Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-18014300-20190220234907: Difference between revisions
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
Jasca Ducato wrote: | Jasca Ducato wrote: | ||
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. | |||
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: | ||
Revision as of 09:25, 21 February 2019
Jasca Ducato wrote: 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.
And seeing your second point, I think I probably clarify my position.
I agree with your entire proposal to clarify the way our policy is currently worded.
I disagree on exactly just two points:
(1) When the cut-off point for the omission of CE notation should be.
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) Your proposal should be more concise.
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.