Talk:Common Era/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Common Era. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Use BCE and CE on all year category pages

Using BCE and CE are definitely not NPOV as they promote the viewpoints of the minority who wish to secularize Christianity at the expense of the one third of the planet who take offense at the terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.138.206 (talk • contribs) 02:04, September 3, 2006 (UTC).

Although I understand that some think BC and AD should be used all of the time, it remains a fact that the only major religion that advocates it (at least, to the extent of my knowledge) is Christianity. So I would like to suggest, to maintain political correctness, that pages use B.C.E. and C.E. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be free for anyone. So I think it's reasonable that BCE and CE should be used.

Zork 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Eras if you're interested in this issue. It's really not as clear-cut as you make it out to be, and there are lots of people making rather good arguments on both sides. (Just to give you a hint of the other side, it is frequently pointed out that BCE and CE aren't very widely recognized outside of American academia.)

Please don't just start changing date formats, at least. It leads to nasty edit wars. At Wikipedia:Eras, some Wikipedians are trying to figure out how we can change the Manual of Style in a way that will avoid edit wars on this issue, but it's proving difficult to achieve any kind of consensus. Everyone's welcome to drop by and help out, preferably by reading the discussion page and, well... discussing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Zork: The Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says that either form of dating is acceptable provided that there is consistency within an article. Other guidlines govern how editors of a particular page decide on what goes into an article. Consensus is important. In practice, articles for several non-Christian topics use BCE/CE (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism). Sunray 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

FOOL! Why didn't i think to read the style guide instead of reading this whole discussion to find out if BCE/CE were common usage around here... WookMuff 21:13pm (AEST) 31 January 2006

why? it's a politically correct term for the exact same thing, and some people won't know what "bce" means. it's a lot easier to use bc and ad. Joeyramoney 20:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Woden's Day, Thor's Day

I believe that 'Wednesday' should be renamed 'Third Day', 'Thursday' be renamed 'Third Day', and etcetera due to their religious background. Wednesday was named after the German god, Woden, therefore implies that those using the term 'Wednesday' worship the god Woden! I refuse to go around saying 'Wednesday' because I don't believe in Woden folks! Woden is not real!. PatrickA 04:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Now, of course, I was joking. But it's scary, because there are alot of crazy people in this world that want BC and AD replaced with "CE" and "BCE" because apparently "saying AD after or before a year implies that you worship Jesus Christ". Does that really sound legible? Remember... "those using the term 'Wednesday' worship the god Woden". Of course, you thought that was bullshit when you read it, so why should anyone support the renaming of historical terms with Christian influences over historical terms with German religion influences???. That's my beef. CE and BCE are useless. Get over it, folks. PatrickA 04:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

When I discussed the policy of not changing CE to AD or vice versa on articles with someone who was doing so, I got a complaint back that everyone was disrespecting Christianity. So long as we have people who get offended over the changes because it offends Christianity, many people will feel that perhaps the connection is not as innocuous as you claim. --Prosfilaes 06:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, throwing around words like bullshit and crazy is pretty rude. Concluding that your opponents are crazy is a cop-out; they virtually always have good reasons for believing as they do, even if you disagree with them. --Prosfilaes 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

... Stop being so politicaly correct all the time "oooh it's rude to use words like crazy and bullshit".. Tha hell it is, you know it I know it. I use them every day and I bet you use them regulary too. Were NOT talking rude stuff here so just leave it be.

Anyways I agree with Patrick. CE and BCE are useless. Just because AD means in the year of the lord it doesn't mean we must disband it to be politicaly correct. Seriously.. I'm having a hard time explaning what I mean here it's so obvious for me. I guess I could just link to the word thats perfect for this discussion: Euphemism. --DerMeister 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AD is POV

I have twice been told today that AD is NPOV. I disagree - it is POV and it is offensive. It might be opening old wounds but I think all dates (using the Western calendar) should be changed from AD to CE on Wiki. Robsteadman 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Eras. Thank you. squell 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it's right. AD is POV. Thank YOU. Robsteadman 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Right? What could posssibly be right or wrong about a huge, tangled, chaotic disagreement? "Go to Wikipedia:Eras" isn't an assertion that someone's right and someone else is wrong; it's an invitation to a place for centralized discussion. It's also a good reality check that this argument is huge, and the answer is not so cut-and-dried as you would like it to be. There are some very intelligent people making some very good arguments on both sides. Deal with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AD is offensive and POV. It's really that simple. Some want to mainatin AD for tradition, some to give articles a "christian" slant. There are NO good argements to defend it. It is clear cut. Encyclopedias shoud be neutral and one of the basic principles of Wikipedai is NPOV. AD is POV.Robsteadman 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Come to Wikipedia:Eras" would have been better? Really, there are so many people here, every point of view has been debated ad infinitum et ad nauseam. My point here, though, is that this talk page is a place to discuss changes to make to this article. Unlike Wikipedia:Eras, it's not a Wikipedia project page where policy is decided. Since you seem interested in influencing Wikipedia policy, that is the place to go. I have also voiced my opinion there, so I'm not going to repeat it here.

Also, Wikipedia policy is largely consensus-based, which means that your influence is limited by your ability to convince others. In my experience, telling others simply that they are wrong isn't very succesful, even if you are right. squell 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I might regret asking this, but how can you claim it is clear cut? Even the most cursory examination of, say, Wikipedia:Eras would make it obvious that there are a lot of intelligent people on both sides of this issue. As far as POV goes, could you explain to me how a dating system which is self-conciously based around the (putative) birth year of Jesus is POV, but the same dating system, still based on the birth year of Jesus, but with a different name, is NPOV? --Deville (Talk) 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Basing a system on Jesus birth is like naming a day after a Norse god (or Roman) - it recognizes a tradition (something ANY era system must do). However using AD literally means "in the year of the/our Lord" - it calls Jesus the Lord. Naming a day after Wodin does not mean one worships him, recognizes him as a god, or even agrees he ever existed. Basing an era system on a traditional (but likely incorrect) birth year of Jesus - but calling it CE instead of calling Jesus the Lord -- does not mean one worships Jesus or even believes he ever existed. Only people who insist on a year zero or that some other year mark the epoch want to force every year ever used or written in any book to be recalculated & re-edited. Personally I'd prefer to name the rest of days of the week after the planets - as the Romans did - but there is no currency in English yet for that (like there is in other languages) -- whereas BCE/CE already has currency & hence is not "original research". Btw, if days of the week were to be numbered, there'd be arguments over which day to make the 7th day anyway --JimWae 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

POV or NPOV isn't really the problem. Has anyone bothered to ask themselves why it is that the US has not gone to the metric system? Very simply put, there were too many machines and maps and signs and everything in the culture that would have to be changed. Our whole industry would have to be re-tooled and the public educated. The effort was finnaly seen to to be too damn expensive. CE/BCE is sort of on the same lines. There are too many books in print, and the public education required would be too costly. The argument might be that for Wikipedia, we could accomplish the move to CE/BCE, but it would confuse the public that simply reads Wikipedia, and does not edit it. It would reduce the useablity of Wikipedia as a whole. I'm sorry if some are offended by AD/BC, but they'll live longer if they find less trivial things to spend their hate energy on. Besides, we don't have enough Winston Smiths from Minitrue on staff. So get a life! --Woolhiser 12:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many people have bothered to ask themselves why it is that the US hasn't gone to the metric system. Often from nations that managed to do that exact thing. This is not a page for the discussion of the CE/BCE; it's a page for the discussion of Wikipedia's NPOV article on it, so discussion of whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea is not on-topic.--Prosfilaes 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to comment, it's not an issue if older books and documents use BC/AD because there's no conversion required. People could easily handle it. With the metric system, it wasn't merely changing the name of feet to metres, it was completely redefining and changing the system. Also, BCE/CE has been around long enough for many people to recognize it. For the people that don't, it's just a matter of "oh, BCE is the same as BC and CE is the same as AD. Okay." You should also think before saying that the Jews were "wasting their hate energy" on the issue when it's to be expected that they don't want to be writing "in the year of our LORD" on their tombstones. --Berserk798 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In the year of our Lord could easily apply to Jews, because they also believe in the Lord (God)....Anno Domini doesn't specify "Jesus Christ", that would be "Anno Domini nostri Lesu Christi"142.176.111.59 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

so do you advocate using a new calendar? otherwise it makes no difference as they both mean the same thing. Joeyramoney 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The birth of Jesus Christ was important whether he was the son of God or not. People against using CE are usually intolerant to Christianity. Who cares what BC and AD stands for anyway? They have been used for years and people are used to them. - Hesselius

No, AD and BC are the current convention and are status quo. Therefore, they are the most NPOV versus other designations. There seems to be this argument that anti-Christian dates designations such as BCE/CE are NPOV simply because they espouse the idea of no religious affiliation. Remember, BCE and CE are a Point-Of-View: they are anit-Christian and secular. HarwoodRH 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AD is not the only current convention, even if most wide-spread.
Even if something were a convention, that does not "therefore" imply most NPOV
Have you evidence that CE is ANTI-Xn? --JimWae 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with AD

———MERGE REQUEST CANCELLED DUE TO APPARENT CONCENSUS———

– I still think this article needs to be toned down a bit because there is alot of original research and prolonged...well, B.S. frankly.

***Darwiner111 05:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)***.

Please give some details to support your contention about original research. The first three sections are well-written and are the result of considerable work (and compromise) by a number of editors. If, on the other hand, you mean the "Support" and "Opposition" sections, you would not get an argument from me. There is a discussion of this below. Sunray 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "Common Era" term is viewed as a weak euphemism for Anno Domini. It is not acknowledged or placed as seperate/independent from Anno Domini by virtually any sources, except Wikipedia. It is often associated as a sub-division of the Christian / anno Domini era, not a stand-alone era. The following are popular examples I have gathered; they also indicate (with sources) that the AD/BC system is the only system used in either of the examples' websites.

MSN Encarta recognizes the era simply as "Christian (Common) Era: the period after the birth of Jesus Christ" [1] and uses the AD/BC notation in all articles [2].
Fact Monster kids' encyclopedia defines "B.C.E." as "before the Christian (or Common) era" [3], and only has a dictionary listing for "Christian Era" [4].
Encyclopedia Britannica does not even have a listing for "Common era" [5], and uses the AD/BC notation in all of its articles.
NOTE – The term "CE" is often asserted as "Christian Era" with "common" merely in brackets, indicating secondary prominence. This defeats the entire purpose of CE's "secularity", but is the assured definition by all sources above, as well as much more sources.

I can get more examples. I just don't think "Common Era" is of any sufficiant significance or independence to have its own article, it should be part of Anno Domini.

For redirecting problems, the Common Era site can simply have a redirect to Anno Domini (i.e. #REDIRECT [[Anno Domini]]), and I'll fix all those problems if the agreement is to merge. Darwiner111 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Agree to Merge

as per above. Darwiner111 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Disagree with Merge

They need to be separate to be easier to find and because they are or should be, used by different groups. they have different implications. it's somewhat like the present cartoon issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klide (talk • contribs) ..

Disagree - issues over historical introduction of CE/BCE terms and debate about their use are real enough, and quite separate from any final consenesus decision on wikipedia housestyle(s)
- The Jewish calander is the only one used by Jews to determine the religious passage of years, mark the time since creation, the timing of festivals and weekly biblical readings. Our overwhelming preference in dialogue/writing is to use the terms CE/BCE, by which we mean that Commonly used by the (majority) Christian world.
- Personally I think the discussion on the historical origins & usage of the terms, arguements for & against are far too long to be incorporated (merged) within the existing AD article - but such information is well written and should be retained by wikipedia (whether or not one agrees with the routine use of AD/BC or CE/BCE, the information & debates are real in themselves.)
- As for which to use in wikipedia, I think WP:Civility should be the primary guiding rule. I personally see no problem in articles refering to Christian or Western historical events in using the terms AD/BC as would have been used by people at the specified time (Hence AD 1066 for the Norman conquest of Britain). However in articles about non-Christian events or people, then the relevant calander system should be stated first followed by the NPOV (Non-offending Point of view) to the relevant religious or racial group. Hence discussing a Jewish or Muslim person who lived in the Middle East prior to AD 1, I would prefer to see the relevant Jewish or Islamic calander date followed by the BCE equivalent. Where an article covers non-Christian with Christian interaction, then AD/BC is probably to be preferred, given that this is English Wikipedia and the majority of English-speacking countries are overwhelmingly Christian and thus historically relate to the AD/BC usage. Similarly an article discussing any cultural changes as a result of the spread of Christianity really is referring directly to before & after the comming of Jesus and so appropriately should refer directly to AD/BC. Lacking fluency in other languages, I would be interested to know what dating system is primariliy used in the Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese wikipedias ...
- So in essence, do not merge, because the history & debate over CE/BCE is interesting in itself and is quite separate from whatever the final decission as to what wikipedia's house-style is to be. As to the later point, there are clearly at least some occasions when it is more sensitive to use the more culturally neutral term. David Ruben ^Talk 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Disagree - with merging. This article needs rewriting, but should not be merged with Anno Domini. All the unsourced material should be cut. The controversy regarding switching from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is very real and significant, and is separate from Anno Domini. This is where that should be addressed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. There is enough material here to justify inclusion in a separate article. Using other encyclopedias is not a reliable guide, as we have articles on far more subjects than they (I'm sure that Encarta and Britannica) don't have articles on metolazone or Wacker Drive, and if they're mentioned at all it would be as part of broader articles). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, as per Knowledge Seeker. I especially think a kid's encyclopedia is a poor choice for comparison here.--Prosfilaes 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

MSN Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica actually showed less information on the so-called "Common era" (which they referred to as either "Christian era" or non-existant) than the "kids encyclopedia" you're complaining about. Darwiner111 05:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Strongly Disagree. WP is not MSN Encarta or Brittanica. Merging both articles would have created a big battlefield for certain people to push their POV on this issue; and apparently, this is what drives Darwiner111 as well; Ironically, his own userpage shows a good example of the seperate uses of both articles. squell 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree. Robsteadman 07:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree. Common era is a valid article in its own right. BCE/CE notation is well established in many domains, and recognized by Wikipedia as an acceptable alternative dating system for non-Christian subjects or non-Christian regions of the world. Sunray 08:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. This is a separate concept that needs extensive explanation. It should have its own article. Metamagician3000 06:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Support/Opposition rewrite

The support/opposition section of this article is becoming a nightmare, because it is too inviting to simply list one's personal objection or support there and run off; this page seems destined to become an indirect form of internet debate that way.

I think those two sections should be rewritten as one, merging all similar arguments and pairing them off to a single counter-argument, so that the list becomes coherent. Arguments should not appeal to authority. Your dictionary may be great, but it's still just your dictionary. If no counter-argument exists or can be found, the argument should be removed for being pointless or stating the obvious. Compare falsifiability.

A good reason for having opposition and support paired up is that it (hopefully) deters people from adding their personal convictions, as the article would implicitly pressure people who add new points to also add a dissenting view, which is not something most POV-pushers will be very willing to do. The usual Wikipedia ~~editwarring~~cooperation should keep both sides in balance.

I have put together a very rough example that only pairs off the arguments of the current revision at Talk: Common Era/Rewrite. This immediately shows the stylistic discrepancies, and that (surprisingly) there are only a small number of categories. I hope some clear-headed editors think this is a good idea and are willing to help out, because otherwise this wouldn't stand a hope in hell of succeeding. squell 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem in that section is sourcing. Whether arguments on the two sides are separated or paired off, they have to be sourced, or they should just go. Most of what's there now is original research. If we just delete any un-sourced arguments, that will be sufficient to prevent people just piling on whatever arguements they happen to think of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to demand that every minor statement be sourced, as it only creates a jungle [6] of references [7] nobody cares [8] to check, and encourages "X says so" reasoning. Right now a lot of references go to h2g2, for example. It might be more realistic to judge the arguments on their merits; that if you accept the premise, at least the logic is verifiable. We have tried simple sourcing on Anno Domini, the result: people started attacking the references: Talk:Anno Domini.

But right now, I am thinking style over content. Having a fixed style creates a discipline for editing this article that is currently lacking. At the very least, it is something which will help with reducing the amount of statements that need to be verified. squell 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Squell's suggestion makes a great deal of sense to me. These two sections are a mess. I think that attention to the style of writing would be a good approach and like the idea of coupling arguments. I also think that sources could be used if authoritative, but agree that this might be impractical. I will help with the re-write. Sunray 07:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and if I had more time I would help. I really hope this idea is a success. --Berserk798 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course GTBacchus is right that unsourced sentiment should ultimately go. It's no use dragging the pagan origins of the weekdays into this debate if the only place which brings it up is this article. However, the problem with authoritative (the word itself a give-away) sources is that most will be representive for a single point of view. We have to keep our own distance.

Are there any comments on the choice of arguments made on Talk:Common Era/Rewrite? — squell 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

some of the points made are actually counterpoints - and the counterpoints appear 1st in a few cases--JimWae 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because they were lifted directly from the current revision; I simply put the support arguments first. It's exemplary for the current state of the article; the "+" items should logically not be counterpoints. Anyway, each section can be rewritten as two paragraphs (one discussing the support, the other opposition), or a single section which simply discusses the arguments relevant to it in the most natural order. I'm not sure whichever would flow more naturally as I haven't attempted to merge any section yet. But I'm very curious to know if there's agreement about the categorisations I've made. squell 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that together, Squell. It really helps to see the arguments separated by content, and you really start to see that... it's a damned complicated argument. I think that everything under Irrelevant, and the correctness section, should be taken out and shot, with haste. That leaves mostly serious arguments... which sort of follow a train of thought:

Is BC/AD POV? - this covers the arguments you've listed under implications.
Does BCE/CE overcome that POV? - this is what you've listed under neutrality
Is BCE/CE POV in the opposite direction? - the anti-christian sentiment section
. . .
Does BCE/CE have other advantages/disadvantages that might be relevant? - this is mostly addressed under usage and style, and the most meaningful part of it is the appeal to tradition argument for BC, which is pretty specious.

I left a space for #4 because it seemed like a long way from 3 to 5, in terms of significance. That's my two cents, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

All things happen in fives! Your ordering seems to me a very natural one to use in the rewritten section; I also think the argument of 'correctness' is largely a stick to beat traditionalists with, as CE has not been invented to address it. But I recall reading some christian website which defended the use of CE by using that argument, so I put it just slightly above "irrelevant". As a technical aside; should we collaborate on the rewrite on that subpage, or simply start a new section in the main article and not worry about temporarily messing it up even further? squell 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No comments; long delay since Squell posted this. I suggest re-writing it on a sub page, but wasn't sure which one you meant. Here? Or somewhere else? However, I'm not strong in my opinion on this. Whichever seems easiest. We need to get this done. Sunray 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This subpage: Talk:Common Era/Rewrite. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a new system whereby history is divided into PCE (Politically Correct Era) and BPC (Before Political Correctness) the current 2000 CE would be 0 PCE. Then everyone will be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.180.3 (talk • contribs)

Right. It would likely be more accurate to have 1980 = 1 PCE, since that is the circa year that political correctness began. This would be the year 25 PCE. I know we're joking and all...but some idiots would likely actually want this, :S. CrazyInSane 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Adding to this: I have done some etymological research, and discovered that the acronym "BCE" actually originated in Canada as "Before Christ, Eh?". I find this rather helpful, as it serves to explain the otherwise unreferenceable and temporally disconnected term "Common." So there...glad that's settled. --66.69.219.9 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dropping AD or CE

First of all I'd like to mention that we used CE notation at school and I'd never even heard anyone refer to it as 'the Christian Era'. We were taught 'Common Era' and I think that's increasingly the case so whether or not google searches come up with Christian Era more is beside the point (apart from the obvious, that internet usage is highest in the West and particularly the USA and the USA is notably religiously Christian)... but that wasn't my point. It's this - when does anyone write either AD or CE these days?! When I write the date I write 2006, and when I'm talking about the 1980's I'm talking about the 1980's. Why do we need any suffix or prefix? Joziboy 14 March 2006, 21:27 (UTC)

Whenever you use BCE or BC, you need to use AD or CE on nearby dates to make sure the difference is clear.--Prosfilaes 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The main argument regarding the era notations usually isn't 'AD' and 'CE'.. its 'BCE' and 'BC'. And writing something like 150 BC –15 just looks irregular. You need to affix the 'CE' or 'AD'. CrazyInSane 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge AD to BC

Please note that a merger tag has been placed on the Before Christ article. The same group is attempting what they tried here at Common Era. I have voted not to merge the BC and AD articles. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

SirIsaacBrock is cordially mis-representing the facts here. User:dewet and I most certainly don't form a group — I've never edited with him before. Before Christ has always been a redirect to Anno Domini until User:SirIsaacBrock changed it, we are simply opposing that. It certainly has nothing to do with the AD/CE merge that was proposed recently. squell 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal explanation

I removed the following sentence:

Also, Encyclopædia Britannica does not even have a listing for "Common era" [9], and uses the AD/BC notation in all of its articles.

Whoever added this doesn't seem to have researched the matter very thoroughly. Britannica may not have a listing for "common era", but I don't see that it has a listing for "anno domini" either [10]. Further, it doesn't make sense to find an article that uses AD/BC and use it to claim that AD/BC is used in all its articles. A simple search for "BCE turns up hundreds of entries. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire pro/con section is a mess, anyway. If you feel up to it, please take a peek at the above rewrite proposal and Talk:Common Era/Rewrite. In that proposal, any appeal to authority (such as Brittanica) should simply be stricken from the article. squell 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Current Era, Common Era and an Anthroplogist POV

Recently and unintentionaly I steppeded into this mucky argument. I'll add my thoughts here and let it rest. I find that those involoved seem largely to be arguing from religious and historical paradigms and when I brought in a brief anthropological argument, I was surprised to see it removed. Rather than fight over labels I'll present the arguments I made to those who choose to disagree.

Questions about the term “Common Era” often arise among anthropologist working in colonial contexts with non western peoples (i.e. most of us). Some anthropologist and archaeologist have come to prefer the fairly neutral “Current Era” whereas others prefer the traditional AD/BC system for sake of clarity. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention strikes me as a particualraly egregious example. I find the use of “Common Era” deeply troubling. I'm no christian (perish the thought), but I have no moral problem using an age old dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting in my view, but if people feel that change is necessary, they should be at least as sensitive to what they are changing it to as they were to what they were changing it from. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. It tacitly assumes that Europeans, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter and there is nothing wrong with claiming an era is "Common" history/culture to everyone who now uses the dating system. I assure you that many people in developing non western nations who use the Gregorian calendar would not think of themselves and their history as having anything in common with Europe or to be participants for the past 2006 years in a commonality with Europeans except perhaps as colonial subjects. Therefore, using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term have every considered it from this point of view.DHBoggs 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that not exactly the opposite of what 'Common Era' is meant to represent? For whatever historical reasons, the date systems is now pretty common. The same dates are used in most of the world irrespective of whether or not those countries are Judeo-Christian and/or Western. And that's exactly the point. We may all use those dates now, but not all of the world is western or Christian - so 'Common Era' seeks to make the term reflect reality - that to most people the date is the date and has nothing to do with European culture. It's factually common, not morally common - and removing the cultural baggage of the old name (AD) is therefore anti-imperial, anticolonial and less Eurocentric. Joziboy 16 March 16:27 (UTC)

AD/BC don't refer to Jesus; they refer to Christ, and "Our Lord", which are much more controversial figures. Pushing our dating system on them is already ethnocentrism that marginalizes everything that's not western history. I fail to see why calling it the Common Era is worse then implicity demanding that they recognize Jesus Christ as Lord. It's not like Europeans had anything to do with Jesus for 2006 years, either.--Prosfilaes 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Appealing to the semantic ambiguity of the term only decreases its supposed objectivity. Further, while its fair to say that much of the world (with very sizeable and important exceptions) uses the Gregorian or Julian calendars, it is not remotely fair to imply that has been the case for the past 2006 years. In 1006, for example, the system was not "Common"ly used or understood except of course, by Europeans, yet does not calling it 1006 of the "Common Era" make that very claim? At least implicitly, it certainly does. Perhaps some aren't concerned with how we characterize the past, but I would argue that misrepresenting the past is no less important than misrepresenting the present.DHBoggs 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I hadn't thought about that aspect of it - the historical side. You're quite right that in 1006 only the Europeans would've known what that meant. So it's only really been common for a few centuries at most, and pinpointing that date as the start of a Common Era would be impossible. I still can't help prefering using a term which is religiously/culturally neutral. Joziboy 17 March 2006, 13:10 (UTC)

Agreed; non offensive or presumptive terminology would be ideal and this is a main reason for those pushing for the use of "Current Era" instead of "Common Era" in that it seemingly makes no claims other than being an ongoing period of worldwide change.DHBoggs 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DHBoggs, BCE/CE is POV for the reasons he/she gave. The use of "Common Era" as a neutral term is in fact the opposite, because "Common Era" assumes that the belief in the supposed year of Jesus' year of birth is common to and held by all people worldwide. Whereas BC/AD is in fact neutral because its origins are clear, and that it can be used by all without having to acknowledge that its origins have any basis in reality, just as days of the week named after Norse gods does not imply the believe in Norse gods. "Current Era" is preferable to "Common Era" but the problem is they are both "CE". LDHan 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is in "Common"?

Originally, perhaps, the use of "Common Era" came from the earlier use of "Vulgar Era" as a substitute when vulgar no longer was considered synonymous with "common". In this sense, common means somethng shared for everyday popular use (as the Vulgate was written in everyday Latin rather than formal Latin).

I see here that more than a few people are saying/suggesting that international adoptions imply that its adoptees share an observance of the event around which the Era is centered. I want to point out here that such is not necessarily what Common Era means.

As a substitute some are proposing Current Era. While personally I have no objection to this, I note 4 points:

Search CE "Current Era" vs. CE "Common Era". My searches show that Current Era does not have nearly the currency that Common Era has. Unfortunately, perhaps, wikipedia reports on things & cannot single-handedly change the currency of an expression
Current Era does not clearly eliminate the objection raised above - it still is centered on the incarnation of Jesus. I think it even moreso assumes that other cultures are placed in a position of adopting the era as well as the numbering system - they would be making it their Current Era - not just one they use "in common" with the rest of the world.
Any attempt to create a New Era has less currency, would require calculation to transform (making EVERY date ever written in need of revision), and would still favor some culture over another.
I do not think it really needs to be settled what CE stands for. I am in favor of letting people thinking the abbreviation means whatever they want. If thinking that CE stands for Christina Era helps people get over their aversion to it, that still is far superior to insisting that those who want to be able to refer to a year cross-culturally without confusion, must also adopt an abbreviation that literally and necessarily MEANS that the person (likely miscalculated to have been) born in the year 1 BC is "the Lord", "our Lord", or "the Christ"--JimWae 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree that "Current Era" is no better than "Common Era" as a neutral term if 2006 remains 2006, but of course any other way of year numbering is just not workable. I would also say that anyone using BC/AD does not have to accept that "Jesus" is "the lord" or any other Christian beliefs, even if that is what BC/AD originally meant, and is still used by Christian with that meaning. As already stated, changing the name without changing the system in an attempt to be neutral does not work. LDHan 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we do do not have to accept it as fact, we just have to say (by the meaning of the words one is using) it is a fact every time we use it. It is unlikely there will be a new era anytime soon, and CE is less objectionable than AD - and NO system could ever be COMPLETELY neutral - but CE is MORE neutral --JimWae 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why "AD/BC" is not POV

After endless arguments about "AD/BC" being POV because "Anno Domini" endorses the indoctrination that Jesus is "our Lord" and "Before Christ" is asserting Jesus as "the Christ", I've come to realize something quite simple that technically assures that "AD/BC" is NPOV and "CE/BCE" is unneccesary. If I were to write "JC exists beyond a doubt" at random, this is NPOV because it could be interpreted as "Jimmy Carter exists beyond a doubt", "James Cameron exists beyond a doubt", or anything else. Nowhere in that sentence to I acknowledge that I am reffering to Jesus Christ. Thus the only way that "AD/BC" could be POV is if they were presented in such a context as "Bob was born (in) 100 (years) Before Christ and then he died (in) Anno Domini 2"— saying "Bob was born 100 BC and he then died in AD 2" is literally in no way POV because I could simply interperet it as "British Columbia" and "Andy Dick". For a broader example, writing something like "JCIOLAS" isn't POV until you write it out as "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior". I think this cripples all presented evidence of a POV stance that accusingly exists with "AD/BC". The POV is only with "Anno Domini" and "Before Christ", not "AD and BC". CrazyInSane 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

- and pbuh also is NPOV? --JimWae 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Why not? Until you tell me what it stands for I can never know! CrazyInSane 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

- no thanks - I'd rather not be the source of all your knowledge --JimWae 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

pbuh is a Backhanded compliment when referred to Jesus, it is used by Muslims. It is an acronym for "peace be upon him". To Christians peace is a divine gift. Before he ascended into heaven, Jesus said "my peace I give you". For Christians peace comes from God to man. Wishing peace on Jesus, implies that he needs peace from us, thus denying his divinity. So to Jesus, the prophet as defined in Islam, pbuh is a compliment. But to Jesus, as God as defined in Christianity, it is not. ClemMcGann 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think this talk page could do with a notice that it is for discussions about the article, not for discussions about the merits of the subject matter itself. squell 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

would you rather have these disputes on the article page? ClemMcGann 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Common Era = Common era?

Why is it that "Common era" has a capitalized "era" affixed? I propose that we move this article from Common Era to "Common era". Any objections? CrazyInSane 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst not having capitals is generally the wiki-preference, the term is used (outside of wiki-debates) most often in its abbreviated form, i.e. CE. One might as well suggest that Anno Domini be renamed Anno domini, but that clearly seems wrong too. David Ruben ^Talk 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Domini" is "God" in Latin, which is always capitalized in English. This is why you'll often see it written as this "anno Domini", whereas it is obvious the necessity of the "Domini" capitalization. I believe that since CE is an especially recent euphemism for AD (becoming first popular circa 1970s), the "era" part should not be capitalized. Especially since there isn't really even anything "common" about this era, other than it is based on the birth of Jesus Christ..is that common?CrazyInSane 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First, Domini doesn't mean "god" in Latin. Second, 'Common Era' is usually capitalized in english usage, like Act of Congress, National Assembly ... squell 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Eras and Ages are normally capitalized. No change should be made. --Blainster 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

The following is given in this article as to why AD is "inferior" to CE. Since CE is based on, and is exactly eqivalent to, the AD notation (it's just another name for the same thing, like Myanmar is the same as Burma) it would seem that the point applies to CE also. So really it should not be used as an example.

The label Anno Domini is almost certainly inaccurate — the birth of Jesus of Nazareth probably occurred no later than 4 BC, the year of Herod the Great's death. Arcturus 15:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. CrazyInSane 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not participate in the proposed rewrite instead of removing arguments you dislike? squell 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus vs Historical Jesus

The link to the Jesus article should instead link to Historical Jesus - we are dealing with historical evidence, rather than theoretical ideas. I did a test redirect, but CrazyInSane appeared to not like the proposition, seeing as he/she removed the edit without explanation (apparently not the first time).

If anyone has any objections, please discuss below. Sfacets 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you resorting to the talk page for discussion regarding this link change. I reverted your edit because it was made without discussion and I personally disagree with it. The article Historical Jesus is meant to attract those interested primarily in the historicity of Jesus above all other aspects of his life. I deem it appropriate that the link here at Common Era be directly to Jesus so as that all aspects of the figure (including a historicity section) can be viewed when someone follows the link. Linking to Historical Jesus is hardly appropriate unless actually discussing the merits of his historicity, which I don't think is the case here. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the mere fact that I was redirecting Jesus to Historical Jesus was self-explanatory, but I had also noted the reasons for the edit in the edit summary.

I agree that the article Historical Jesus deals majorly with comparing the historical and spiritual figure, which is not great, however there needs to be a clear understanding shown that the calendar is based on Jesus as a factual historical figure, rather than one which may be distorted/enhanced or otherwise portrayed in a manner which to all purposes conveys a religious POV.

Perhaps the Jesus document should have a clearly defined section (currently lacking]] defining what is meant by Historical Jesus. Sfacets 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think there's that much confusion about his birth, or the real need to make this fine a distinction here.--Prosfilaes 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ante Christum Natum

CrazyInSane's addition of "Ante Christum Natum" to Bede is indeed misinformed. Bede used 'before Christ' only once. In book I, Chapter 2 of Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum we find "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus anno LXmo", which is loosely translated as "but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord" in the Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. I say loosely because "vero" is translated as "but" instead of "indeed", and the Latin does not have "nostrum" (our). Basically, Bede used "ante incarnationis dominicae" or "before the incarnation of the Lord". This differs from "ante Christum natum", "before Christ's birth", in two fundamental ways: incarnation instead of birth, and Lord instead of Christ. I have consulted many Latin books and I have never seen "ante Christum natum"! I would need several citations to support its entry in Wikipedia. — Joe Kress 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject Common Era

(Moved to Wikipedia talk:Eras.) — 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses strange comment

It says in the article that Jehovah's witnesses view C.E.(for Christian era) as more accurate than B.C. It looks like it should be "C.E. is more accurate than A.D.". But it's unclear whether this was an error made by the Jehovah's witness source or an error made by the person paraphrasing the Jehovah's witness source. Someone who knows, please fix. Zargulon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is weird. This statement is also unsourced, and I have tagged it as such; I think that if whoever wrote it doesn't come and source it soon (or someone else who knows), it should be deleted, in which case it won't matter if it says "BC" erroneously. roma rin

[talk to her ] 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are good arguments for CE even if I disagree with them, but I can't imagine anyone arguing that BCE is somehow "more accurate." They both use exactly the same numbers, after all. This doesn't seem right. --Ben Applegate 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you could argue that BC refers to an erroneous date for the birth of Christ, whereas BCE refers only to only the Christian or Common Era, which unquestionably begins in Year 1. The fact that Year 1 was chosen for being the supposed birth of Christ is perhaps irrelevant. Not a strong argument, IMO, but I can understand it.--Chris 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's not really true either -- people didn't start using the BC/AD system in AD 1. Even after it started being used, it was changed multiple times. So it's not really the beginning of the common/Christian era any more than it's the date Christ actually died -- it's just a convenient number.--Ben Applegate 09:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect, but am not certain, as to what the sentence is referring to. The Jehovah's witnesses were very adamant on using CE/BCE. Indeed, they may have been its earliest advocats. Lately many of them are changing to AD/BC and even ammending their earlier work. Currently they are considering why the world has not ended. This, to them, is very important. One theory is that since Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE rather than 607 BC they can to add twenty years to their prophecy. The discrepancy was caused by the wrong start year of AD1. In this mindset, the current year is AD2006 or 1986CE. Hence the claim that AD is less accurate! It is less accurate in calculating end times! If you are intesested then Google ‘Bible 607 587’.

Since the Jehovah's witnesses were early adopters of BCE/CE, they deserve a mention. However I suggest that the idea of ‘accuracy’ be deleted. ClemMcGann 23:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can say that it is true that all official publications of Jehovah's Witnesses use CE/BCE instead of AD/BC, and have for decades. I don't know offhand of what date that practice began. I also don't have a good citation handy, but I will post one when I get around to it. (The reference work Insight on the Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., would be a good place to look -- I'm pretty sure it has an article under Common Era that would contain a good quote, but I don't have a copy with me right now.) The justification I've always heard is that this is based on the understanding that AD is inaccurate in indicating a link to the birth of Jesus, since all the historical evidence shows that Jesus was not born in the year 1 AD (as noted in the article). Therefore Jehovah's Witnesses use CE to indicate that this is the common, although not in our view strictly accurate, usage. Hopefully that clarifies what the "strange comment" was supposed to mean. The "CE is more accurate than BC" (instead of "CE is more accurate than AD") is a typographical error on the part of the editor who inserted that statement. -- Daniel Pryden, 2006-06-05.

For the record, here's the first reference to CE in any Jehovah's Witness publication I could find. I'm quoting it here instead of in the main article because (1) I think it's interesting to show a Christian viewpoint that supports "Common Era" over either Anno Domini or "Christian Era", but (2) this seems a bit much to put into the body of the article -- perhaps a bit too POV? In either case, however, it's useful because it provides a more complete source for the statement being debated in this section (which I provided another, albeit weaker, source for a couple of days ago). I'm saving it here because the article in question is not available in electronic form anywhere else (to my knowledge). Anyhow, here's the reference:

"There are various ways of dating. To the Chinese this is the year 4663, and to the Jews this the year 5725 A.M. (Anno mundi, or in the year of the world). To many others this is A.D. (Anno Domini, or in the year of our Lord) 1965. What does that mean? The 1965th year since the birth of Jesus Christ. But is it? There is considerable difference of opinion as to the exact year, but there is general agreement that it was some years B.C. that Jesus was born. Thus the present system, as set up in the sixth century by the monk Dionysius Exiguus, is in error. Moreover, Jesus did not become the Messiah or the Christ, which means Anointed One, until he was anointed with God's spirit at the time of his baptism in the Jordan River. (Matt. 3:13-17; Acts 10:38) So the Christian era, strictly speaking, did not begin until quite a few years after Jesus' birth. Since the use of A.D. and B.C. is really chronologically inaccurate, it is more accurate to say that this is 1965 C.E. or the 1965th year of the Common Era. Likewise, B.C.E. would mean Before the Common Era. Why "common"? Because it is the method of dating that is used in common by a large part of earth's inhabitants. Man has long had problems with his calendars, and he still does." — "The Common Era" (June 22, 1965) Awake!, p. 11

Hopefully that's useful to someone!

DPryden 04:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, thank you for that.

Do, or did, the Jehovah's Witnesses object to AD as they reject the divinity of Christ?

When did the Jehovah's Witnesses first use CE/BCE? Might they have been the first? As early adopters, they deserve a mention ClemMcGann 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On the first point, I don't want to get into an offtopic theology debate, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not technically "reject the divinity of Christ", in the sense that Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus is a divine being, just not the same divine being as God the Father, whom we call Jehovah. However, we have no objection to calling Jesus "our Lord" or "the Lord", so we have no objection to the term "Anno Domini". It's the fact that the usage is technically not in agreement with its literal meaning that causes us to consider C.E. more accurate.

On the second point, the reference from 1965 is the earliest reference I was able to find. The Watchtower definitely used A.D. at least into the 1950s, but I wasn't able to find an exact date for the change in terminology. The fact that the 1965 article treats it as a new idea suggests that it had been recently adopted at that time.

DPryden 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply ClemMcGann 23:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BC/BCE comparisons via Google

I've added this section as there has been only one mention of Google on this talk page -- with zero related discussion -- and yet some have tried to refer to that one reference as somehow airing out the issue.

Let's start at the implicit beginning, Internet usage, to avoid getting into the weeds of unfounded assertion (e.g., "most Internet users are in the U.S.") right off the bat.

Internet usage is described by the CIA factbook. As can be seen by this reference, the U.S. is ever more-so a smaller component of overall Internet usage, and by no means predominant.

Thus use of Google for determining relative usage of BC and BCE is not the unfounded exercise that champions of the BCE/CE labels might wish it to be. Google is a credible tool in this case, and unless a factual argument can be made otherwise, it should be quite useful over time to determine whether or not this somewhat trivial exercise in relabeling the reference for years (but not days of the week, et cetera) has any legs to it. --66.69.219.9 12:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed. Your edit was previously reverted, and will continue to be if you continue to add this section, until we can reach a consensus (if that is what we need to do) on whether or not this is a valid point. What is wrong with the current statement that "BCE/CE has given rise to some opposition"? It is perfectly true; your addition seems unnecessary. Besides, Google is not a source to end all sources. roma rin

[talk to her ] 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother looking at the archives, which have a discussion on the subject. Two and three letter acronyms are too common to accurately count via Google, besides the fact it's original research.--Prosfilaes 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If any argument is built upon Google it should go into the 'opposition' section. But anyway, the entire support/opposition section needs to be seriously rewritten, because people keep fighting over silly little sentences like this. It is bordering on the polemic as it is and it will only degenerate further if nothing is done about it. squell 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed completely. This section reads more like a heated debate than an encyclopedia article. roma rin

[talk to her ] 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do these "discussions" on Wikipedia seem to go so quickly into the briars and weeds of opinion, rather than the golden fields of facts? It's rather odd. In any case, to answer the "...should go into the opposition section" above, if you'd taken the time to look before commenting, that is precisely where the Google information, provided below for sake of 'discussion', was placed. The Google information/statement:

"Changing dates expressed in AD/BC terminology to CE/BCE has not been predominantly embraced in most countries, as evidenced by such indicators as Google that show a nearly 20-to-1 preference for BC notation to BCE. Arguments against the common era designation include:..."

--66.69.219.9 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very pretty metaphor, but counting up Google hits is hardly a sound research method for determining the relative prevalences of BD/AD and BCE/CE usage. Comparison of Google results over a long period of time, combined with an understanding of and correction for Google's algorithms, might tell you something, but that would be original research anyway. If you want to say something about just how much BCE/CE has or hasn't caught on, find a reliable source that addresses that question, report what they say, and provide a citation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The same results (more supportive of BC, actually) can be found by looking at literally very "new" postings on the Internet via a search of 'Google news'. As might rather be expected, this will of course vary substantially from day to day and moment to moment, but, at this moment today, the preference for BC to BCE is more of a 23-to-1 preference. Interestingly, if we were to all live in China (the world's most populous country whose government is formally atheist), which embraced "Common Era" when the communists took over in 1949, we might not be able to access that fact. --66.69.219.9 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your research interesting. Since it's just that - research - we can't use it here, but maybe you can find some similar research that someone's published? Although... using search engine results to establish anything is a questionable methodology, which would require some serious discussion as to its merits, but I'll bet someone clever enough could find a way to argue convincingly just what those data mean, in a statistically significant way.

While you're playing with search engines, why don't you find one that only indexes academic journals - ask a friendly librarian to help you with this, and I'll bet you could get some really interesting results. There's so much important stuff written down that Google does not index. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the objection to using Google to determine the general incidence of the 2 notations. I've read the archives (thanks, Prosfilaes); my reaction is that certainly *incompetent* Google searches are of little use. But searches on strings like '"55 BC" Caesar' or '"330 CE" Constantinople' should produce valid data about usage in Google-space. 'Original research' is a stronger objection, but I'm not sure it's decisive. First, the WP ban on original research was imposed by the need to stop cranks from publishing their alternatives to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and so on. Googling usages is far from that. I would suggest that it's compilation rather than research. Consider these parallels:

I write that there have been 3 Canadian prime ministers in the 21st century. Do I have to find source which states this literally, or can I just look over a list of prime ministers and interpret it?
I write that all three biographers of figure X were Russians. Can I look up biographers A, B, and C separately and state the general conclusion, or is that "research", so in fact I need to find a source that states that conclusion explicitly? In short, do I need to find someone else to do my thinking for me?
I state that interest in figure Y has risen over the last 30 years in the United States, and cite the catalog of the Library of Congress to the effect that there were 3 books about Y published in the 1970s, 13 in the 1980s, 35 in the 1990s, and 56 so far in the 2000s. Is it "original research" to look in the catalog? What if I look up the single fact that Lucretia Burbage's "Knitting for the Masses" was publishes in 1943? Is *that* original research?

I'd say all these cases involve compilation of facts from existing sources, not original research in either the academic or Wikipedia senses. Now, Google is nothing more than a catalog of web content, with an interface similar to the interfaces on most electronic library catalogs. Ergo, Google searches are compilation, and therefore Wikipediable.

Bacchus, I think your objections to Google results are overstated. Yes, they are imperfect, but even a dirty window lets you know whether it's day or night. If counting Google hits overwhelming supports one option, that's convincing that that option is majority usage among typical users, all quibbling aside. You may well be right that a search of academic publish would produce different (i.e., pro-CE) results, but that's irrelevant. WP is written for a general audience, not an academic one. --Chris 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly to say that interest in figure Y has risen over the years is original research. The best you can say is that the LoC records so many books with the subject heading Figure Y each decade. If there is no such subject heading, your selection of which books are on the subject is original research. Arguably, a Google search for a word is not original research; but as you say, we don't want to search on BC or BCE. If you search on '"55 BC" Caesar' or '"330 CE" Constantinople', you picking specific terms, and you'll get different results than if you searched on Josephus or Sun Tzu. Picking those terms is deeply controversial, and the heart of original research.

The concept that just because WP is written for a general audience, we shouldn't take note of academic results is absurd. If we write about American views on the Soviet Union, for example, the academic views have as much right to be there as the Kansas famer.--Prosfilaes 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously a grey area between compilation and research. An article that was strict compilation would a list or a set of notes. You and I might differ about where to draw the line, but probably not by so much. As for biases based on the selection of terms, I doubt you'll find much variation. Searching on Josephus's birthdate, for example, we get:

37 AD: 17,200

AD 37: 10,000

37 CE: 598

You've misunderstood my point about general versus academic audiences. Namely, it's a point about audiences, not sources. In a work intended for a general audience, like an encyclopedia, you avoid difficult academic language. When possible, you express ideas using familiar vocabulary, even if that's not the way a scholar would speak to other scholars. By that standard the choice between AD and CE is self-evident.

So now you're doing original research to backup the original research. It's clearly beyond the line of original research.

This is a talk page; I'm not proposing putting this data into the article. You made a claim that Google results were unstable due to sample biases; I refuted it.

The point about audiences is irrelevant to this page'. This is not a page about whether or not Wikipedia should use AD or CE. Take that argument to that page.--Prosfilaes 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I slipped over into another page's discussion--Chris 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

searches on strings like '"55 BC" Caesar' or '"330 CE" Constantinople' should produce valid data about usage in Google-space.

See, that's just the problem. What on Earth is Google-space? Is it representative of "common usage", for some definition of the word "common"? Maybe, maybe not. I'll venture that none of us know just what the statistical properties are of the pages indexed by Google, versus the sum total of all written content on the planet. Furthermore, Google hits are skewed by such things as mirror sites - are we counting unique G-hits, or raw numbers? No matter how you try to address these issues, you're still doing original research, not mere compilation. The difference is that you're drawing a new conclusion about usage, based on your decision, as a researcher, that Google hits are a good metric of usage. If one reliable source says that Ivan is Russian, and another source says that Peter is Russian, then of course you can say that they're both Russian, that's a simple inference. This is different because you're not using the information in the sources, per se, you're making a meta-claim about the relative prevalence of one kind of source over the other. I wouldn't trust such a claim unless I knew the researcher was using some kind of sound methodology for determining prevalence.

You may well be right that a search of academic publish would produce different (i.e., pro-CE) results, but that's irrelevant. WP is written for a general audience, not an academic one.

What? Of course WP is written for a general audience, but that doesn't mean that we pretend academic writing doesn't exist. If the question is "which is used more", we don't get to just ignore academic sources on the grounds that we aren't an academic source, too. This argument really doesn't make sense to me.

the WP ban on original research was imposed by the need to stop cranks from publishing their alternatives to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and so on.

I think there's more to it than that. The ban on original research is intended to keep the quality of our articles up. It's intended to insure that we are a tertiary source, as an encyclopedia should be. We report facts that have already been reported by secondary sources. Why is it so appealing to bring that standard down? What's so alluring about making WP into a secondary or primary source? Do we just really really wish the standard were truth, rather than verifiability in reliable sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough Secularization - it's B.C. and A.D. not BCE and CE!

We have been using B.C. for centuries, not BCE. The issue is not about Christianity, it is about using a historical event as a reference point for the purposes of timekeeping and recording events of history. Jesus was a real person -this is documented- and the events are significant. If you really want to take references to God out of everything, we should all say we are living in the year 4,500,006,006, which would approximate to the beginning of the Earth, plus human civilization (assuming a beginning around 4,000 B.C., but not 4,000 BCE).

So you agree using BC & AD amounts to calling Jesus God? --JimWae 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Face it buddy, even though I personally agree with you, many don't— and they aren't all going to change their minds because of you. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's not about Christianity, then it's not secularization.--Prosfilaes 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. I just wanted to present an alternative point of view, which is secularization caused by the whole B/CE thing. It's like pooling knowledge, but I thought if I did it on the discussion page, and not the main article, it would be ok, since I am discussing B/CE. But I apologize for any trouble this caused. Stovetopcookies 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal—AD/BC were used without dilemma for the past several centuries because in recent decades (in Western countries), sensitivity about personal matters has come to at an all-time high; including sensitivity over religion. This, as well as the fact that from 1990 to 2001 (according to census), the amount of self-proclaimed Non-theists or Non-religious persons jumped 130% in the United States alone, is the cause for the uproar against AD and BC. As B/CE enthusiasts claim, it is true that "AD" (anno Domini) claims that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, but this fact was never an issue in the past because of lower levels of sensitivity and atheism. Hope this is what you're trying to address...Oh, and as for the whole "this should be the year 4,500,006,006" thing, I'm almost positive than non-Christian B/CE activists have not put this calendar into effect merely because of the chaos and confusion it would cause; otherwise, they would. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This is not a page for discussing CE/BCE—it's a page for discussion about Wikipedia's NPOV article on it, so discussions about whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea are not on-topic. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss this elsewhere. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text books

the article should probably note that alot of text books that use CE instead of AD often actuall use both. Example -- "Germany was invaded by Norway in 143 CE (AD)" just a thought --T-rex 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples? I can't remember ever reading "CE" or "BCE" before I got to college.--Ben Applegate 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)