Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-18014300-20190220234907 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 07:28, 21 February 2019

2019-02-21T07:28:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, 21 February 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.		One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.
	</div>		</div>
	And seeing your second point, I think I probably clarify my position.		And seeing your second point, I think I should probably clarify my position. I agree with your almost your entire proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.

	I agree with your entire proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.

	I disagree on exactly just two points:		I disagree on exactly just two points:
Line 17:		Line 15:
	(2) <b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>		(2) <b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>

	I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over ~~this point~~. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.		I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over the proposed exception when a date range crosses over to the second millennium. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an unnecessary complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 07:25, 21 February 2019

2019-02-21T07:25:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:25, 21 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div class="quote">		<div class="quote">
	Jasca Ducato wrote:		Jasca Ducato wrote:



	~~<div class="quote">~~
	~~Sol Pacificus wrote:~~
	(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.
	</div>This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.

	One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.		One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.
			</div>
			And seeing your second point, I think I probably clarify my position.

	~~Short of requiring ''all'' dates~~ to ~~have "CE" on them (which is something I strongly considered proposing), I believe this is~~ the ~~best~~ way ~~forward.~~		I agree with your entire proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.
	~~</div>~~
	~~As for your second point, let me clarify my position~~.

	~~I agree with your proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.~~
	I disagree on exactly just two points:		I disagree on exactly just two points:

imported>Sol Pacificus at 06:28, 21 February 2019

2019-02-21T06:28:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 21 February 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	I disagree on exactly just two points:		I disagree on exactly just two points:

	(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be~~. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE"~~.</b>		(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be.</b>

	My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.		My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:30, 21 February 2019

2019-02-21T00:30:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, 21 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div class="quote">		<div class="quote">
	Jasca Ducato wrote:		Jasca Ducato wrote:



Line 20:		Line 21:

	My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.		My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.

			EDIT: To be honest, even in European history itself, the early Middle Ages is conventionally dated to having began around the 5th to 6th century with the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. So, even there, I suppose my argument is that it is weird to assume that our audience would confuse the medieval period with the classical era and that we should give them the benefit of the doubt. My proposal stands that we should make the cut-off somewhere from 200 CE to 500 CE.

	(2) <b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>		(2) <b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>

	I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.		I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:07, 21 February 2019

2019-02-21T00:07:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:07, 21 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div class="quote">		<div class="quote">
	Jasca Ducato wrote:		Jasca Ducato wrote:


	<div class="quote">		<div class="quote">
	Sol Pacificus wrote:		Sol Pacificus wrote:
	(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.		(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.
	</div>		</div>This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.
	This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.

	One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.		One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.
Line 15:		Line 15:

	I agree with your proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.		I agree with your proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.
	I disagree on exactly two points:		I disagree on exactly just two points:

	(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>		(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:53, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T23:53:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 21 February 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:
	My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.		My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.

	(2)<b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>		(2) <b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>

	I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.		I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:52, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T23:52:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, 21 February 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:

	(2)<b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>		(2)<b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>

	I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.		I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:52, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T23:52:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, 21 February 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:
	(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>		(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>

	My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies.		My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies. It is more respectful of us to our audience to assume that if they are Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. that they know their history.

	(2)<b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>		(2)<b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>
	I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.		I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:49, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T23:49:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 21 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div class="quote">		<div class="quote">
	Jasca Ducato wrote:		Jasca Ducato wrote:

	<div class="quote">		<div class="quote">
	Sol Pacificus wrote:		Sol Pacificus wrote:
	(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.		(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.
	</div>		</div>
			This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.
	This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.

	One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.		One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.
Line 16:		Line 16:
	I agree with your proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.		I agree with your proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.
	I disagree on exactly two points:		I disagree on exactly two points:

	(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>		(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "
Jasca Ducato wrote:
Sol Pacificus wrote: (1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notat..."

2019-02-20T23:49:07Z

Created page with "<div class="quote"> Jasca Ducato wrote: <div class="quote"> Sol Pacificus wrote: (1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notat..."

Páàjì titun

<div class="quote">
Jasca Ducato wrote:
<div class="quote">
Sol Pacificus wrote:
(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.
</div>

This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.

One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.

Short of requiring ''all'' dates to have "CE" on them (which is something I strongly considered proposing), I believe this is the best way forward.
</div>
As for your second point, let me clarify my position.

I agree with your proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.
I disagree on exactly two points:
(1) <b>''When'' the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be. No matter what, we would have to make a reasonable assumption even if "you and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE".</b>

My only disagreement here is that I think most non-European people actually would know that these regimes are set in the 1st millennium and running with the assumption otherwise is kind of Eurocentric. A reasonable cut-off point that is more universally accommodating for diverse cultural perspectives and audiences is ~500 CE at the latest because this is around the time of a major shift in the historical era for many societies.

(2)<b>Your proposal should be more concise.</b>
I don't want to get too much into debating whether our audience would or would not be too confused over this point. The point of the matter isn't even that they would or would not be confused but that I find it to be an ''unnecessary'' complication. Hence, my point isn't that it's hard to understand or to follow ''per se'', so much that it can be revised to be much more concise while delivering the exact same policy, that's all.

Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-18014300-20190220234907 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 07:28, 21 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 07:25, 21 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 06:28, 21 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:30, 21 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:07, 21 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:53, 20 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:52, 20 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:52, 20 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus at 23:49, 20 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with " Jasca Ducato wrote: Sol Pacificus wrote: (1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notat..."

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "
Jasca Ducato wrote:
Sol Pacificus wrote: (1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notat..."