Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-18014300-20190220233432

Jasca Ducato 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. 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. Jasca, I think you might be missing my point which involves the question "why do you choose the cut-off to no longer require CE notation to be after 1000 CE specifically?" Yes, you make a valid argument that some consideration should be given to other users who might not immediately recognize whether a regime is set in BCE or CE, but you fail to address the matter that this argument says nothing about when a reasonable cut-off point would be. For example, with your argument, we can still set the cut-off point at 500 CE, or 100 CE, or 200 CE, or even 1400 CE hypothetically. It says nothing about which one of these dates is a reasonable cut-off point. Whether we set the point at any of these aforementioned dates, or 1100 CE, or even as late as 1200 CE, etc. the argument can always be made that some individual might not immediately know whether it is meant to be BCE or CE.

Hence, my point is that since we are arbitrarily choosing a cut-off date, 1000 CE is not the most reasonable if we have to make an educated guess at the ideal date. In most non-European historiography, ~600 CE is around the time of a major new age far more technologically and socially advanced than the period from 400 BCE to 200 CE. In Islam, it is when the religion is founded and when the Middle East reaches its peak in scientific advancements. In China, it is around the time the country finally becomes reunified after centuries and enters an arguably early modern period (until its societal regression and collapse after the 15th century).

In terms of delineating by era, I just find it exceedingly awkward from a non-European perspective to demarcate as late as 1000 CE. The CE starts becoming superfluous around 500 CE at the latest.

To be honest, conventionally any date which does not specify BCE or CE automatically refers to CE, and I have yet known anyone to confuse a date like 550 or 618 for 550 BCE or 618 BCE. I feel like we should have more confidence in our audience's education.

So can you provide an argument as to why you think 1000 CE is a reasonable cut-off point as opposed to other options?