Talk:Jesus/Archive 16

message: # aye  Tomer TALK 07:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
# Support for the reasons that I've given above.  Note that this vote isn't binding, but is a way to attempt to gain consensus; thus those people who haven't been involved in the discussion should give reasons — and reasons that take into account what has been said.  Merely parrotting a reason that has been countered isn't helpful. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List pro BCE/CE votes here (note:  applies to this article '''ONLY''')

message: #Per policy.  Chameleon 08:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List pro BC/AD votes here (note: applies to this article ONLY) 

message: Comment: I've just replaced a vote to keep (and some minor formatting) removed by Silversmith (talk · contributions) ().  I'd like to think that this was an accident, though to be honest it's difficult to see how it could have been. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Important: This is very, very strange.  I did not make that second edit.  I know it looks like I did, as it was made by User:Silversmith, but it was not me.  I voted, before Zora or Mel, and while they were voting, I was making my second edit which was not in the voting secion.  I then left the page, not even noticing that Mel or Zora had voted.  It is very strange that the signature was re-signed 2 minutes after my edit outside of the voting, when Zora's vote was removed.  The only thing I can think of is someone has guessed my password, or someone has hacked wikipedia.  I know both of those options are unlikely, but as I did not make that second edit it's the only possibility I can come up with.  I remember having an edit conflict, and had to copy and paste what I'd written back in, but as it was not below the vote, I would not have grabbed the vote as well by accident.  I also only wrote that edit summery once. I don't repeat myself unless I'm writing "Stub sorting" or something. If you were to look over my contibution history you would see that in all the votes I've participated in, I've never done something like this.  I know how wikipedia works, and would never do something so stupid - of course it would be found in the history! This is very strange, and I would love it if the person who made the edit would come forward and admit it.  I'm off to change my password now. --Silversmith 13:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel, I don't think you are exhibiting goodfaith with these insinuations, and I would like to see you retract them. Anyway, it may have been a product of that edit conflict (Silversmith having submitted it without noticing), or a glitch. I highly doubt Wikipedia was hacked, I doubt Silversmith account was hacked (or password guessed), and most of all, I doubt this was anything but an accident. I'm late! El_C 13:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: My apologies if I seemed to be insinuating anything.  Nothing about Silversmith's (or Chammy Koala's) history suggested that she'd deliberately do anything underhand, as I said when I went on to alert her to it on her Talk page.  My comment above was partly the result of haste, and partly of the "Silversmith" ID being new to me.  It would be good to know what happened and how, though, if only to be able to recognise if it happens again. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Re your statement "And if the policy says BC/AD is acceptable, that policy should be changed." That's something for you to take up with the policy itself then if you truly feel that way. But right now the policy is clear that BC/AD is both allowed and placed on equal footing with your alternative of BCE/CE. As long as that remains the policy of Wikipedia in general, your complaints are not a valid basis to challenge BC/AD's use on a particular article and you have no grounds to force other people to use BCE/CE. Rangerdude 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continue pointless discussion here

message: In comparing the "policies" on spelling and era styles, I notice the disclaimer on both guides (see American vs. British spelling style guidelines and BCE/CE vs. BC/AD era style guidelines) emphasizing that these are style guidelines and not policy.  Both guides state at the top of each respective page: 
"New contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not expected or required to follow all or any these rules."  Therefore the overriding principle in choosing the style to be used in a particular article is NPOV.  I think the case can be and has been made for BCE/CE being the more NPOV terminology, which is why so many publishing houses are going in that direction as El_C demonstrated above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Does that mean you are changing your vote? Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Talk:Jesus#lovely_little_list. :) El_C 03:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before a decision is made on this matter, I think the C.E. article needs to be reviewed and perhaps rewritten.  It makes the assertion that the term began in academic circles in the 19th century and offers absolutely no support whatsoever of this claim.  Thus far on this talk page, no one has found usage of the abbreviated form published prior to 1978.  There is one citation from wiki claiming it was appeared in the Catholic Encylopedia of 1908, but that again I beleive was only the phrase "common era".  And no one has produced any evidence of its scholarly use outside of Talmudic scholars.  Hence, the co-opting of the phrase by non-believers in the Jewish providential being of Hebrew & Christian scriptures is suspect. Nobs 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've reconsidered my vote and made changes to reflect my current understanding of policy on the matter.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I beleive all the evidence brought forward thus far weighs in the direction that BCE/CE originated among Christian academics and Talmudic scholars, and not among secular academia.  This is an important distinction to be made before the term is exposed to popular abuse.   Nobs 22:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy vs. Style Guide

message: May I point out that the BCE/CE-system is used by preference by Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world, though I don't know what that means for this debate... Switisweti 11:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Do you have a source for that usage? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all publications of Jehovah's Witnesses on (both biblical and non-biblical) history (and that's a lot: all their books and magazines) use this system. Just take any of them as an example. They use it to avoid referring to Jesus (BC/AD), as their main focus is on Jehovah. Even their online articles use the BCE/CE-system. Here's just one example: Watchtower online on Maya culture using BCE/CE. Switisweti 10:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: They spell their name differently in English.  Is it an NPOV violation for you to spell it that way?  Gene Nygaard 11:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. How should it be spelled? Switisweti 14:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see: I missed the h at the end of Jehovah. I'm sorry. That was just a mistake, not a intentional "NPOV violation". I now corrected all instances. Switisweti 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure.  And the Society of Friends uses "Fifth Month" for the current month.  Does that mean that Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to use that as well, to avoid reference to a Roman goddess? Certainly using "Fifth Month" would be the neutral way to do it, wouldn't it?   How about Eighth Month, to avoid reference to an egomaniacal Roman emperor?  Tenth Month to get rid of the silly counting calling it the eighth month based on some ancient calendar?  Gene Nygaard 11:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I agree with them. I merely stated that they use the system for a reason. That's all. Maybe it clears something of the origin of the BCE/CE system.Switisweti 14:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone find a date that Jehovah's Witnesses began using BCE/CE convention? Again, this supports the evidence that BCE/CE began in religious community and not among secular academia as rationalists contend, and meaning of common refers to worship and deity, not the profane and vulgar use of the atheist POV.Nobs 17:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jehovah's Witnesses have been using BCE/CE for as long as I can remember. Its use reflects their POV.  (They deny the deity of Jesus).  --ClemMcGann 17:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another BCE/CE use: among Jehovah's Witnesses

message: I propose - in an effort to end the revert war - since this is an issue for all of Wikipedia and not just this artice, that the original version be maintained until the policy is reviewed and a decision is made to adopt the system of BCE/CE over BC/AD, or not.  The article should be left in it's original state until that time, as that is the most common usage, and the most common usage on Wikipedia.  There is also no definite consensus either way. Many Wikipedians do not even know this debate is happening as they have no reason to come to this article.  You may argue that we don't need to decide either way, like with English vs. American spelling, but I think this talk page clearly shows that we do.  This is a complete waste of energy.  We are arguing the same points over and over again.  This is my proposal, and if agreed upon, there should be no further discussion of the issue here, or reverting of the article. I don't know the best procedure for having such a policy vote, I haven't been here that long.  I hope someone can come up with a solution. Please address this proposal below.  And just to make a point: I would probably vote on Wikipedia adopting the new BCE/CE system, as that seems to be the way the academic world is going. --Silversmith 21:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a much earlier version of the article, 14th September 2004, edited by Jayjg, keeping the BC/AD style.  The way the policy works with English/American spelling is to keep the original, so that is what I propose here until wiki-wide decisions are made. Jayjg, could you please comment on the voting proposal, not just which version to freeze it at in the meantime, as it really isn't the end of the world if it isn't the one you would prefer. --Silversmith 22:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: September 14, 2004 is a looong time ago.  As for a vote, isn't that what is happening above? Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, so for a very long time you and everyone else were fine with it being AD/BC, so I'm sure you can handle it being AD/BC for a little while longer.  And as for the vote, the vote above is only for this article, not what I've proposed, and which is to be somewhere more communal as it affects everyone.--Silversmith 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was made, and it was a good one; I accepted it.  Currently the vote seems to be strongly in favour of the change.  And once one recognizes who is reverting to BC/AD, particularly the most persistent reverters, it is a given that the change is more NPOV and logical. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm trying to uphold NPOV, and end a revert war, and end a never ending discussion. It is ridiculous to argue that newer versions should have priority because what is a newer version? That is something more likely to change from one moment to the next.  I appreciate your point about newer versions being updated etc. But if there was nothing wrong with the old version (and you've yet to prove there is) then there's nothing wrong with sticking with the old. The guide suggests that if both are fine, then the original should be kept. Both are fine, and your reasons for feeling otherwise are based on your personal POV.  If it isn't, then why aren't you out campaigning for a diferent article to change to BCE/CE? Why just this one?  What I was suggesting would be to create a uniformity on Wikipedia that is based on logic and NPOV. I'm upset you would suggest that Tomer and I are not upholding the "ideals of Wikipedia" because we are arguing against you. If you argue that NPOV trumps all, you need to figure out how exactly BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD. The whole point behind inventing BCE/CE was POV! Someone decided they didn't like the meaning hidden, not only in an abbreviation, but also in Latin. So they decided to come up with another abbreviation, which they thought would be better. But it doesn't really make a difference because, and I hate to use the term, "at the end of the day" the calender is still based on the birth of christ, and calling it whatever fancy title you like won't change that. We can't please everyone here on Wikipedia, so we should at least try to please the majority, and we all know in this case what the majority use. Those who have voted for BCE/CE in this article, and have said for reasons of academic usage, have not said anything about using BCE/CE across the whole of Wikipedia.  Why is that? And before you say that I'm arguing for my POV, you should know, as I said earlier, that I would probably vote BCE/CE for a wiki-wide usage. --Silversmith 16:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Withdraw that personal attack, Slrubenstein.  Chameleon 20:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not call me a troll. Your personal attacks are not necessary.  Particularly as I have stated that I would agree to a wiki-wide usage of BCE/CE which is what you are arguing for. When your arguments aren't working, you should still not resort to name calling: it is unwiki. --Silversmith 20:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your apology. And I am sorry to have been such a frustration to you.  What is dificult in this whole debate is that it has come down to a lot of personal views. I have read your arguments, but I have also read the arguments of those who disagree with you.  I think there are valid points on both sides. All I ended up trying to argue was for an end to the revert war, and making a decision to end this time consuming debate. That finally seems to have happened, with the article mentioning both.  I still feel the issue needs to be addressed as to the style being used across wikipedia. But that is for another day. And just one more point: AD means "year of the lord" not "our lord". Or do you disagree? --Silversmith 15:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: And bring also anyone who likely to participate constructively. I extend this advice to every single individual here, and I don't mean anyone especially, though especially Rangerdude. Let the "invasion" begin. From someone whom SlR contacted and did not arrive here independently, El_C 10:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring your gods, ghosts, familliars, aviators and guppies