This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Time to get with non-Western-culture-centric dating. "Before Christ" and "Year of our Lord" are Christian terms, left over from Christian-centric scholarship. In this regard using "BC" and "AD" is not acceptable styles in articles like this. So there is substantial reason to switch. The scholarship we get from the esteemed Smithsonian Institution uses BCE and CE. Let's do the same here. (Please note I am quoting words from the Arbitration Committee.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some here who would agree with you. But likely as many who would not. I would like to see it changed, and bring it into line with many of the other articles on pre-Columbian American history in using BCE/CE. But you probably should have started this conversation first though, as arbitrary changes of date style in articles with long standing stable styles are frowned on and go against WP:ERA. It would take a consensus of editors to change the existing date styles, and I'd wait to see how many of them choose to discuss it here. Heiro00:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no particular reason to change here, no matter what your college professor tells you. Plenty of other institutions use BC/AD, especially in material for non-specialists, as has been pointed out many times before. Your tone does not help make your case. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. Yes, please change to BCE/CE to embrace a global perspective and one in keeping with the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology. Yuchitown (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
You mean the disciplines of those left-wing academics who view things that way. Please believe me, they are hardly even 40% of the scholarly population at this point. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The required way to do this is set out in MOS:ERA: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." General opinions, preferences and prejudices are not what are wanted, but how the very American BCE/CE style is a way "to embrace a global perspective" escapes me. Most of the rest of the world (and many Americans) don't understand it. And there's no need to shout. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The World History Encyclopedia is not a mighty authority, and hardly "standard scholarly quidelines". Since the dates are exactly the same, it's hard to see how CE is more accurate! Has he checked if his "international audience" actually understand the convention he is trying to force on them? I suggest you read Common_Era#Contemporary_usage. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth the debate. It's the same thing. Some people think it's important, but guess what? 1 AD and 1 CE are the exact same thing. You've changed the name, but it's still a Gregorian year with Western Christian origins. Call it whatever you want, there's no basis to object to either abbreviation unless you want to actually follow a different calendar. Canute (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion – use BP or kya. This article has one use of Before Present (BP). And that one use is not supported by a ref with a working link. But then the BC dates do not have supporting links. WP articles about the Holocene ought to have consistency across the board. We can use BP and/or kya here, along with Year#Abbreviations yr and ya this would be a small, valuable step of improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That also has the problem that large numbers of readers will be unfamiliar with it. Plus, per the lead, the period is "taken to last from around 8000 to 1000 BC" and my impression is that BP dates are normally only used for periods just about including that start date (but usually much earlier), but 1000 BC/E is rather too recent. Plus it is supposed to only be used for dates established by radiocarbon dating. It's a complicated situation, not I think very well explained by our Before Present article at the moment. "kya" is too imprecise, & also used for much older periods than here, and will not be understood by many. In fact, for these sort of dates, just "years ago" ("6,000 years ago", not "6 kya") would typically be used, but that gets cumbersome when there are as many dates as in this article. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My practice has been to only use BP when that is how dates are reported in the source. BP is generally tied to radiocarbon dates. With any luck, a source using radiocarbon dates will also give calendar calibrated dates, but for some periods that is iffy. And any use of BP should always include (directly or in a link or footnote) the information that BP is defined as years prior to 1950. - Donald Albury00:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (I've removed a brainfart not above). So it should generally be used for specific sites, finds etc, not for very generalized things like the periods of cultures, yes? Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BP itself is a range, reflecting the uncertainty of radiocarbon dates, although many people tend to express it as a single year in the middle of the range. Radiocarbon dates rarely align with beginning and ending dates for an archaeological period, so I would avoid using BP for that. I think using "years ago" for the beginning and ending of a period is a little awkward. A problem with using "years ago" in archaeological contexts is that some readers may not notice that "14,000 years ago" corresponds to "12,000 BC(E)" (and I have made that mistake adding content to an article based on a source). - Donald Albury14:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I can use either system when I edit an article, I have encountered editors which take offense at using "Year of Our Lord" in articles which have nothing to do with Christianity. I agree that it gives a pro-Christian bias to Wikipedia, which should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general prejudice. Again, per WP:ERA, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content". Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this article is entirely outside the Christian/European tradition, and so has no ties to the BC/AD era designations. I believe that the use of the BCE/CE era designations in an article such as this is more neutral than using BC/AD. - Donald Albury20:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that BC/AD, which the whole world has used for over a century, is tied to the "Christian/European tradition" in any meaningful way is wrong. Having imposed this on the whole world, it is a new wave of American cultural imperialism to now turn up and say "you know that era system you've been using for all these years, well some of us American professors have decided it's bad for you & needs changing. Don't worry, you'll get used it eventually, and they might even start teaching it in your schools one day, and using it in your newspapers." The American arguments over it (such as the one linked to above) are very clearly expressed in terms of America's internal culture war, and should not be imposed on the rest of the world. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I'm not clear on what you are saying. Did we have a wave of evil cultural imperialism in the past to which we should continue to adhere? Or if the cultural imperialism was not "evil" it is wrong to change it now? Well, it looks like the British Museum is using AD/BC, which is a good argument. Perhaps this is a battle between British and American cultural imperialism. But since this turf is North America we ought to let the American rules apply. For balance Americans will stick to foot-yard-mile even while Britain switched to the metric some time ago. – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of major institutions use BC/AD, especially when adressing the general public - see the case of the Canadian national museum at WP:ERA. It is great mistake to assume everyone in Nth America understands CE; they don't! On the cultural imperialism, it is bad enough to do it once - there's no need to repeat it on a whim. This is not an ENGVAR matter - both sides of the Atlantic have mixed usage. WP adresses a wide public, & should use what the big museums & publishers use for that audience, which is mostly still BC. We should not kid ourselves we are writing for an academic audience. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is following the instruction in WP:ERA, An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed. - Donald Albury19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and dandy. What I'm referring to is the discussion above which seems to point to a desire for a broader, project-wide change. That will require an community consensus via RfC. As far as this article is concerned, it was created in 2007 or so using the BC/AD style, which has served it well ever since. It would need a very clear and overwhelming policy-based consensus to change the original style at this point. That's not happening; indeed, it should be closed keeping status quo. GenQuest"scribble"16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per GenQuest, Johnbod, & Canute. There is no need to change the date system from one that is in very common usage, BC/AD, to one that the public doesn't understand as well, BCE/CE. Wikipedia is for writing to a general audience, so what general audiences will understand, without changing the essential content of what is being stated or undermining the text-source relationship, is better than what fewer audiences (and people) will understand. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done
