together and an equilibrium will develop, one side will eventually prevail. We just need to obey common courtesy and not chase each other around reverting each other. --Oldak Quill 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CE is also quite POV. Why is our calendar the common one? Calling ones own calendar common is ego-centric. There are other cultures with other calendars. I would say that CE is more offencive than AD. I agree on that this should be debated first. Jeltz talk  14:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * CE does not stand for "Common calendar", but for "Common Era" - so not "ego-centric". The era may be deemed "common" because it is the age in which the world's cultures have been united and have become commonly understood. --Oldak Quill 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Common era isn't used in all calendars. The choice of the stqart of the era is of Christian origin nothing remarakable happened around that time other that Christianity was born. Common era is the era of chrisitanity so why not admit what it actually is? I see your points but I think that it gets more POV if you call the era of Christiany "common". Jeltz talk  18:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is about Christianity now? Christianity was not organised until the fourth century (going by the establishment of the papacy and the canonisation of the New Testament). If you are speaking in purer terms: Christ himself - he was certainly not born at the beginning of CE - about a decade before. Thus, if we are to do as you say we should totally usurp the calendar. The Common era is not simply the era of Christianity (established 400 years later, not popular for a further several centuries) but the coming together of mankind: the development of science, technology. It is POV for Wikipedia to continue suggesting Common era dates are "year[s] of our lord", they are not. --Oldak Quill 19:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that I was getting a little offtopic. I disagree with you about your view of the history, not the Christian one but this part: "the coming together of mankind: the development of science, technology". But this isn't what the discussion was about. My oppinion about the actual subject is that CE is no more or less POV than AD. It's quite pointless to go aorund and change them. And also AD might be common in the UK but wikipedia is international and I'm quite sure of that the most widly used and understood system is BC/AD. Not that it's hard to understand BCE/CE, but why bother. It's a too small thing to get offended by so I think that we should use the most common one. In Sweden which is one of the more secular countries we still use "Before Christ" and "After Christ" and I don't think I ever have heard someone suggesting that this should be changed. Jeltz talk  12:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * AD is POV in that it asserts that all CE dates are "of the Lord" - this is unacceptable for a supposedly NPOV, no bias encyclopedia. This discussion is not about "[going] around and chang[ing] them", it is simply about my right to change individual articles without being persued and reverted. I would not object to monitored bots continuing and extending this - I imagine that one day all non-Christian articles will be appropriately adorned with BCE/CE. People internationally understand BCE/CE, and if they do not it is fairly obvious what they allude to when seen in situ. For example, if our character (he who does not know of BCE/CE) sees the following sentence I am fairly sure he would understand what is being said: "The Romans finally conquered England in 43 CE" or "Homer wrote his epic poems in roughly the 8th century BCE". I bother to change this as, as I have already stated, we cannot continue a pro-Christian bias. I would accept the Swedish "After Christ" but this is not what we currently have - we currently use "Anno Domini", year of our lord. The point is that "After Christ" could be taken to be secular, "Year of our Lord" cannot. --Oldak Quill 17:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the length of this response, but I feel we are not going to dispense with this issue without covering much ground. Before replying to your specific points, let me step back a bit. Let me start with three points we can, I presume, all agree on. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. A good encyclopaedia is one which a reader who wishes to be better informed about a subject will consult to get better informed. We would like Wikipedia to be recognised as a good encyclopaedia.
 * Readers generally prefer writing that is in a style and form they are familiar with (and this is true even if the underlying concepts are shocking or thought-provoking). And a good writer appreciates this. Put another way, the basic principle of good writing is to always think of the reader. Let me give you an example that&#8217;s probably relevant to where you are in life now: when you prepare for exams, you will adopt an &#8220;exam style&#8221;. You will, will you not, seek out how an examiner wishes answers to be given? And then you will adopt that style - regardless of whether it is one that you prefer. For me, too many years out of school, I ask myself what style a reader wants. If I&#8217;m writing instructions to a QC, I adopt a formal style. If I&#8217;m writing to a client who wants technical reasoning, I provide technical reasoning. If I&#8217;m writing to a client who just wants a straightforward answer, that is what I do.
 * &#8220;Think of the reader&#8221; means more than this though. Readers are fickle, and if you want to keep them interested, you have to write in a way they like - which normally means a style with which they are familiar. Compare the book you pick up and never want to put down because it&#8217;s a great read to the book that you put down after half a dozen pages never to pick up again.
 * Similarly, a good writer will avoid challenging his reader with unnecessary jargon.
 * In short, good writers defer to their readers preferred language and style if they want to be read.
 * So turning to the matter in hand. We have one usage that everybody understands and is familiar with, and which is overwhelmingly the more popular usage. And we have another usage that many do not understand, that fewer actually use, and that, whether rationally or not, irks a great deal many too. Is it not the former usage that should be preferred?
 * Finally, let me briefly deal with each of the points you raise.
 * You say google is not the best judge of what is appropriate. &#8220;Appropriate&#8221; in the context of an international encyclopaedia that reports, rather than tries to change, and is proud of its NPOV policy, means that it is widely understood and preferred internationally. Before searching for BCE/CE/AD or BC, it&#8217;s worth thinking, what bias is there is the result. I&#8217;d suggest (for almost all google searches) there is an American bias. I&#8217;d also suggest, for the terms under consideration, there is a bias towards academic writings. And that both these biases will exaggerate how widely the &#8220;BCE/CE&#8221; is used and preferred. Yet google shows a clear 9:1 preference in favour of BC/AD over BCE/CE. The conclusion is that, if we are to think of the reader, we should prefer BC/AD.
 * You say BCE/CE is widely understood. Since we&#8217;re both in the UK, let&#8217;s take that as an example. To be widely understood, people have to have come across a term. So, maybe they could come across it at school - only the National Curriculum did not even teach what BCE/CE meant till 2002, so that discounts anyone who has not had school history lessons before 2002. Maybe they saw it at the British Museum, or the Ashmolean, or they prefer the Natural History Museum? Only they all use BC/AD notation. Alternatively, maybe they prefer to get their history from the BBC? Only the BBC (except for a very small number of articles on Judaism) uses BC/AD. And, of course, even if people understand the notation, and there&#8217;s no reason to think that most Britons do, far fewer actually would use it themselves.
 * You say the worst case scenario is that a reader only has to click a link to find out what BCE means. I disagree. The worst case scenario is that a reader, not liking the style of an article, gives up and goes somewhere else. Of course, there will be many readers who do not care, and some who do get annoyed but will click - but, just as you give up early on a book you do not like, so a reader will leave Wikipedia if they do not like the style.
 * It is changing BC/AD terminology to BCE/CE that causes offence (see the links at the bottom of the article on Common Era for examples). The natural response to many on first seeing the change is the same as Kenneth Williams&#8217; last words: &#8220;What&#8217;s the bloody point?&#8221;
 * Getting offended because AD stands for In the Year of Our Lord is as silly as getting offended because CE means Common Era.
 * Following accepted usage is a principal tenet of a NPOV policy. We use words, terms, etc. because others&#8217; do - not because we like or prefer them, or because we wish to make a political or religious point with them. Going against accepted usage (and in this case there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the accepted usage is) itself becomes POV. Now, of course, over time, practices change. Maybe in 30 years&#8217; time, if Wikipedia is still going, almost everyone will agree with you and use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD - in which case Wikipedia&#8217;s approach should change. But for now, we use what most people use now - not what a select few Wikipedians would like us all to use.
 * Lastly, this is nothing to do with religion. It&#8217;s to do with a date marker. It&#8217;s to do with using the most common term. It&#8217;s to do with intelligibility, and it&#8217;s to do with thinking of the reader.
 * So, bearing this in mind, and considering the comments already made by other users, I would ask you not to continue converting BC/AD notation to a less understood, less used, less familiar notation.

Kind regards, and thank you for your time, jguk 20:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your second point deals with styles of writing, not the preference of one acronym over another for the NPOV ideal. The third point pursues style and not the point of discussion: though a reader may stop reading due to awkward style they will not because of an acronym they do not understand. However, I doubt there are VERY few who both don't know what BCE/CE are or can deduce from the context what they are. This covers the fourth point, BCE/CE are no more "unnecessary jargon" than BC/AD - they simply NPOV and secularise the text. The Romans did not conquer England in the 43rd year of our lord, they did so in the 43rd year of the Common era (essentially the 43rd year since the traditional birth of Jesus of Nazareth). I believe that most users would object to the NPOV encyclopedia declaring Common era years "of the Lord" - thus preferring BCE/CE. I do not accept your suggestion that BCE/CE irks more people than BC/AD irks others: we should assume the NPOV. I also do not accept that a user would give up on an article because of BCE/CE. I have already covered the points of "offence" (I think the converse causes greater offense) - but you may notice that sites linked at Common era such as "Religious Tolerance" prefer BCE/CE. You further claim that "[g]etting offended because AD stands for In the Year of Our Lord is as silly as getting offended because CE means Common Era" yet you have used this as an arguement? How does going against the accepted usage render it POV?


 * Sorry I appear repetative and clunky, I have been going through each of your points and responding. In conclusion, I believe users understand what CE/BCE mean, that none (comparatively) are offended by it. Further, I think the continued Christian bias is completely unacceptable and should be shrugged off in pursuit of the NPOV ideal. --Oldak Quill 17:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still Hmmmm... Not quite sure were I stand on this Oldak has some good arguments. The best seems to be the Eskimo one. I.E That though Eskimo is better understoon, Inuit is vastly preferred as it is a more acurate. This is true even though Google gives 2,450,000 for Eskimo and only 1,660,000 for Inuit. So accuracy and nuetral presentation can go against common usage, we do not have to wait for common usage to become acturate and nuetral. Thus Common usage is not the be all and end all. Also, I dont agree with jguk's point that the change in useage will put people off or confuse them as they are quite similar. However I do agree with jguk that maby it doesn't matter that much (The natural response to many on first seeing the change is the same as Kenneth Williams&#8217; last words: &#8220;What&#8217;s the bloody point?&#8221;--jguk). '''Common usage should be the natraul stating point. Moving from it should require strong argument'''. Conversly, Is the case really analogous with the Eskimo/Inuit one? Who would read AD say in an article say on body building and think oo that article is primoting a view of this time as the time of our lord? Any one apart from Oldak???
 * I would. Unless you're asking if I would read an article on body building, in which case I probably wouldn't.  But that doesn't change the fact that pretty much everybody who  is specifically not Christian (that is to say, does not have a Christian cultural background) uses something other than AD, as far as I know.  The fact of the matter is that CE means Common or Christian era, both factually sound ways of describing the past two millenia.  AD, on the other hand, is not factually sound at all but entirely based in Christian beliefs.  Christian beliefs are not NPOV, and avoiding Christian terminology in favor of a neutral secular terminology is not POV.  It seems fairly clear to me, and I really can't conceive why there's a debate.  AD may be the more immediately recognizable term, but does it really seem at all likely that somebody will disregard an article because it says CE instead of AD?  If Wikipedia is interested in being NPOV, CE and BCE are the only legitimate choices.  Year of our Lord is not a neutral term. Junjk 13:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where to go from here?
Anyway all this aside, I do not belive it is constructive to have one user (Oldak) running around doing one thing and others running around reverting it. Wikipedia is not a anarchy (if it were the strongist/most active would win). Rather it is a proper democracy were (almost) everything is up for discusion but it must be democratically agreed. And the looser should stick to that agrement. The point is, their needs to be Wikipedia pollicy one way or the other. We should debate it but stick to it. Other then this talk page were should this debate take place + Do you agree with that Oldak (if not why not?) --JK the unwise 10:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Every user has his or her idiocincracies: some prefer British spelling, other prefer American. There is no reason why the two cannot coexist. Also, I am not the only user promoting BCE/CE - there are many others (just take a look at the number of articles featuring this spelling). No: Wikipedia is not truly anarchic in that it has a form of power structure (administrators drawn from the general usership for goodwork, surefootedness etc. and the GodKing) however, in terms of content Wikipedia is fairly free in its accepted styles. I do not believe we should allow a mob rule where the simple majority opinion is the be all and end all: I reiterate that the two systems can exist in equilibrium. Further, I believe the more minimal the policy the better: we should remain as free as possible in every sense of the word. This freedom should only be restricted when the alternatives are harmful and counterproductive. --Oldak Quill 14:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Where we go from here should be to recognise that users should not take it upon themselves to change articles that adopt one style consistently into another style. OldakQuill needs to reconcile himself to the fact that there are comparatively very few articles that adopt the BCE/CE style, and most of these are connected with Buddhism (where WP practice is to use BCE/CE almost exclusively) or Judaism (where some articles use BCE/CE and others use BC/AD). And also that neither he nor any other user should use WP to "promote" the BCE/CE notation, jguk 19:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not simply taking it upon myself, I am part of a wider change. There is no policy which limits the "promotion of BCE/CE" - similarly there should be no promotion of BC/AD. They are able to coexist between the secular and non-Christian and the Christian articles. --Oldak Quill 23:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary - per the MoS you should not change the style adopted by an article (this works both ways here, of course). Also, you are welcome to your political views, but on WP, you should not impose them on others. (Not to say, quite frankly, you'll only get beaten down, as in this case, and just end up wasting everybody's time in pointless revert wars - and very long pointless discussions like this one:) . ) jguk 23:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * All articles are fluid: they should be changed as appropriate to the content. The use of AD is fundamentally political and religious: it asserts that CE years are "of the lord". I have been doing BCE/CE conversions with many passively for months and have not been reverted until you. --Oldak Quill 23:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did somewhat highlight it by doing a number of high profile moves. Anyway, you have moved your argument on to what you think "should be" the case (ie that people should prefer BCE/CE) rather than what "is" the case (which is that the overwhelming majority of people actually prefer BC/AD). Now you have been found out, you should stop. Personally, I see BC/AD as nothing more than notation - after all, it's hard to find too many cases where "BC" can be used in a Christian context anyway! I read it as a convention. Nothing more. And that, to my mind, is the way to read it. Also on a personal level, I find it to be an outrageous arrogance to presume that non-Christians would wish to consider the Christian era to be the "Common era". Common to whom? Well, only Christians, quite frankly. After all, the term "Common era" was one coined by Christians in the first place.

So where are we? We're in a world where the overwhelming majority of people prefer to use BC/AD notation. And so, that is what WP should use. Now, language is changing constantly, and maybe, in 20 or 30 years time this will be different, in which case WP should change with the times. As they say, tempora mutant et nos mutantur in illis. Maybe in 20 years time, BC/AD will remain dominant. Maybe BCE/CE. Or maybe the English Wikipedia will adopt an approach similiar to the French Wikipeida, where BC dates are represented as negative numbers, thereby obviating the need for any notation at all. Or maybe it will be something completely different.

But where we are (whether you like it or not, and I can tell you do not) is in a world where BC/AD is the preferred notation. Articles starting off in BCE/CE notation get added to - generating inconsitency, which is bad. So, please stop your personal project to promote BCE/CE notation - WP is not a soapbox, and you will only get reverted (and God knows we've both wasted too much time on this discussion as much as He knows you won't like this phrasing in brackets! :) ) jguk 23:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not claimed that anyone "should" prefer BCE/CE - I have only stated that it is less POV. I would also like you to back up your claim that "the overwhelming majority of people actually prefer BC/AD" or I shall simply put it aside. I see absolutely no reason to stop these conversions, and you have not yet provided any convincing arguements. You have so far claimed that it should be used because of convenion, despite POV; you have claimed people "like it" (I doubt many care either way). It is not simply convention, it is a continuing assertion by Christianity that the messiah has visited this world to redeem our souls - hence "year of our Lord". You may have CE stand for "Common era" or "Christian era" as you will - I do not care either way; they are both largely NPOV. I simply opt for it to mean "Common era" myself. The idea that Wikipedia should do something because of simply majority preference, especially something with so little impact, is quite new and outrageous. Wikipedia has never done things before because of simply majority preference, despite POV - see my above example of Inuits. Preferred notation to whom? To scholars, academics, and the East? No. To Joe Average Westerner, perhaps - this does not validate its continuing use, nor does it entirely refute it. The fact still remains on the issue of POV. I believe BCE/CE and BC/AD in coexistance is an acceptable inconsistancy for the time being: the latter is suited to Christian articles (it is largely unrealistic to expect otherwise). This is nothing to do with my own person political or religious views: I do it because I believe it is the only path to NPOV. I do it for Wikipedia. I do it to make Wikipedia a viable source of non-biased information. I suggest we cease this discussion and get on with more productive work for the project. I won't give up minor conversions but then, I also won't step up my pace. We are not talking more than several a week. I have enjoyed our discussion and hope that you, like I, keep doing good work for Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 10:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see the merits of both sides of the debate. However, I think it is detrimental to have unnessisary inconsistancy between articles. If their is no consens this is what will happen. Rule by the 'mob' if it is willing to lisen and debate (and change remains a possiblity) is proper democracy and is how wikipedia appears (to me) to work. Would you rather have rule by the most active editors? In all honesty Oldak you want all articles (save a few exceptions) to use BCE/CE. jguk whants them all to use BC/AC. I want all articles (excluding particular exceptions) to be the same (as does wikipedia pollicy on format). Is it right that the result should be determined by who edits/reverts most? Would it not be better to deside democratically? I don't see how you can avoid this conclution unless you advocate inconsistancy? (prehaps when you say the two systems can exist in equilibrium you mean you are happy with inconsitany but I took you to just mean that there could be exceptions). Conclution: We need a set policy.--JK the unwise 12:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to leave as is - but with a note that it is not helpful for OldakQuill to go round imposing his views on articles that already are consistent. It's time for us all to get back to improving articles, and I think a wider discussion would not resolve anything - after all, this discussion between 3 users that's hidden on OldakQuill's talk page has been lengthy and timeconsuming - and probably won't change a thing. I see no point in having a similar, but even more lengthy discussion with 20 or 40 other WPians also chipping in, jguk 13:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine if Oldak and yourself agree not to edit war over it.--JK the unwise 13:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If OldakQuill does not change articles that consistently use BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation (which started this whole discussion off), then there will be no edit war from me, jguk 13:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have kind of disregarded jguk's lets leave it comments in pasting it here. Sorry.--JK the unwise 14:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the contention that BCE/CE is not widely accepted or widely understood. It is pretty much the universal practice now in learned discourse, in fields as diverse as history, geology, archaeology, ethnology, biology, etc. as well as in non-christian religous contexts. Certainly any encyclopaedia that claims to be NPOV should adopt this standard. AD/BC is INHERENTLY POV. Certainly this is the accepted practice among other modern encyclopaedias. How could it be otherwise? And it most definitively understood to stand for "common era", NOT "Christian era" as someone suggested. Fawcett5 05:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you just misusing the Wikipedia jargon "NPOV", or are you claiming that it shouldn't apply in this situation? Gene Nygaard 11:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current style, article changes
The current style is that either way is generally acceptable. I think that's fine. And I think the form should usually not be changed within an article. Maurreen 19:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * and if you are going to edit in an outside editor, you should turn off "smart quotes" or whatever it is called, so you don't end up changing all the apostrophes and quotation marks in everyone else's entries in the section you edit, so we get all those ugly ampersand-number combinations. Gene Nygaard 20:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why the exceptions?
The proposed style guide recommends the continued use of BCE/CE for articles related to Buddhism and Judaism. This seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the BC/AD terms are religiously biased and are not necessarily suitable for some topics. So why should they be used for any topics, with the possible exception of Christianity itself? I feel that a consistent standard should be applied across all articles, without exceptions for specific religions. Pburka 22:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting
Do we vote on this proposal, and if so, where? 19:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plural of pound
Most recipes write 1/2 lb; 1 lb; 1 1/2 lbs; 2 lbs. Shouldn't it be the same in Wikipedia? I'm used to see the metric units not pluralized, but the US units usually have an 's' when it's more than one (at least in cook books)


 * That's largely a result of the fact that explicit rules for not changing unit symbols in plural is a recent concept, implemented after the standards keepers stopped worrying much about writing rules for anything other than SI units. In a cookbook using only English units, the discrepancy may not be so noticeable, but in Wikipedia which rarely uses English units without including metric conversions, a discrepancy in standards is more glaring.  There is no reason whatsoever why any symbol for any unit of measure should add some language-specific variant in the plural.  Gene Nygaard 14:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect date formats
The section on Incorrect date formats mentions no piped links refering to the music wikiproject, but there seems to be not much discussion of it there discussion there. It should therefore be removed from the proposal or discussed further. Tim! 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Claim about definition of natural numbers not supported by link
The 'Natural number section' claims:
 * In Wikipedia, "natural number" unequivocally means "non-negative integer", as the natural number article explains.

In fact, the natural numbers article has had a consensus since 2005 not to take a stance on whether 0 is a natural number, but allow either as reasonable, widely used interpretations. This also seems to be the working consensus of WP:Wikiproject Mathematics, reflecting practice among professional mathematicians. The lowest friction remedy would be simply to delete this part of the sentence and ignore the fact that the maths articles do not accord with the MoS. Alternatively, we could reopen this can of worms. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)