Talk:History of Japan/Archive 2

message: It appears that their was an anti-American European or Wikipedia using Commonwealth English, whose primary goal in this article was to denigrate the USA.  Some of his sentences were tweaked to make them more neutral--their points ARE still there, just not so pointedly targeted at the United States. Chiss Boy 11:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-American European

message: The article notes that the interest rates are 0% in [Japan] now but this is untrue as recently Japan has raised interest rates slightly. The main article on Japan references a BBC article that discusses the raise in interest rates (BBC:Japan scraps zero interest rates). I believe the interest rates are currently somewhere around 0.5%
(Ian Lewis 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest rates 

message: I have made a small change in the text around the emissary sent by Japan to China in 607.
The previous text was not wrong, but I wanted to make it look less (though not completely) controversial on the smallest points.
First point: Since it is commonly believed that Prince Shotoku was the one who proposed and started the emissary to Sui, it may as well be interpreted that letters brought to China was written by him, but it is generally safer to say such official letters were sent, without referring to who wrote it.
Secondly: the "Book of Sui" only mentions that the letter in which "the rising sun" appears made Emperor Yang angry. It is again safer to provide a citation as to how it can be interpreted, although the original text does probably reflect the common understandings today.
Therefore I have added one from the Cambridge.
--OhMyDeer 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification made to Asuka Period explained 

message: User:71.208.183.235 added the following comment to the text "The  lasted from about 10,000 BC to 300 BC.": these overlap please explain/fix
Fg2 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 

message: It is widely believed (and frequently written on Wikipedia) that Hideyoshi desired to conquer all of China and even India through his invasions of Korea. However, I get the impression that scholarship tells a very different story. Arano Yasunori, in his article "The Formation of a Japanocentric World Order," from the International Journal of Asian Studies 2:2 (2005), explains that "The Toyotomi regime, however, had far more realistic foreign policies: it sought to have Europe and Ming China as its trading partners, and Korea, the Ryukyus, Luzon (the Philippines), and Taiwan as its subordinate states. However, all through his Korean campaigns, Hideyoshi sought from Ming China, not subordination, but access to the licensed tally trade (kangō bōeki 勘合貿易)."
Given this information from scholarship, along with the just general common sense understanding that conquest of China and India was totally unrealistic, what shall we do with comments in this article and others that "Hideyoshi invaded Korea in an attempt to conquer Korea, China, and even India"?
I would be happy to share the article with others; it's a good read in any case. Thanks. LordAmeth 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideyoshi's intentions 

message: This is a dispute as to whether the date terms BC/AD or BCE/CE should be used.
Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
* I believe that BC/AD should be used. Those terms were established by the first major contributor, User:-- April, here. A list of dates by an anon-IP is not a major contributor. WP:MOS says that if there is a dispute, that is where you go. BCE/CE was added later, but when that happened the article was inconsistent - I then made it consistent. Comments have been made that BC/AD should not be used because it is "Christian" and Japan is not Christian. That is an invalid argument, as the community rejected the proposal that BC/AD be labelled POV and should be replaced by BCE/CE outside of non-Chrisitan articles here. John Smith's 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to Guettarda) And what is this era "we (in the West)" are supposed to be living in? Whatever it's called, it's still based on the date of the supposed birth of a certain supposed individual. I'm not a Christian, I do not make assertions whatsoever about Jesus when I use "AD/BC". LDHan 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The MOS does not preclude the use of BC/AD in such a way. Indeed the MOS has actually removed the extract you're refering to, so that is no longer part of its guidelines. John Smith's 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. it was there 10 days ago: . Sad somebody took it away, because it was a real piece of common sense. Your claim that BC/AD has no Christian associations really does not make sense and is only radicalizing the vast majority of users here in favour of BCE/CE. Go on John... PHG 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not there anymore - it couldn't be taken away by one person without consensus. So now you're changing the subject because that fact doesn't support your position. How surprising! Really, it's quite ridiculous for you to claim MOS guidelines support you and then pretend it doesn't mean anything when what you were relying is removed from those same guidelines. It goes to show how weak your argument against BC/AD is. John Smith's 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have a link for that supposed consensus? PHG 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is here. No one objected to the removal of the bit about Christian associations, and as silence = consensus for the purpose of wikipedia, that was consensus. John Smith's 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the change was only made because it was considered obvious that BC/AD had overtly Christian associations: "I took out the superfluous part about avoiding the Christian associations of BC/AD. All terms are linked within the section if an editor needs to know more about what the terms mean." (User:MJCdetroit, here). It is actually so obvious a fact that it does not even need mention anymore... except maybe for the very last few who keep denying it... PHG 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, no one objected to the removal. Also the comment you quoted does not say MJCdetroit was removing it because it was so obvious - he said it was "superfluous", which means generally unnecessary. You can try to avoid this, but the point you're trying to rely on was removed from MOS, so it is no longer a valid argument to oppose BC/AD. Also the fact you're trying to reinsert this rather shows that you do think it is a fact that needs to be said - your actions contradict your comments here. John Smith's 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just trying to play on words. What MJCdetroit means is that this fact is redundant with the BC/AD article content. Please also see the comment of User:Pmanderson hereafter. PHG 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to play on words at all. I am affirming what MJC actually said. You are again ignoring the fact it was removed from MOS. You can continue with this silly line, or move on. The fact you never want to talk about MOS when it doesn't serve your viewpoint is a clear sign that you are POV. The default line in MOS is that BC/AD is fine to use. Now the single expression you would cling to in order to try to qualify that is gone, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel even more. John Smith's 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep on denying the obvious John... Again I do not expect I will convinve you. The bottom line is that BC/AD obviously has strong Christian connotations (it is simply ridiculous to deny that), that it is fine to use, and that some writers will prefer to implement BCE/CE for article without Christian connotations. PHG 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PHG, I'm just trying to follow WP:MOS. The sad truth is that you only do so when you think you can use it to your advantage, and now it doesn't suit you you're trying to ignore it. By the way, thanks for affirming BC/AD is fine to use - maybe now you'll stop trying to change it to BCE/CE. John Smith's 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personnaly not push BCE/CE on Christianity-related articles, in order to respect the sensitivity of the people there. It should also be your obvious choice not to push BC/AD on articles that have nothing to do with Chritianity (remember History of Nepal and History of the Americas?), when a more neutral alternative is available. PHG 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not pushing anything here - it was you that pushed BCE/CE. I made the article consistent and then you changed it over. You're the one doing the pushing. John Smith's 12:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how about your edits on History of Nepal, History of the Americas, and scores of others??  You obviously try to use any technicality (and illegal moves such as on Template:History of Japan) to push your BC/AD POV on any article, especially those which have no relationship whatsoever with Christianity. In History of Japan the first major editor actually used BCE/CE, BCE/CE is more appropriate as a non-Christianity-related subject, and when consulted the vast majority of users actually approved the BCE/CE position for this article. Conversely, I would certainly not dare try to impose BCE/CE on Christianity-related article, so why don't you return the favour? I do not wish to continue this empty discussion with you. PHG 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's talk about History of Nepal. I was making the terms consistent with the earliest non-stub. On other pages, I've stopped reverting where there was consistency. Again, you misrepresent my actions. I'm not the one trying to get a stable page changed right now - you are. You don't want to continue this discussion because I'm pointing out what you're trying to do. Your claims to neutrality are the only empty thing in this conversation - you're pushing your own POV. John Smith's 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You've stopped reverting in these cases only because your actions were undefendable and other editors denounced them. It actually seems the BCE/CE position in History of Nepal was quite longstanding, except for a few ADs in a paragraph. Another good excuse to change everything to BC/AD??? It would be more logical to align everything on BCE/CE taking the topic into account, without mentionning the Template. You didn't explain your "illegal" actions on Template:History of Japan. PHG 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was making the article consistent in line with the first major contribution that used either term. Both terms were only used in a relatively small number of cases, so it could go either way in my view. If the first major contrib had used BCE/CE I would now switch it over to that. But that wasn't the case. Now let's get back to this article and the fact that it was consistent because of my changes - the trouble started when you took exception to that and started pushing your own POV. John Smith's 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The text in question is Some writers use CE and BCE to avoid the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC. That is a perfectly true statement - and any article on which there is consensus that AD and BC should be avoided is free to change. Some writers use AD and BC because they are msot widely understood than BC and BCE would be equally true; and a consensus should be free to change an article for that reason. Neither is a mandate to change, merely permission. For my part, I consider the political correctness of the first set of writers as obnoxious as the philistinism of the second, and will oppose either change if asked.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hi Endroit. After claiming how neutral BC/AD supposedly is, we are now claiming how associated with Christianity BCE/CE supposedly is... I have never heard the reading "Christian Era" for CE, and the reference given to this claim in the Wikipedia article CE is actually very slim: an online dictionnary giving "Christian Era" as a synonym, not as the actual reading for CE (here). Other online resources on the subject are very limited, except an article explaining that Christian Era is actually shortened to C.AE. It doesn't matter much anyway as "Christian Era" meaning "Era of the Christians" is a reality, just as the fact that CE and AD coincide is a reality. Uttering however "Year of the Lord" (Anno Domini) everytime we mention a date is equivalent to a profession of faith if words mean anything, something which is understandably disturbing for people not especially following the Christian faith. Our Encyclopedia is multi-national and multi-cultural and should therefore avoid imposing particular religious formulations, codes or standards whenever possible. Regards. PHG 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Try the 2nd entry in Merriam-Webster's here.  According to it, it's first and foremost "Christian Era", then "Common Era".  Therefore "BCE/CE" is Christian as well.--Endroit 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Here's the entry for BCE in Merriam Webster's.--Endroit 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Addition. The entry of Common Era in New Shogakukan Random house Eng-Ja Dic. is ((the~))=Christian Era. And the entry of Christian Era is ((the~))キリスト紀元、西暦紀元 Common Eraともいう (1657). Using BCE/CE in the article just because japan is not a Christian country seems to me a discrimination from Christians.Oda Mari 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew, the page was not consistently using BCE/CE in April. If anything at the start of April it was using BC/AD consistently, as it was with the first major contribution. Some anonymous editor introduced BCE/CE in only some places here in mid April. It only became consistent when I made it so at the end of July. So if you want to go by length of time using one term, clearly BC/AD has been the format for this article. John Smith's 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: In order to stop the constant reverting back and forth between BC/AD and BCE/CE, I have protected this article until a consensus is arrived at on which one should be used. As anyone can see above, I have offered my opinion on the matter. However, this constant reverting back and forth is doing nothing but making people upset. So, until a consensus can be reached one way or the other on which should be used here, this article will remain protected. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I doubt the article's going to get much editing done in the next couple of months.... John Smith's 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need something important changed, post below in the Edits needed section and I or another admin who happens by will take care of it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: If you have an edit which absolutely must be done while the article is protected, please give explicit instructions on what you wish done and and admin will take care of it. Please note that this is for small edits, as we won't be doing any huge sweeping changes for you. If you have one of those, please save it somewhere and take care of it once the article is unprotected. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits needed

message: To be briefest, the jist of everything below is that a couple of my students pointed out that the author of this 'history of japan' presents anti-japanese and mis-leading statements regarding Japanese history from the point of Japanese history tied with us in the West, in that he deliberately leaves out/omits major Japanese treaties and events and their perspectives that like 'cherry-picking intelligence', leaves the reader with the wrong, even contrary impression about certain aspects of Japanese history.Obviously we're not Japanese. I have read the entire page and I have agreed with my students and allowed them to try to post what they know to be "intentionally with-held information."
When I read someone above claim the author seemed to reflect an anti-American bias in his description of Japanese history, I guffawed.
Frankly, though he did accurately represent how we made our 'first impression' on the Japanese, the fact he didn't mention how this had to be the seeds of negative feelings towards us; was to me, the first sign of his actually being quite 'anti-Japanese', at least where it comes to their relations with us. 
I guarantee you that if we were talking about an 1805 British warfleet sailing into Boston Harbor forcing we Americans to do as we were told, he would relate how this had a permanent impression on the American psyche and attitude towards the British.
While Japanese and English historians agree there was an actual active military alliance called the "Allies" in WW1 that Japan was a member of,
they do not agree that there was an active military alliance called the "Axis" in WW2 that Japan was a member of against Germany's enemies which included, mostly in fact, Russia.
So it 'seems' prejudicial against Japan to refuse to use a universally-accepted positve description of Japan while agree to use a contested negative description of Japan?
It's like when we say "we kill" but "they murder".
How can one objectively write on a period of history where friends and allies became enemies and enemies became friends without mentioning why?
Eventhough he's supposed to be writing about Japanese history, he focuses more on how the Japanese extremists perceived events, rather than the serving Prime Minister, Cabinet even average commoner reading of all the events, treaties and pacts this author omits.
In the same way he fails to mention why England and Japan went from friends to enemies, he fails to mention why Germany and Japan went from enemies to friends. Isn't this at least as important as the name of the conspiring officer?
He omits Japanese and asian anger, rather than gratitude, at our refusal to put into writing the 'equality clause' pronouncing all nations equal regardless of race and religion.
He omits that like Italy, Japan also felt like it was treated as an 'inferior power' and betrayed on WW1 promises, spoils of war and reparations.
He keeps mentioning why we reacted to certain Japanese actions, but fails to mention why the Japanese did what they did.
He mentions that we started severing relations with Japan because of her moves into Manchukuo in the 1930s, while totally omitting that the reason the Japanese did so was because of the exact same Soviet actions in Mongolia in the 1920s setting up their own 'Pu Yi' puppet in the form of pro-Soviet Horlogiyn Choibalsan. 
As soon as his Japanese history touches onto we in the West, he seems more intent on explaining why we reacted the way we did to Japanese moves rather than why the Japanese reacted to other major moves he fails to mention altogether.
The only reason I can see why he fails to mention the Anti-Comintern Pact at all, is because he would have to mention:
a) that it was in response to the Soviet annexation of Mongolia from China, and
b) that in the same way Japan cancelled that 1936 Anti-Comintern pact with Germany when Hitler signed the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, he would have to mention that for the same reasons Japan also cancelled the Nov 1940 Tripartite Pact(Axis) because of the April 1941 'Soviet-Japan' Pact after Germany and the 'Axis' invaded the USSR, but Japan did the reverse.
He seems to be deliberately leaving out major treaties that prove Japanese efforts to avoid, rather than instigate war. Inexplicably, he completely omits the treaty that probably doomed Germany, the 'Soviet-Japan Neutrality/Friendship/Non-Aggression Pact'. If it weren't for this pact, Zhukov's Siberian Armies, created and trained in preparation to defend against Japanese invasion, were able to arrive just in time to save Moscow and the war in Russia from German victory. Without this 'Soviet-Japan Pact' he conveniently completely leaves out, in the same way Russia was able to go on the attack in Europe, the Japanese were able to transfer Manchurian armies out from preparing for war with Russia to instead go to war with us!
That's hardly what I call an unimportant strategic detail.
Yet at the same time he is totally unfair in political detail there too.
By mentioning Konoe as Prime Minister after the decision to go to war AFTER the July 1941 US freezing of assets, he is implying that it was Konoe who was Prime Minister when war was decided upon. That's no more true than saying Clinton was behind the decision to invade Iraq in 2002.
What were the direct, critical, strategic and political results of the 'Soviet-Japan Pact' he/you keep preventing me from editing in?:
 
a) when Konoe realized Japan's membership in the Tripartite Pact was having the opposite effect intended on negotiations with the USA, he had to get rid of it.
"The contradictions between these various policies led to divisions within the cabinet and to itse resignation in July in order to get rid of Matsuoka. Konoe's third cabinet was then formed with a new foreign minister and this concentrated on peace negotiations with the USA. When these did not succeed and Washington authorities froze Japanese funds Konoe offered to visit the USA for direct talks with the President. The proposal was rejected and the cabinent resigned in October; Konoe rejoined the imperial court as an advisor." Oxford Companion to WWII(Oxford University Press, New York, 1995).
b) by cancelling the Tripartite Pact in favor of the Soviet-Japan Pact, Stalin was able to take Zhukov's Siberian army away from the Japanese and throw them into the European war, not only saving Russia, but destroying Germany.
I'd hardly call those 2 direct consequences 'insignificant details'
When you keep deleting my mention of the above sourced and cited 'Soviet-Japan' Pact while continuing to mention a never-invoked Tripartite Pact, you are trying to say that by NOT attacking Russia, that Japan was somehow honoring its membership in some 'Axis Pact'.
That's like someone saying that because I let the bear out of his cageon the border of my farm, to run over the horizon to maul you, that I'm still somehow I'm your friend/ally.
Another analogy from one of my students who is convinced Wikipedia is just an 'anglo-american propaganda forum'...
That's like saying because France is part of a mutual defense pact called NATO with the US, that therefore France must be part of America's present Coalition in Iraq.
I literally source English ww2 encyclopedias, and the author or whomever out there keep editing out the printed 'truths' while retaining the deliberate mis-statements, what even my students call propaganda.
Tripartite Pact, Oxford Companion to WW2 again, I quote 
"However, secret clauses added at Japan's request more or less nullified these terms as Japan wanted to obtain concessions from the USA, using its withdrawal from the pact as a bargaining point."
Comon guys. I'm using actual English ww2 encyclopedia's to correct, deliberate or not, incomplete and misleading historical statements here. Why do you keep blocking sourced accurate historical accounts from correcting what appears even to me, someone who lost relatives fighting the Japanese, to be anti-Japanese historical accounts.
To the author, the thoughts and actions of a renegade officer disobeying direct orders from Tokyo to fabricate an unwanted war is more important than the thoughts and actions of a Prime Minister and Cabinet trying to prevent war. I'm not Japanese, but even I can tell that this representation of Japanese history of the period is a total injustice to their actual mind-set and motives. This is exactly the kind of convenient omitting and editing out of information and redefining of words, phrases and intent that has, according to CNN, still left 70% of Americans believing Saddam and Iraq were behind 9/11. This is exactly the kind of prejudicial recording of history the world uses to prove we can't be trusted, that we just spout propaganda anymore.
The author doesn't even mention that this Kanji Ishiwara was deliberately and purposefully disobeying direct orders from Tokyo to make peace not war, in Manchuria.
By intentionally mentioning some facts, while omitting others, the author is representing a decidedly anti-Japanese description from American contact onwards.
I guarantee you that if the author were talking about an 1805 British warfleet sailing into Boston Harbor forcing we Americans to do as we were told, he would relate how this had a permanent impression on the American psyche and attitude towards the British.
His writing seems little different than a Russian historian on a page about Cuba, mentioning American missiles in Turkey, the name of the man in charge of the 'Bay of Pigs' but omitting mention of the Russian missiles in Cuba.
I don't know if this author and the people who keep deleting my editing are really that 'anti-Japanese' or if they are just all using the same historically innaccurate and biased source(since they don't even list it anyways).
Like one of my students copying from another on his history test, but the person he is copying from is giving the wrong answer.  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct on nearly all points aside from your assertion of Japan potentially invading the US.  Japan's grandest designs stopped at the Dutch East Indies, which had the resources the US had deprived them of.  They never had any intention to attack the US mainland with ground forces. --NEMT 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Japanese Bias? 

message: I'm reverting because they're all unsourced and in many cases rather vague. We need sources, not spam. John Smith's (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by IP users

message: Although I kept the reference to Sakhalin, the other edits were mostly unexplained removal of material. As for claiming that Russia forfeited because of internal problems is a gross exaggeration. Russia lost militarily to Japan - realistically it couldn't have continued even if it had wanted to.
If someone has an alternate view, a better explanation with some sources would help. John Smith's (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit by [[User:EmilyLawrence]]

message: Please do not remove large pieces of text as you did without explanation. That constitutes vandalism, so I have reverted accordingly. If you wish to discuss changes please use the talk page first. John Smith's (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blankings by IP 142.31.36.127 

message: There are some errors in the recent edit. The title which was awarded to the king of Wa by the Chinese Emperor Shun of Liu Song in 478 was not the title of the ruler over the countries. It was just  the military sovereignty. In addition, the king of Wa had demanded the sovereignty of Baekje, this claim was rejected by the Emperor. Second, as you can see in the following sentence, Wa had some influence in those countries. If you have further information, please change the description with appropriate reference. --Amagase (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations in the Kofun period

message: It is true. The Oxford Dictionary, published in the UK and New York, has taken Japan out of their definition of the Axis. "Concise Oxford Dictionary: Tenth Edition Completey Revised" Hard-cover Page 93 (the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.
When we asked Oxford why the change at a teacher's convention, we were told that it was found that there was no authenticated original documentation signed by the Japanese agreeing to the term 'Axis' as title of any activated alliance with Berlin and Rome.
I was also interested to learn that instead of Mussolini, it was actually Italian General Gombos, (who had died in October,1936) who first coined the phrase 'Axis' to refer to a Rome-Berlin alliance. Based on the fact Rome and Berlin sat on the same longitudinal axis on the globe.
When I found supposed documents in English on the web, we've never had a reply to our request for a copy of the original document they translated into English. We keep getting referred to other English documents but none have provided the supposed original documents in their languages signed by Japan, Germany and Italy.
If someone can provide a link to an authenticated copy of a treaty signed by Japan officially named, or renamed 'Axis' actively allying itself to Germany and Italy please provide it. Then I can decide on a debate whether Oxford is wrong. Thank you.
DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Removes Japan from (the Axis) 

message: I have reverted the change made to use the BCE/CE format, as there has been a long established consensus on this and other related articles to use BC/AD. If a user wishes to change this they should seek a new consensus. We have had a long discussion on the reasons for using BC/AD, so I will only say that I and others prefer it as a more widely used and recognisable dating format. John Smith's (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can view the "vote" and discussion a few threads up. I would just like to dispute that "there has been a long established consensus on this". The sides were just about equal in the "vote". I think it is an overstatement to say that this lack of consensus actually means "long established consensus" for one side. Because of this lack of consensus, we defaulted to what was already in use before the vote. That said, I don't see any reason to change between AD/CE, and wish that editors would accept that both can be used here (with no preference), and not try to change between the two, ever. Here's to hoping;) -Andrew c [talk] 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, I remember the long-running discussion that we had. That said, consensus nonetheless existed because people were willing to live with BC/AD. "Acceptance" rather than "support" for something is one way that Wikipedia says consensus can be reached. Just to be clear, that's why I said there was consensus - I did not mean to imply that everyone was gunning for that particular dating style. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD