Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Dates

I propose that we write all dates, specialy the older ones, in this format: "3 BH (618-619 CE)" --Striver 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im using Template:AH, Template:BH and Template:AHM. --Striver 14:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATES#Different_calendars: "You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both the Islamic calendar and the Julian calendar."

In Islam related articles, the Julian calendar that is based on the presumed birthday of Jesus is of little or no relevance to the topic, but we do include it anyhow since many English readers are familiar with the Julian calendar. Other than the consideration to the readers, the Julina calendar is of little or no relevance.--Striver 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another good argument is that most of the history of those subjects, including birthdays and dates of death are written in the Hijri calendar, and since they span in most cases over two Julina years, it is more accurate to also give the dates in the Hijri year - converting the dates to the Julian calender introduced either ambiguity or chance of error. --Striver 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia, so please stick to the Manual of Style and use the dating commonly used and understood in the English speaking world. AH-dates are certainly relevant to Islam-related articles but they must be included only as additional information and in second place to the common dating. If you don't like this you might consider switching to another Wikipedia instead. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your hostile tone implies that you are citing a policy. Could you please quote it? Otherwise, the issue is up for discussion, since the MOS simply states that both need to be included, not that the Julian needs always to be given preference. --Striver 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well which parts of the MoS I am referring to. I am merely filing my protest here so that you cannot use this talk page as a basis for claims that your view is somehow policy. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you to. I'm sorry, but i do not know what part you are referring to. Could you please help me and be more specific?--Striver 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith then and hereby repost them:

First of all, we have this section, saying:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article."
"Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE."

Both items are assuming that AD/CE is the standard era to be used. Note there is a rule on the frequent conflict between AD and CE (that it should be consistent and that the first decides unless there is consensus for a change), but no rule stating "Both CE and AD and AH are acceptable.

Then we have this section, saying:

"You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both the Islamic calendar and the Julian calendar."

This says that the Islamic era can be used if the Julian/Gregorian date is also included. Though this actually refers to dates (day and month), I do not mind including the years AH as well, if the AD/CE is given too.

However, since the AD/CE is the standard era that everybody here easily understands it should be given prevalence. And even more so, if the article's longstanding choice was to use AD/CE. Only recently did you add AH dates in two instances. I don't see any case for given preeminence for the AH era. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, i appreciate it. Now, the first paragraph you cited explains what style to use when writing from the Julina calendar, and explains that Anno Domini/Common Era should not be mixed. I fail to see how a part that explains that Anno Domini/Common Era should not be mixed is relevant to our talk. However, you comment that "Both items are assuming that AD/CE is the standard era to be used.". I fail to see that, i see only how they should be used, if used. "no rule stating "Both CE and AD and AH are acceptable"" is a missleading argument, this neither does it bring up the chines or any other calendar. Yet still is the second section you quoted clearly stating that "You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar, as described below", were "below refers to the first section you cited. So it basically says "use any calender you want, just include the Julian calendar also, and make sure to not mix between Anno Domini/Common Era.". Again, i see nothing in the references section that supports your claim that the Julian calender needs to be given precedence, only that it need to be included, something i also have agree with on my above proposals and templates.

As for my arguments, i do agree with you that the Julian calendar is better understood. But as i have pointed out, the AH calender is more accurate regarding events that are originally dated in AH, and accuracy is more important than "easily understands". I Will repeat why it is more accurate: Since a typical AH year covers two Julian years, you end up with the ambiguity of deciding with of the two years is referred. In most cases, this can not be solved, and ends up with both Julian dates being presented. This is a firm argument that the AH dates is more accurate in AH dated events than is the Julian calendar. Thus is my argument that it make more sense to present it the dates with the more accurate as the main date, and the less accurate in parentheses as explanation, and according to the MOS.

Imagine what would happen if "easily understands" was given more weight than accuracy per guidline, it would be impossible to write short and accurate mathematical and physics related articles.

So, here is my three arguments:

The MOS does not mention what calendar should be given precedence
The AH is more accurate.
Accuracy weights heavier than familiarity.

Do you dispute my three statements, or would you like to add some new ones? Peace. --Striver 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleary what I wrote also applies for the Chinese calendar or for any other calendar (alternative Christian ones, like the Byzantine Anno Mundi, included). This issue I guess stems from the fact that you are not coming from an English-speaking background (neither am I, but mine is much closer and I do adapt). But this is not the world Wikipedia - it is the English-speaking WP.

As for your three statements:

I grant you that the MoS does not explicitely state that the AD/CE should be given precedence. But it assumes it by dealing with the AD vs. CE conflict (and not with others). In any case, it was you that changed the dating style in any article and hence would have to find consensus for it first.
I dispute that AH is more accurate. We are dealing with specific events with, if discernable, specific dates. If we can give a date to the Hijra in the Islamic era, we can give a specific date unter AD/CE as well. And then what I wrote above applies.
Hence, your third statement falls apart, as no conflict between accuracy and fimiliarity exists.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me a detailed and serious answer. Alright, im glad that we agree on the first of my three points. Ill elaborate on why i regard that AH calendar as more accurate than the Julian calendar with regards to events that are originally dated in the Islamic calendar.

As you might know, the AH year is Lunar based and is thus shorter than the sun based Julian year with 11 days. This cause the year to move in relation to eachother, and in most cases is an AH year in two CE years, examples:

You can confirm this by clicing the CE year and look in the article for it's AH year.

This also goes the other way, each CE year corresponds to two AH years, examples:

Thus, if we have the information of somebody have died in X AH, we have two potential CE years he could have died in, and the same goes the other way around.

Now, one could argue that since the ambiguity goes both ways, it cancels itself out. This would be the case, if it wasn't for one thing: In the Islamic countries, everything was recorded in AH years. In most cases, we only have a death date or birth date in AH, without any further information. This is also true when you find a English text that gives a single CE year: They are just making a guess. It is impossible to know when something happened without more information.

Now, this gets even more obvious when you consider that some AH years are completely inside a CE year, examples:

16 AH, within 637 CE.
49 AH, within 669 CE.
82 AH, within 701 CE.

This cause the CE year to encompas three AH years:

As you see, if somebody died in any those three AH years, there is a possibility that he could have died in the CE year. And remember, all dates are originally in AH, so if you find some English text were it has been translated that some Arab Muslim died in 637, it is impossible to figure out which of the tree years the original Arabic source stated, adding to the ambiguity.

To repeat: All Islamic dates are recorded in AH, and an AH year corresponds to 1-2 CE years, while those who choose to translate, if they do not provide both dates, it will be impossible to trace it back to the original AH year. If they provide only 623, it is impossible to know if they meant 1 AH or 2 AH in the original. This would have been remedied if the translator would have been strict enough to write 623-624, then it would have been understood that it was 2 AH they meant - Of course, unless they meant 1 AH-2 AH, and this is impossible to determine.

This is even harder if the date in questions are one of the "singe CE" dates, since it can not be established if it was the middle AH year that was translated into a single CE year, or if it was one of the other two AH years that has been translated into CE years: If they write 637, it is impossible to determine if they had a single-date conversion and if they meant 15 AH, 16 AH and 17 AH, or if thy in fact were strictly converting, but since they were converting 16 AH, there was no X-Y CE date to write, they could only write 637.

Again, the only way to determine what a AH year translated into CE year means is if the translator exlictly states what kind of translation he meant - and they never do. Another way is if they have translated multiple dates, and in that case one could try to find a pattern and decipher their translation methods.

Now, even that is impossible if the guy writing the text did not translate the dates himslef, but rather copied them from different sources. If one source did take into account that the years "move", and the other did not take this into account, then we have even more ambiguity.

For example, if a translator takes the original date 120 AH, and figures he can just take 622 CE and add 120 years to it to come to 742 CE, he has been mistaken. This happens much more often that you might think. 120 AH is in fact 737 – 738 (note:two possible years), and not 742.

Ok, now even more complexity. For the first decades AH, intercalates months were not forbidden, and it is simply UNKNOWN if this was accounted for when the AH system was launched in 16 AH. This is an unsolvable problem.

And one more thing, go here and try to give an unambiguous answer to what AH year 6 November 644 CE is in. You will get two answers, 23 AH or 24 AH.

Now that you know this, are you more inclined to agree with me that a AH year can not be translated into a CE year without loss of accuracy? Peace. --Striver 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]