I am posting this on different talk pages, and want to inform the mailing list. I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate]] for the detailed proposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate
There has already been a long and contentious discussion on the Jesus talk page, and it has gotten cumbersome. It might get cumbersome to discuss this proposal here, too. Anyway, in the very early stages of the debate, someone told me that rather than argue on the Jesus talk page, I should propose to change the policy. Thus ....
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
I am posting this on different talk pages, and want to inform the mailing list. I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate]] for the detailed proposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate
There has already been a long and contentious discussion on the Jesus talk page, and it has gotten cumbersome. It might get cumbersome to discuss this proposal here, too. Anyway, in the very early stages of the debate, someone told me that rather than argue on the Jesus talk page, I should propose to change the policy. Thus ....
Steve
Ultra-short summary of previous debates:
Pro-CE) AD = "Year of Our Lord" thus is POV. Use CE. Pro-AD) No AD is more widely used and WP is not a vehicle for advocacy for change, so stick to AD. Pro-CE) But that is ignorance. We should be correct and neutral, not sheep-followers of the majority. Pro-AD) I am not Christian nor ignorant, but still use AD as the "standard". Adovacy is a bigger POV problem than origins of common terms being POV.
Rinse and repeat with minor variations.
Result: Weak argument to agree to disagree and have the Manual of Style say that both styles are acceptable and it should be decided on a page-to-page basis.
Now I am going to read the new debate and see what's new has been said :).
Pete/Pcb21
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Now I am going to read the new debate and see what's new has been said :).
Hey, I was pretty close :). Good job on the write-up Steven. You make the case for the "use BCE/CE" camp pretty well. Hopefully someone with the opposite point of view will write the definitive argument for the other side and we can keep them for ever more :)
On 5/16/05, Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Ultra-short summary of previous debates:
Pro-CE) AD = "Year of Our Lord" thus is POV. Use CE. Pro-AD) No AD is more widely used and WP is not a vehicle for advocacy for change, so stick to AD. Pro-CE) But that is ignorance. We should be correct and neutral, not sheep-followers of the majority. Pro-AD) I am not Christian nor ignorant, but still use AD as the "standard". Adovacy is a bigger POV problem than origins of common terms being POV.
The horse has long bolted. CE has been common usage for decades in an expanding circle of groups, most notably those of science or academia.
The Christians trying to contain the infection are as ultimately risible as the French trying to keep their language pure by opposing terms such as "le weekend". Christian belief is something that comes from the heart, not from strict adherence to the display of symbols.
The "standardists" may have a better moral case, but I see them as like those who grew up with the Imperial system of measurement and staunchly resist the metric system because they aren't used to the terms. Oddly enough, within the British Commonwealth these same people didn't have any problem in grasping decimal currency after conversion from pounds, shillings and pence. If they *really* have a problem with BCE rather than BC, then the standardists are picking the smallest of nits.
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Skyring wrote: [snip]
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
...except where use of BC and AD is appropriate. Would you have us convert every instance of something being measured in feet, inches, fathoms, chains, pounds, ounces, psi and the like to its metric equivalent?
You can't impose a blanket policy where the usage is dependent on context. Like naming conventions, there *are* exceptions to the rule.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
...except where use of BC and AD is appropriate. Would you have us convert every instance of something being measured in feet, inches, fathoms, chains, pounds, ounces, psi and the like to its metric equivalent?
You can't impose a blanket policy where the usage is dependent on context. Like naming conventions, there *are* exceptions to the rule.
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
As for the use of BC and AD, it is indeed perfectly appropriate in articles about Christianity-related topics, just as the use of the Hebrew, Hindu or Chinese calendars is appropriate in articles related to those topics.
Nevertheless, a standard for articles not based on those topics would be useful, and CE/BCE seems to be the least POV and easiest to implement out of the options available.
On 5/16/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Alphax wrote:
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
...except where use of BC and AD is appropriate. Would you have us convert every instance of something being measured in feet, inches, fathoms, chains, pounds, ounces, psi and the like to its metric equivalent?
You can't impose a blanket policy where the usage is dependent on context. Like naming conventions, there *are* exceptions to the rule.
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
It isn't Systemic Bias and most of the articles seem to be drifting in the direction of SI anyway.
geni said:
On 5/16/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
It isn't Systemic Bias and most of the articles seem to be drifting in the direction of SI anyway.
Since this seems to be favoring the majority Systeme Internationale against minority systems such as Foot-pound-second, shouldn't we still refer this to Countering Systemic Bias? :)
On 5/16/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
geni said:
On 5/16/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
It isn't Systemic Bias and most of the articles seem to be drifting in the direction of SI anyway.
Since this seems to be favoring the majority Systeme Internationale against minority systems such as Foot-pound-second, shouldn't we still refer this to Countering Systemic Bias? :)
Probably but that project has enough problems already.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
It isn't Systemic Bias and most of the articles seem to be drifting in the direction of SI anyway.
Since this seems to be favoring the majority Systeme Internationale against minority systems such as Foot-pound-second, shouldn't we still refer this to Countering Systemic Bias? :)
I was writing more in jest than in seriousness. I'm mostly just a little frustrated as an Australian having to constantly convert from pounds to kilometres, or from miles to kilometres whenever I read an American source (and since it is mostly America who resists the metric system, this probably is systemic bias).
Stephen Bain wrote:
I was writing more in jest than in seriousness. I'm mostly just a little frustrated as an Australian having to constantly convert from pounds to kilometres, or from miles to kilometres whenever I read an American source (and since it is mostly America who resists the metric system, this probably is systemic bias).
Miles are still used in both the United States and UK, which between them count for a pretty large proportion of the English-speaking world. A minority, sure, but one more than large enough to be worth accomodating---we accomodate far smaller minorities than those of 380 million people.
It would certainly be nice if each use of units was quoted in both systems though, unless it makes no sense to do so (e.g. non-engineering-oriented science articles). Putting in miles is appropriate, but not providing a conversion for them is sloppy.
-Mark
Delirium said:
Miles are still used in both the United States and UK, which between them count for a pretty large proportion of the English-speaking world.
In the UK this is only for "folk" uses such as pints of beer and road signs. I believe all scientific and engineering ventures switched to SI long ago, and nearly all commercial institutions (aforementioned pints of beer excluded, for instance) are required to use metric measure although they are also permitted to provide equivalent ounces, pounds, stones and whatnot. They sell orange juice in liters, butter by the kilogram, cloth by the meter. Liquor is sold in metric measure, so in a pub you get a pint of beer but a 35 ml measure of brandy, and a 200ml glass of wine.
Road signs haven't switched because it would be very difficult and dangerous as well as politically explosive.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
Miles are still used in both the United States and UK, which between them count for a pretty large proportion of the English-speaking world.
In the UK this is only for "folk" uses such as pints of beer and road signs. I believe all scientific and engineering ventures switched to SI long ago, and nearly all commercial institutions (aforementioned pints of beer excluded, for instance) are required to use metric measure although they are also permitted to provide equivalent ounces, pounds, stones and whatnot. They sell orange juice in liters, butter by the kilogram, cloth by the meter. Liquor is sold in metric measure, so in a pub you get a pint of beer but a 35 ml measure of brandy, and a 200ml glass of wine.
Road signs haven't switched because it would be very difficult and dangerous as well as politically explosive.
Certainly I agree that we ought to use kilometers exclusively when discussing scientific matters, since nobody uses anything else. But as you note, when discussing "folk" matters such as the distances between cities, much of the English-speaking world uses miles, so it's appropriate that we use them (though not, of course, without also giving the distance in kilometers).
-Mark
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Delirium said:
Miles are still used in both the United States and UK, which between them count for a pretty large proportion of the English-speaking world.
In the UK this is only for "folk" uses such as pints of beer and road signs. I believe all scientific and engineering ventures switched to SI long ago, and nearly all commercial institutions (aforementioned pints of beer excluded, for instance) are required to use metric measure although they are also permitted to provide equivalent ounces, pounds, stones and whatnot. They sell orange juice in liters, butter by the kilogram, cloth by the meter. Liquor is sold in metric measure, so in a pub you get a pint of beer but a 35 ml measure of brandy, and a 200ml glass of wine.
Road signs haven't switched because it would be very difficult and dangerous as well as politically explosive.
Difficult and dangerous? As far as I know, in Canada that was one of the first things to be switched.
Jay.
On 5/17/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Road signs haven't switched because it would be very difficult and dangerous as well as politically explosive.
We simply changed to a different design of speed sign. The average driver had no problem distinguishing between the two.
Perhaps Australians are more perceptive than British or American folk.
On 5/17/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
Perhaps Australians are more perceptive than British or American folk.
Or maybe Brits are just less imaginative.
Thanks, I never thought of that. Two types of speed limit sign. Yes!
It was odd. The new signs looked cool and the old ones were suddenly looking as old fashioned as a red telephone box.
Of course it took a few months before the last one of the old signs had been replaced, but the various road authorities had stockpiled the new signs and the only real problem was physically finding enough workers to unscrew the old ones and screw on the new ones.
Speaking of explosives, should we talk of chemical measures in terms of moles (units consisting of a certain number of molecules, the number of which has slipped my mind at this moment)?
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
Miles are still used in both the United States and UK, which between them count for a pretty large proportion of the English-speaking world.
In the UK this is only for "folk" uses such as pints of beer and road signs. I believe all scientific and engineering ventures switched to SI long ago, and nearly all commercial institutions (aforementioned pints of beer excluded, for instance) are required to use metric measure although they are also permitted to provide equivalent ounces, pounds, stones and whatnot. They sell orange juice in liters, butter by the kilogram, cloth by the meter. Liquor is sold in metric measure, so in a pub you get a pint of beer but a 35 ml measure of brandy, and a 200ml glass of wine.
Road signs haven't switched because it would be very difficult and dangerous as well as politically explosive.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
Speaking of explosives, should we talk of chemical measures in terms of moles (units consisting of a certain number of molecules, the number of which has slipped my mind at this moment)?
My memory is 6.022 x 10^23
Why such a weird number, anyway?
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jim Trodel wrote:
On 5/17/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
Speaking of explosives, should we talk of chemical measures in terms of moles (units consisting of a certain number of molecules, the number of which has slipped my mind at this moment)?
My memory is 6.022 x 10^23 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jim Trodel wrote:
On 5/17/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
Speaking of explosives, should we talk of chemical measures in terms of moles (units consisting of a certain number of molecules, the number of which has slipped my mind at this moment)?
My memory is 6.022 x 10^23
Why such a weird number, anyway?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_number
Cormac
Hmmm. Interesting.
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 5/17/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jim Trodel wrote:
On 5/17/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
Speaking of explosives, should we talk of chemical measures in terms of moles (units consisting of a certain number of molecules, the number of which has slipped my mind at this moment)?
My memory is 6.022 x 10^23
Why such a weird number, anyway?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_number
Cormac _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stephen Bain wrote:
Alphax wrote:
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
...except where use of BC and AD is appropriate. Would you have us convert every instance of something being measured in feet, inches, fathoms, chains, pounds, ounces, psi and the like to its metric equivalent?
You can't impose a blanket policy where the usage is dependent on context. Like naming conventions, there *are* exceptions to the rule.
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
As for the use of BC and AD, it is indeed perfectly appropriate in articles about Christianity-related topics, just as the use of the Hebrew, Hindu or Chinese calendars is appropriate in articles related to those topics.
Nevertheless, a standard for articles not based on those topics would be useful, and CE/BCE seems to be the least POV and easiest to implement out of the options available.
So if BC and AD are appropriate for Christianity-related topics, why not allow foot-pounds and the like for articles where using the Imperial measurements is in context and factually accurate? Highways were measured as being x *chains* wide, depths were recorded in *fathoms*, altitudes measured in *feet*, etc. Where there is historic convention to do so, use the historic units. Where there is not, use the modern units. The concepts of BC and AD were around *before* CE and BCE, and are *historical units*. Let them remain as such where it is relevant to do so.
Anyway, since this is the /English/ Wikipedia, shouldn't we follow the conventions of English-speaking countries? I can't think of *any* that use BCE and CE in official documents.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On 5/16/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, since this is the /English/ Wikipedia, shouldn't we follow the conventions of English-speaking countries? I can't think of *any* that use BCE and CE in official documents.
You're not so hot on research.
http://www.nla.gov.au/worldtreasures/html/theme-words-5-cuneiform.html http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/deadseascrolls/scroll04.html http://www.hreoc.gov.au/info_for_students/timeline/ http://www.wa.gov.au/perthobs/Venus/venus.html
All these are easily -found official government documents.
I suggest that ALL English-speaking countries use this convention on some official documents.
Question: How would one denote a Jewish year, such as 5765? 5765 ACW? (After Creation of World)? 5765 Year of HaShem? 5765 Jewish Year? Hebrew year 5765?
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Stephen Bain wrote:
Alphax wrote:
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
...except where use of BC and AD is appropriate. Would you have us convert every instance of something being measured in feet, inches, fathoms, chains, pounds, ounces, psi and the like to its metric equivalent?
You can't impose a blanket policy where the usage is dependent on context. Like naming conventions, there *are* exceptions to the rule.
It would be wonderful if Wikipedia converted completely to the metric system, or perhaps [[SI]] ("the most widely used system of units"). Perhaps units should be referred to the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject.
As for the use of BC and AD, it is indeed perfectly appropriate in articles about Christianity-related topics, just as the use of the Hebrew, Hindu or Chinese calendars is appropriate in articles related to those topics.
Nevertheless, a standard for articles not based on those topics would be useful, and CE/BCE seems to be the least POV and easiest to implement out of the options available.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 5/16/05, Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Ultra-short summary of previous debates:
Pro-CE) AD = "Year of Our Lord" thus is POV. Use CE. Pro-AD) No AD is more widely used and WP is not a vehicle for advocacy for change, so stick to AD. Pro-CE) But that is ignorance. We should be correct and neutral, not sheep-followers of the majority. Pro-AD) I am not Christian nor ignorant, but still use AD as the "standard". Adovacy is a bigger POV problem than origins of common terms being POV.
The horse has long bolted. CE has been common usage for decades in an expanding circle of groups, most notably those of science or academia.
The Christians trying to contain the infection are as ultimately risible as the French trying to keep their language pure by opposing terms such as "le weekend". Christian belief is something that comes from the heart, not from strict adherence to the display of symbols.
The "standardists" may have a better moral case, but I see them as like those who grew up with the Imperial system of measurement and staunchly resist the metric system because they aren't used to the terms. Oddly enough, within the British Commonwealth these same people didn't have any problem in grasping decimal currency after conversion from pounds, shillings and pence. If they *really* have a problem with BCE rather than BC, then the standardists are picking the smallest of nits.
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
And here we can see several reasons why this proposal stirs up so much resistance.
* The assertion that because the style "CE/BCE" is "common usage", it should be exclusive usage. A confusion of categories: is there any proof that if an academic or scientist uses the style "AD/BC", that the editor will change it or reject the submission? (A glance at my copy of the MLA Handbook only discusses how to use both correctly -- although it does discourage use of the once hallowed "ibid." & "op. cit.") * That usage amongst certain groups -- i.e., academics -- is preferable to usage amongst other groups. Appeal to authority: I would hope that if academics have unamimously embraced this style, that there are a number of readily-available -- & published essays -- that eloquently & convincingly explain why one style is preferable to another. * That the only people who would resist using this style do so for reasons of faith. A straw man argument: I prefer "AD/BC" over "CE/BCE" because that was the style that I felt was the most authentic for me. I am currently not a member of any religion, although at one point in my past I did embrace neo-paganism. * That the style "CE/BCE" is universally embraced except for a few implictly out-of-fashion groups. Assertion without proof: I was not aware that the of "AD/BC" has gone the way of isenglas & mimeograph printing.
I suspect many people who defend the use of "AD/BC" tend towards emotional arguments because they are not familiar with how to make meta-lingusitic arguments -- which I admit is difficult to do, & harder to do well. In effect, we who prefer that style are being told we are wrong & are accused of causing offense where none is intended, but the reasons offered fail to convince us how or why; & when we protest, we are perjoratively labelled (i.e., "Christians"), & condemned. This sorta goes against the ideal of [[Assume good faith]].
Geoff
The argument of AD vs. CE is probably the most ridiculous one i've seen so far. What next - Will [[Gingerbread Man]] be made [[Gingerbread Person]] to not upset the gender equality pushers? Or how about renamed Wikipedia to Wikipédia to not upset heavily pro-French language-ists? Just about everything can be made POV in one way or another. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Burling" llywrch@agora.rdrop.com To: "Skyring" skyring@gmail.com; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Announcing a policy proposal
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 5/16/05, Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Ultra-short summary of previous debates:
Pro-CE) AD = "Year of Our Lord" thus is POV. Use CE. Pro-AD) No AD is more widely used and WP is not a vehicle for advocacy for change, so stick to AD. Pro-CE) But that is ignorance. We should be correct and neutral, not sheep-followers of the majority. Pro-AD) I am not Christian nor ignorant, but still use AD as the "standard". Adovacy is a bigger POV problem than origins of common
terms
being POV.
The horse has long bolted. CE has been common usage for decades in an expanding circle of groups, most notably those of science or academia.
The Christians trying to contain the infection are as ultimately risible as the French trying to keep their language pure by opposing terms such as "le weekend". Christian belief is something that comes from the heart, not from strict adherence to the display of symbols.
The "standardists" may have a better moral case, but I see them as like those who grew up with the Imperial system of measurement and staunchly resist the metric system because they aren't used to the terms. Oddly enough, within the British Commonwealth these same people didn't have any problem in grasping decimal currency after conversion from pounds, shillings and pence. If they *really* have a problem with BCE rather than BC, then the standardists are picking the smallest of nits.
CE/BCE is already a standard in many disciplines. Make it so in WP.
And here we can see several reasons why this proposal stirs up so much resistance.
- The assertion that because the style "CE/BCE" is "common usage", it
should be exclusive usage. A confusion of categories: is there any proof that if an academic or scientist uses the style "AD/BC", that the editor will change it or reject the submission? (A glance at my copy of the MLA Handbook only discusses how to use both correctly -- although it does discourage use of the once hallowed "ibid." & "op. cit.")
- That usage amongst certain groups -- i.e., academics -- is preferable
to usage amongst other groups. Appeal to authority: I would hope that if academics have unamimously embraced this style, that there are a number of readily-available -- & published essays -- that eloquently & convincingly explain why one style is preferable to another.
- That the only people who would resist using this style do so for
reasons of faith. A straw man argument: I prefer "AD/BC" over "CE/BCE" because that was the style that I felt was the most authentic for me. I am currently not a member of any religion, although at one point in my past I did embrace neo-paganism.
- That the style "CE/BCE" is universally embraced except for a few
implictly out-of-fashion groups. Assertion without proof: I was not aware that the of "AD/BC" has gone the way of isenglas & mimeograph printing.
I suspect many people who defend the use of "AD/BC" tend towards emotional arguments because they are not familiar with how to make meta-lingusitic arguments -- which I admit is difficult to do, & harder to do well. In effect, we who prefer that style are being told we are wrong & are accused of causing offense where none is intended, but the reasons offered fail to convince us how or why; & when we protest, we are perjoratively labelled (i.e., "Christians"), & condemned. This sorta goes against the ideal of [[Assume good faith]].
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am new to this; so I may misunderstand, or I may be restating things which have already been said.
The various documents and policies appear to indicate that NPOV is primarily a matter of presenting facts in a fair and unbiased manner. When there are differing viewpoints or opinions as to what are the facts of a subject, then NPOV would require that these viewpoints be presented in a fair and unbiased manner, without undue emphasis -- or undue lack of emphasis -- being given to one or more of those viewpoints.
However, in this case, we are not dealing with fact, viewpoint, or opinion. We are simply dealing with *nomenclature*. While the names of things may well reflect cultural or other bias, it is also true that through long, common usage they lose much (if not all) of the connotations they may have once had.
Does NPOV require that we reject the name of the month of June, because it is based on the name of a Roman goddess?
It is likely that the overwhelming majority of people consider "BC" and "AD" as simply labels -- giving little (if any) more thought to their religious context than they give to the label "June".
It is possible that rejecting a commonly held and accepted nomenclature in favor of one which many would perceive as being artificially neutral could be considered as the violation of NPOV.
It is questionable whether the goals of the Wikipedia project would be well served by taking it out of the mainstream and toward what many would see as an "elitist" stance.
Good luck, Bill
Geoff Burling wrote:
- That the only people who would resist using this style do so for
reasons of faith. A straw man argument: I prefer "AD/BC" over "CE/BCE" because that was the style that I felt was the most authentic for me. I am currently not a member of any religion, although at one point in my past I did embrace neo-paganism.
For me, I prefer AD/BC over CE/BCE only because: * It's harder to change one to the other with a simple typo. * There's the same number of letters in each, which satisfies my aesthetic sense.
That these reasons alone are sufficient to sway my preference on the matter suggests to me that I don't consider the matter to be terribly significant. :) However, since switching over to CE/BCE would entail some rather major work fixing stuff in Wikipedia, I would strongly oppose changing in either direction on that very basis - it's just not worth it, IMO.
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate
OMG, not again.
You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid. Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.
Also, some people in this discussion have drawn parallels between this and imperial units of measurement. HELLOOOO?! It's not really like you need to *convert* between the two, you know?! Or maybe I just somehow missed that 1 year CE is actually equivalent to 3.573495764 years AD?
Have you thought that there may be alien civilisations out there? Using our Earth year as measurement of time is POV!!
Head-shaking, Timwi
You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid. Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.
Actually, it's not, which makes the usage even more problematic.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid. Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.
Actually, it's not, which makes the usage even more problematic.
Argh! Come on now, you know exactly what I meant. The point isn't that the measurement is inaccurate. The point is that renaming it to "CE" does not make it a different measurement. It is still based on the same Christian considerations.
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net JAY JG wrote:
You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid. Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.
Actually, it's not, which makes the usage even more problematic.
Argh! Come on now, you know exactly what I meant. The point isn't that the measurement is inaccurate. The point is that renaming it to "CE" does not make it a different measurement. It is still based on the same Christian considerations.
When one uses the B.C. system one is able to make the rather bizarre statement that "Christ was born 4 to 6 years Before Christ". At least Before the Common Era does away with that.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
The point isn't that the measurement is inaccurate. The point is that renaming it to "CE" does not make it a different measurement. It is still based on the same Christian considerations.
When one uses the B.C. system one is able to make the rather bizarre statement that "Christ was born 4 to 6 years Before Christ". At least Before the Common Era does away with that.
No, it doesn't, it only makes it subtler. "4 to 6 years before the Common Era" would still mean "4 to 6 years before the point in time that some wackos at some point thought was the birthdate of Jesus".
Timwi wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
The point isn't that the measurement is inaccurate. The point is that renaming it to "CE" does not make it a different measurement. It is still based on the same Christian considerations.
When one uses the B.C. system one is able to make the rather bizarre statement that "Christ was born 4 to 6 years Before Christ". At least Before the Common Era does away with that.
No, it doesn't, it only makes it subtler. "4 to 6 years before the Common Era" would still mean "4 to 6 years before the point in time that some wackos at some point thought was the birthdate of Jesus".
I wouldn't exactly call them wackos. Research facilities at the time were rudimentary by today's standards. I don't know how long it took before it was realized that Jesus was probably born 4 years earlier, but by then the damage was done since the A.U.C. dating system had already been abandoned for some time. I suppose that the properr thing might be to advocate for a change in the calendar that reflects the fact that we are now four years later than we thought we were. This is really the year 2009! All dates in historical records and books should be changed to reflect that. (Columbus did not discover America until 1496, WWII lasted from 1943 until 1949, the Y2K panic anticipated the coming of the year 2004, etc.)
Unfortunately people might not understand the importance of such a move. There were riots when the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar stole 11 days from people's lives. Imagine how irrationally they will respond when we seek to shorten their lives by four years. :-)
Ec
On 5/19/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Unfortunately people might not understand the importance of such a move. There were riots when the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar stole 11 days from people's lives. Imagine how irrationally they will respond when we seek to shorten their lives by four years. :-)
It'd be Y2K all over again, and you'd get holdouts in Ohio stubbornly refusing to leave "God's Years", and stockpiling chips.
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
The point isn't that the measurement is inaccurate. The point is that renaming it to "CE" does not make it a different measurement. It is still based on the same Christian considerations.
When one uses the B.C. system one is able to make the rather bizarre statement that "Christ was born 4 to 6 years Before Christ". At least Before the Common Era does away with that.
No, it doesn't, it only makes it subtler. "4 to 6 years before the Common Era" would still mean "4 to 6 years before the point in time that some wackos at some point thought was the birthdate of Jesus".
Or at least the wacko named Dennis the Short.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You're right about it not being the case, but this makes the usage less problematic, not more.
On Mon, 16 May 2005, JAY JG wrote:
You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid. Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.
Actually, it's not, which makes the usage even more problematic.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Also, some people in this discussion have drawn parallels between this and imperial units of measurement. HELLOOOO?! It's not really like you need to *convert* between the two, you know?! Or maybe I just somehow missed that 1 year CE is actually equivalent to 3.573495764 years AD?
Did you actually read my post on this and grasp the point I was making?
Presumably not. Just as some people cling to old units of measurement, the "standardists" in the AD/CE debate cling to AD and BC because they are used to them, not because they are Christians.
See the point now?
Skyring wrote:
On 5/17/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Also, some people in this discussion have drawn parallels between this and imperial units of measurement. HELLOOOO?! It's not really like you need to *convert* between the two, you know?! Or maybe I just somehow missed that 1 year CE is actually equivalent to 3.573495764 years AD?
Just as some people cling to old units of measurement, the "standardists" in the AD/CE debate cling to AD and BC because they are used to them, not because they are Christians.
Did you even read my message? Presumably not. I never denied nor contradicted that, nor even mentioned or referred to it.
Timwi
On 5/17/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Skyring wrote:
On 5/17/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Also, some people in this discussion have drawn parallels between this and imperial units of measurement. HELLOOOO?! It's not really like you need to *convert* between the two, you know?! Or maybe I just somehow missed that 1 year CE is actually equivalent to 3.573495764 years AD?
Just as some people cling to old units of measurement, the "standardists" in the AD/CE debate cling to AD and BC because they are used to them, not because they are Christians.
Did you even read my message? Presumably not. I never denied nor contradicted that, nor even mentioned or referred to it.
It's fun to be deliberately stupid, isn't it? I particularly liked the way you cleverly snipped the evidence that cut you off at the knees. That was well done.
I think we're done with this bit of the discussion anyway.
But sometimes it IS fun to be deliberately stupid, so long as you ain't being a troll.
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
Skyring wrote:
It's fun to be deliberately stupid, isn't it?
Please reconsider your attitude towards other people on this mailing list. Thank you.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/18/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Skyring wrote:
It's fun to be deliberately stupid, isn't it?
Please reconsider your attitude towards other people on this mailing list. Thank you.
I think you missed my point, you humourless bastard.
On 5/18/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Skyring wrote:
I think you missed my point, you humourless bastard.
Clearly, discussion is futile with you, so I will put you on ignore for now until you will learn to behave in a less aggressive way.
I rest my case...
By the way, Islamic years and solar years have different lengths. Also, by the way, it's not exactly the number of years since Jesus's birth, as the writers of the New Testament were racking their brains out trying to figure what happened when - and made mistakes, of course. This led to a monk, the one who invented the BC/AD system to begin with, making a "best guess" on the basis of inconsistent evidence in scripture. The upshot: now folks think Jesus was born in 4 BCE, or 6 BCE, or some such year.
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate
OMG, not again.
You know, I've always found this AD vs. CE debate extremely stupid. Like, as if renaming "AD" to "CE" would immediately, suddenly and magically remove all connections with any religion! Guys, it's still the number of years after Jesus' birth, whether you like it or not.
Also, some people in this discussion have drawn parallels between this and imperial units of measurement. HELLOOOO?! It's not really like you need to *convert* between the two, you know?! Or maybe I just somehow missed that 1 year CE is actually equivalent to 3.573495764 years AD?
Have you thought that there may be alien civilisations out there? Using our Earth year as measurement of time is POV!!
Head-shaking, Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/18/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
By the way, Islamic years and solar years have different lengths. Also, by the way, it's not exactly the number of years since Jesus's birth, as the writers of the New Testament were racking their brains out trying to figure what happened when - and made mistakes, of course. This led to a monk, the one who invented the BC/AD system to begin with, making a "best guess" on the basis of inconsistent evidence in scripture. The upshot: now folks think Jesus was born in 4 BCE, or 6 BCE, or some such year.
The monk was Dennis the Short, according to Stephen Gould. He goes into the whole thing in some detail.
Do we know anything about this monk other than that he invented the BC/AD system, his name was Dennis, and that he appears to have been a short guy?
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 5/18/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
By the way, Islamic years and solar years have different lengths. Also, by the way, it's not exactly the number of years since Jesus's birth, as the writers of the New Testament were racking their brains out trying to figure what happened when - and made mistakes, of course. This led to a monk, the one who invented the BC/AD system to begin with, making a "best guess" on the basis of inconsistent evidence in scripture. The upshot: now folks think Jesus was born in 4 BCE, or 6 BCE, or some such year.
The monk was Dennis the Short, according to Stephen Gould. He goes into the whole thing in some detail.
-- Pete, wondering if WP does _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l