Biblatex export. Date parses incorrectly with year '1000' when source Zotero field is in datetime format.

[JohnLukeBentley]

In Zotero I have an item with (among other fields):

Date: 2016-06-06T15:26:37+1000

It probably doesn't matter but I also have...

Url: [some url]
Accessed: 2017-12-06 18:40:14 [Fictional, being a future date, just to help with differentiation]

I export (actually Quick Copy) using "Better Biblatex", the result is

@article{barker_1000_swiss,
  author = {Barker, Anne},
  date = {1000-06-06},
  title = {Swiss voters say no to guaranteed free money},
  urldate = {2017-12-06},
  journaltitle = {ABC News},
  langid = {australian},
  timestamp = {2016-06-06T08:50:13Z},
  abstract = {Voters in Switzerland overwhelmingly reject a proposal to introduce a guaranteed monthly income for all citizens.},
  url = {http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-06/swiss-voters-reject-basic-income-proposal/7481672},
  rights = {http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm\#UseOfContent}
}

The biblatex date field incorrectly parses the Zotero date field as

1000-06-06

It should be

 2016-06-06

A reminder that biblatex does not currently support times in the date field. There are ongoing discussions about whether biblatex should support times (at least not complain if times end up in the date field and other date type fields).

But perhaps, for the moment in Zotero-Better-Bibtex, parsing 2016-06-06T08:50:13Z as 2016-06-06 (rather than 1000-06-06 or 2016-06-06T08:50:13Z) would be the way to go.

[retorquere]

Can you right-click on that reference and select "send BBT error"? That will give me that reference as a test case (click through the dialogs and paste the red ID here).

[JohnLukeBentley]

Report ID: EFSF3WC6

The other day I inadvertently sent you a bunch of Reports, which you can ignore.

[retorquere]

No worries, I never look at reports unless an ID is posted here, and reports are deleted after a week automatically.

[retorquere]

Can you try https://github.com/retorquere/zotero-better-bibtex/releases/download/builds/zotero-better-bibtex-1.6.61-circle-2532.xpi ?

[JohnLukeBentley]

It works.

I've only tried my one test case. I'm going to assume that takes care of it and reopen the issue only if I come across another exotic, bug triggering, case in production.

Thanks Emiliano, I hope that afforded you a nice break ;)

[retorquere]

It also passes all my other tests, or I couldn't have gotten you that test version. I can't publish test or release versions unless all tests are green.

Yeah, I could use the break. I have my defense this week, and it's been occupying my every waking moment (of which there are currently more than is generally considered healthy). These small fixes are great procrastination targets. Not too big, but a break nonetheless.

[JohnLukeBentley]

Yeah, regression testing. A very good thing to do.

Phd defense? Good luck with that.

If I send you further issues I'll know there may be good reasons for ignoring them for a while.

Naturally I'm instantly curious about what your thesis is - but you should get back to it, at once! :)

[retorquere]

No, just a masters degree in phil of science, tech and society. My thesis (such as it is) is about theories of well-being, and hedonism as particular, as an analytic device for the risks and benefits of technologically mediated friendships (which is just a fancy way of saying "is reddit good for you? news at 11")

[JohnLukeBentley]

Well, shit. That's interesting.

Although no longer in the academy my specific interest was, and is, in what I prefer to call "prudential theories", more or less "theories of well-being".

I'm interested in various meta issues: e.g. properly distinguishing the prudential good from the moral good and the good, all things considered. But also very much in defending particular prudential claims: e.g. "Monosexuality (normally called 'monogamy') is prudentially bad". Indeed part of my motive for wanting to properly sort out the meta issues is to furnish us all with sharper tools to argue over particular prudential claims.

After you receive your thesis result perhaps you could post it, or a TL:DR; version of it, to reddit.

Entirely relevant to we redditors. I was only today reflecting on Snowden's cheeky comment ...

"people say I live in Russia, but that's actually a little bit of a misunderstanding. I live on the Internet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

... and the extent to which it applies to myself.

So your thesis is relevant to my interests :)

[retorquere]

Although no longer in the academy my specific interest was, and is, in what I prefer to call "prudential theories", more or less "theories of well-being".

I'm interested in various meta issues: e.g. properly distinguishing the prudential good from the moral good and the good, all things considered.

That was an important distinction for my work, since I was arguing in favor of prudential hedonism. Most other theories of well-being seem very happy to conflate the two, but hedonism sort of can't afford to.

Not a hedonist myself, although 4 years down the road I'm harder pressed than ever to say where I stand. I used to be very partial to virtue theory of well-being, until I learned about its problems. Now I sort of just wish I could be a virtue theorist of well-being. Certainly not an objective lister, nor a desire satisfactionist. Unfortunately, one of my opponents is, so the defense is going to be interesting. Assuming you're not me that is. In that case it leans more towards terrifying.

But also very much in defending particular prudential claims: e.g. "Monosexuality (normally called 'monogamy') is prudentially bad".

Let's see, I smell a touch of hedonism there, perhaps a little desire satisfactionism, a little x-phi or psychology, if you're on the empirical side, otherwise, if you're on the normative-conceptual side, I'd say some derivative of objective list.

Indeed part of my motive for wanting to properly sort out the meta issues is to furnish us all with sharper tools to argue over particular prudential claims.

My actual interest is old-school Popper-style phil of science, phil of expertise, epistemology, and phil of mind, but the faculty I was admitted to doesn't do any of those (at least, it does none of those seriously). I took this project because it was valuable research to someone else, as the previous project (phil of sci/expertise, ranging from Popper to Foucault to STS (ptooey) to James to... anyhow, a million fields) that was valuable to me spun out of control. Plus, the test ought to be whether I can reason philosophically, not whether I can make a passionate plea for my pet worldview. Not a fan of hedonism, but a plausible case can be made.

Not that this one hasn't, but at least it allowed me to get to a place where I could say "screw all this noise, pick a date, this is what I'm going to defend".

After you receive your thesis result perhaps you could post it, or a TL:DR; version of it, to reddit.

Er... two people on this earth have read the thing so far. Two more will. I reckon that's about 4 people too many.

"people say I live in Russia, but that's actually a little bit of a misunderstanding. I live on the Internet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Also a point I argue - that "online" is a place no less real than offline places, and that actions cannot be deemed less real merely because they happen there.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.