Peter Kirby

Suppose an editor (like me) is in charge of a number of websites on ancient history (like Early Latin Writings, Early Christian Writings, and Early Jewish Writings).

The editor is making a decision on whether to use consistently the annotation BC/AD or the annotation BCE/CE for dates before and after the turn of the era.

The only third option that he's thought of is to make a "Date filter" that allowed the user to, among other things, change the way dates are displayed (as 42 BCE, 42 BC, or 42-; as 33 CE, 33 AD, or 33+) in their settings. Still, there would need to be a setting for the mass of anonymous users.

What should the editor do?

You may assume also that:

#1) The editor is not trying to push any particular worldview down the throat of the reader.

#2) The editor wants the reader to most rapidly and clearly understand the message of the website, including the dates.

#3) It is necessary to specify dates as being 'before' or 'after' in some cases; it is not always unambiguous as it might be for a site on the Civil War.

You may use the poll to register your opinion. And, if you like or dislike the 'dynamic' option for display of dates, you may post a comment.

regards,
Peter Kirby

PS- this is a huge problem in Wikipedia because there is no single editor.

Diogenes the Cynic

I voted for the BCE/CE convention. That's more or less become the academic default. I also think that a major argument for its preference over BC/AD in serious historical discussions is that the traditional convention is historically inaccurate. It uses the wrong year for its central division. If Jesus existed at all, he was either born before 4 BCE (by Matthew's account) or after 6 CE (by Luke's account.

I think that using the compromise of using CE but identifying it as standing for the "Christian Era" (rather than "Common Era") might be a good way to go. It identifies the advent of Christianity as the keystone for the dating system but does not count from an erroneous date for a presumed historical event and it does not glibly identify Jesus as the Messiah (from a Jewish perspective, It's STILL the "BC" era).

J-D

I can't vote. Clarity is not audience-independent. Any intended audience that understands BCE/CE will also understand BC/AD, while the converse is not necessarily true. However, some audiences which will understand BC/AD will find it a source of irritation, however minor, and will be by that little more comfortable (and therefore more receptive with greater clarity) with BCE/CE. So who are you writing/editing for?

I guess this argues in favour of having the filter, but I still don't know which way to jump on the default setting.

Peter Kirby

JD, I am not writing for an intended audience. I'm writing for an actual audience, and all of them.

My actual audience comes from six continents, every hue of skin, uses Mac or Linux or Windows, Firefox or IE or Opera, 800x600 or 1024x768 or higher res, have high incomes or low incomes, extensive education or poor education, and may be Christian, Jew, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or of another religious background.

Their common bond is that they know English, typically on an 8th grade level or higher; they know how to use a computer and the Internet; and they are searching for information on ancient texts of the Western world.

Other "primary" demographics: primarily male, primarily Christian, primarily "First World" and white. However there are women who use the site, there are atheists who use the site, and there are people in Africa who use the site. They have sent me emails, saying how they appreciate how they have been given access to information that otherwise may not have been accessible to them.

I don't want to impede access in any way. That is the primary criterion for me. Who I offend in doing so is entirely secondary.

For this reason, I regret the words "and neutrality" because I don't think that neutrality comes into it. I want to optimize for clarity. I don't see it as a partisan decision for me to use AD, or to use CE.

Recently, I've had the inclination to do this...

Use a cookie to store a preference of "AD", "CE", or superscript "+".

If there is no cookie, always display the number with a small + or - in the upper right, along with a visual cue to hover over the number, such as a dotted underline in green. This will present a context menu to choose (for negative dates) "BCE" or "BC" or "-", or (for positive dates) "CE" or "AD" or "+". This choice stays with you until you clear your cookies.

Alternatively, the default could be the full words "the year X before the turn of the current era" or "the year X after the turn of the current era", if space is not a consideration.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I just spot-checked a journal, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia, and it is using the "BC" notation rather than "BCE". So while it is definitely more common in academic writing to find BCE or CE, it is by no means uniform even there.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Studia Humaniora Tartuensia is edited from Estonia, at the University of Tartu. It seems to have Lutheran roots.

Oxford Journals provides "information for authors" which seems to accept both, at the will of the author.

I would have assumed that everyone by now knew about the BCE/BC/AD/CE classifications, but perhaps that is a mistake. Wikipedia has an article BCE, which references a more comprehensive BBC article, which indicates that BCE is not as widely understood as BC.

Peter Kirby

While we are focusing on the written word, there is something sonorous about saying "AD" ("in the year 300 AD") that the letters "CE" lack, which make the former much preferable when talking about dates. Furthermore, "BCE" is just a mouthful; you have to go out of your way to add the "E" in speech.

The question of offense is primarily one of whom you want to offend, not whether you want to do it. Unless you adopt the mathematical + and -, you are going to offend someone. (And maybe "math atheists" could be offended too, come to think of it!) I've gotten letters about my use of "CE" and "BCE" being offensive. I'm sure I'd get letters likewise if I used "AD" and "BC".

regards,
Peter Kirby

finix

I voted BCE/CE, although I'm not particularly bothered by BC/AD or AC/AC.

(BC/AD sounds more familiar, more natural to me, but that's simply because until not too long ago I didn't even know about the alternative convention, and all I ever was exposed to was BC/AD. I guess if I were to read BCE/CE regularly this perception would've long since turned around, or (more likely) at least I'd be totally accustomed to it. In the same vain, your 'mathematical notation' just feels plain weird.)


Anyway, what I would do:
1) Stick with BCE/CE.
2) Implement display preferences for users.
2.5) Drop the +/- idea.
3) Create a tool-tip for the date suffix.
- for registered users:

"[short blurb explaining BC/AD vs BCE/CE.
Possibly with a link to a more detailed explanation and/or
your rationale for choosing [whatever you decide] as the default.]"

You may [link]edit your preferences[/link] to change this setting."

- for anonymus users:

"[short blurb explaining BC/AD vs BCE/CE]
Possibly with a link to a more detailed explanation and/or
your rationale for choosing [whatever you decide] as the default.]"

If you were [link]registered[/link] you could change this setting."

NZSkep

simple choice really. ditch both and use either the Chinese calander or, even better, the mayan calender

Joan of Bark

I don't see how BC/AD is any more offensive than BCE/CE. In both cases it's based on Christian mythology. The latter is simply poorly disguised.