Talk:Common Era/Archive 8

AD/CE/BC/BCE/BP DESIGNATION CONFUSION IRRITATING

PLEASE; Wikipedia, get some kind of common dating system! Write a script to replace all different designations with a common one, or a script to allow the user to use whatever system he pleases.

Or just replace them all with common, good old AD and BC, 99% of all literature ever written uses that!! Holy Lord Jesus Christ Pantocrator: how is one supposed to study effectively when dates are continuously confused?

Please!

• while keeping article independent of AD article

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 09:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote?

Why does the quote from the Jews use "L-rd" instead of "Lord"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztobor (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote comes from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/calendar.html#Years, which in turn says the source of the information is Judiasm 101. Searching that site for "L-rd" leads to this statement:

L-rd

A way of avoiding writing a name of G-d, to avoid the risk of the sin of erasing or defacing the Name. See The Name of G-d.

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I myself think it is kind of stupid (without offense to the Jewish population itself), because covering a letter already defaces the name. ZtObOr 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is [sic] appropriate in that quote? L-rd is intentional, as discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.239.190 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, or someone will correct it and 'detract' from the original quote. --67.172.13.176 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[sic] doesn't mean "This is an error." but rather means "This is how it was in the original.", so it is appropriate. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet [sic] in the original quote, hence is misused and distracts from the meaning of the information. Aot007 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce treatment of AD

• while keeping article independent of AD article
  • there should be some explanation of origins in Dionysius, and some detail showing any gap between entrenchment of AD & usage of Common Era is much less than often supposed - due to quite early use of "Common Era" & quite late entrenchment of AD (it could turn out to be even less than this article now shows) (widespread usage of AD as an abbreviation seems to be not until about 300 years ago)

Origins

Origins of CE year numbering begins with the Anno Domini system

See also: Anno Domini

The system of numbering years used in Common Era notation began around the year 525 with the monk Dionysius Exiguus, while he was in Rome working on a table to establish future dates for Easter. At that time, Easter dates included calculations in the Julian calendar based on years since the reign of Diocletian, and Dionysius did not want to continue the memory of Diocletian, who had been a persecutor of Christians. In the process, Dionysius gave a method to calculate "annos ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi" (Latin for years since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ).

Usage of Dionysius' system began to have more widespread usage in northern England in the year 731, when the Venerable Bede used it to date the events in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Bede also used another Latin term "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ", to identify years before the first year of this era. Usage of Anno Domini gradually became more common in Western Europe in the latter part of the 9th century, and, while it occurred occasionally in papal documents of the time of John XIII (965-972), it was not the rule before the 12th century. In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to switch to the Anno Domini system.

Origins of usage of Common Era terminology

The term "Common Era" is traced back in English to its appearance as "Vulgar Era" (from the Latin word vulgus, the common people, i.e. those who are not royalty) at a time when vulgar did not mean "crudely indecent". The first use of the Latin equivalent (vulgaris aerae) discovered so far was in a 1617 table of ephemerides. A 1635 English edition of that book has the title page in English - so far, the earliest-found usage of Vulgar Era in English. (A 1652 ephemeris is the first instance so far found for English usage of "Christian Era".) A 1701 book edited by John LeClerc includes "Before Christ according to the Vulgar Æra, 6". A 1716 book in English by Dean Humphrey Prideaux says, "before the beginning of the vulgar æra, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation." A 1796 book uses the term "vulgar era of the nativity".

The phrase "common era" was used as an English synonym for "vulgar era" at least as early as 1770, in a translation of a book originally written in German. The 1797 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica uses the terms vulgar era and common era synonymously. In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote: "The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days", and also refers to the common era as a synonym for vulgar era with "the fact that our Lord was born on the 4th year before the vulgar era, called Anno Domini, thus making (for example) the 42d year from his birth to correspond with the 38th of the common era..." The Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these [various eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living." During the 19th century, "Vulgar Era" came to be contrasted with "Christian Era", and "vulgar" came to mean "crudely indecent", thus no longer a synonym for "common".

The phrase "common era", in lower case, also appeared in the 19th century in a generic sense, not necessarily to refer to the Christian Era, but to any system of dates in common use throughout a civilization. Thus, "the common era of the Jews", "the common era of the Mahometans", "common era of the world", "the common era of the foundation of Rome". When it did refer to the Christian Era, it was sometimes qualified, e.g., "common era of the Incarnation", "common era of the Nativity", or "common era of the birth of Christ".

Some Jewish academics were already using the CE and BCE abbreviations by the mid-19th century, such as in 1856, when Rabbi and historian, Morris Jacob Raphall used the abbreviation in his book, Post-Biblical History of The Jews.

< !---

--->

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs)

I offer some corrections to this new section. Dionysius invented the Anno Domini era in 525, not around 525, because he says in his preface that the present year is the consulship of Probus Junior, and states in his First Argumentum that the consulship of Probus Junior was 525 years since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The phrase "At that time, Easter dates included calculations in the Julian calendar based on years since the reign of Diocletian" might give the wrong impression. The table that Dionysius extended was indeed in the Julian calendar, but it only circulated in the Latin West—it was not actually used in the Latin West. It was a translation of the table used by the Church of Alexandria. It was translated from Greek into Latin and from the Alexandrian calendar into the Julian calendar. Only Alexandria used Diocletian years. Dionysius totally ignored the tables then used in the Latin West, which were devised by Victorius of Aquitaine in 457. (Charles W. Jones, "The development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar", Bedae opera de temporibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1943) 1-122; Georges Declercq, Anno Domini: The origins of the Christian era (Turnhout, 2000); idem, "Dionysius Exiguus and the introduction of the Christian era", Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002): 165-246.)

Bede popularized the Anno Domini era because he used it in his history, which was copied many times. But that era was used in English and Irish charters for several decades before Bede's extensive use in 731, but these charters were not influential. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Poorly supported statement

I was looking at this edit and wondered which version of the following statement was better supported.

Before:

Common Era notation has been adopted by many non-Christians, and also by some Christians wanting to be sensitive to non-Christians.

After:

Common Era notation has been widely adopted, either to obtain a secular notation for our time system, or to express sensitivity towards non-Christians.

But when I read the cited newspaper story, I didn't think it supported either version very well. It mentions some specific institutions that have adopted, or partially adopted, CE, and that it is "showing up at museums, in academic circles and in school textbooks", but it does not say it is widely adopted, nor does it say that "many" are adopting it, nor does it say that those adopting it are necessarily non-Christian.

What is needed at this point in the article is a statement about how widely CE is adopted. We need a different source and a different statement. Unfortunately, I don't know of a good source to use in this spot. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

• Usage by non-Christians will likely need separate source - such as usage in China.
• Some rewording or new source likely needed on motivations of Christians who use it
• Extent of usage - I do not know of any surveys... "widely adopted" is too vague anyway--JimWae (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, we have already found Xn writers among earliest adopters - I do not think we need to generalize to "in Europe" either -- perhaps "among Christians in Europe" will do --JimWae (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) --JimWae (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources-reorganized

Jewish Studies

• Essential Judaism in a Nutshell By Ronald H. Isaacs
• The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism By Edward H. Flannery
• Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms By Sol Steinmetz GENTILEs too
• The Torah: An Introduction for Christians And Jews By David J. Zucker
• A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations By Edward Kessler, Neil Wenborn **
• Israel and the Palestinian Territories: The Rough Guide By Daniel Jacobs, Shirley Eber, Francesca Israel
• Finding Our Fathers: A Guidebook to Jewish Genealogy By Dan Rottenberg

Christian Studies

• Word and Worship Workbook for Year C: For Ministry in Initiation, Preaching
• Word and Worship Workbook for Year C: For Ministry in Initiation, Preaching
• The Stories of Jesus' Birth: A Critical Introduction By Edwin D. Freed
• Reimagining God: The Case for Scriptural Diversity By Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos
• Acts By Paul W. Walaskay
• Jesus the Christ: A New Testament Portrait By Thomas Zanzig
• The Bible: Authorized King James Version By Robert P. Carroll, Stephen Prickett

Religious Studies Course Books

• Junior Steps in RE By Michael Keene, Jan Keene
• Junior Steps in Re By Michael Keene, Jan Keene
• Excel Senior High School Studies of Religion By Louise Fleming
• |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-VLt0uQrzXMC&pg=PA18&dq=before+common+era+christian+non-christian&lr=&sig=rl3B9VZmkG8RtbP6WZifd9iCJ2A |title=Get Set for Religious Studies |first=Dominic |last=Corrywright |coauthors=Morgan, Peggy|year=2006 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press|isbn=074862032X

Religious Studies

• Buddhist Tradition Series By John Brough
• The Many Faces of Faith: A Guide to World Religions and Christian Traditions
• Keeping Faith: A Skeptic's Journey By Fenton Johnson
• Studies in Honor of the Late Hasan M. Balyuzi By Moojan Momen
• |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=APAyp8EAPRgC&pg=PA12&dq=before+common+era+christian+non-christian&lr=&sig=M1ERrslG4j-2wHx_o1B0REpaENY |title=Return to the Fountainhead of the Faith: Explore World Ideologies, |first=Shelley Wood |last= Gauld |year=2007 |publisher= |isbn=1430308656

Women's Studies

• Woman Ruler: Woman Rule By Elin Sand Women's Studies
• Turning the Wheel: American Women Creating the New Buddhism By Sandy Boucher Women's Studies

OTHER courses

• Ethics & Issues in Contemporary Nursing By Margaret A. Burkhardt, Alvita K. Nathaniel
• The Complete Idiot's Guide to Biblical Mysteries By Donald P. Ryan AFTER DEAD ALSO
• Ethics By John K. Roth
• The Concept of Time in Psychology: A Resource Book and Annotated

Reference Books

• International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences By Neil Joseph Smelser, Paul B. Baltes
• The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism By Richard P. McBrien, Harold W. Attridge
• The Columbia Guide to Standard American English By Kenneth George Wilson

??

• The American Book of Days By Stephen G. Christianson, Jane M. Hatch
• British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker's Guide By John R. Cook, Peter Wright
• Realm X: The Book of Spells, Witchcraft, and Sorcery By Latoya Webster

NEW

• Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach By Henry Rogers invents his own notation

--JimWae (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Source requested for "assumptions" about the religious orientations of the "writer and reader"

The following passage (in the opening section) reads like somebody's personal opinion:

• The only difference between Common Era, Christian Era, and Anno Domini notation is in the names themselves. Anno Domini (which means in the year of the/our Lord) both ties the epochal event to the Christian religion and identifies Jesus as one's "Lord", thus carrying an assumption^{[citation needed]} that writer and reader are both Christian. Christian Era also ties the epochal event to the Christian religion, but makes no assumption^{[citation needed]} about the writer and reader's culture or religion. Common Era does not identify the epochal event at all, and does not indicate the culture within which the system is in "common" use. Common Era terminology's only assumption is that writer and reader share a common year-numbering system.

In particular, the "assumptions" whether or not the "writer and reader" are Christian are a matter of personal opinions and pure speculation. I believe that the etymology of the term Anno Domini and Christian Era are irrelevant to the religious orientation of any writer or reader. If you believe otherwise, you need to provide a source for these biased claims.

I'll start out by requesting a reputable source to back up these claims. If a source is found, we can then discuss whether that source is biased or not.--Endroit (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, the passage as it stands (and it doesn't need citations) is entirely self-evident from simple English. If I say "that is our house", the word 'our' implies a comonality of ownership. So specifically, the Year of "our" lord is actually the year of your lord but he is not mine because I am not a christian. But I don't go barging into the Anno Domini article demanding that it be changed to "the year of your lord" because I recognise the right of christians to hold the views that they do. BUT equally I have a right to use CE as as a connotation-free designation of the dominant calendar AND have that status equally recognised. --Red King (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like more original research, particularly involving the use of the word "our". The word "our" was added by some translators, when translating from Medieval Latin. Merriam-Webster translates it "in the year of the Lord" using "the" (not "our"). Read WP:NOR before going around spreading original research wrt the use of the word "our". So there, this whole passage requires a source since it involves a biased interpretation of "Anno Domini" (using "our") to begin with.--Endroit (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our" is good enough for the Oxford University Press; see the reference I added. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford goes both ways, since Oxford Dictionaries translates it "in the year of the Lord".--Endroit (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The original Latin phrase "Anno Domini" does not contain the Latin word "Nostri", meaning "Our". I'm guessing that it was perhaps added by a Christian translator. The religious orientation of the translator, however, is utterly irrelevant to the religious orientations of the "writer and reader", claimed in the above passage.--Endroit (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You guessed wrong. The real original phrase is explained in the book Gregorian Reform of the Calendar edited by Coyne, Hoskin, and Pedersen (1983, p. 49).

In his letter to Petronius Dionysius explained that he did not want to use his Easter table to perpetuate the memory of an impious persecutor of the church, but preferred to count and denote the years from the Incarnation of our Lord, in order to make the foundation of our hope better known and the cause of the redemption of man more conspicuous — noluimus circulis nostris memoriam impii et persecutoris innectere, sed magis elegimus ab incarnatione domini nostri Jesu Cristi annorum tempora praenotare; quantinus exordium spei nostrae notius noblis existeret et causa reparationis humanae, id est, passio redemptoris nostri, evidentius eleceret. [emphasis added]

So all the translators did was restore a word that was already present in the phrase that the short form anno domini is derived from. Coyne et. al attribute the passage to B. Krusch, Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlich Chronologie, III: Die entstehun unserer heutighe Zeitrechnung, in Abbb. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Weiss., Philos.-hist. Klasse, Nr. 8, Berlin, 1938. p. 64. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The truncated form Anno Domini most clearly does NOT contain the word Nostri, despite what the "long form" is (or was). So it would be original research to claim that usage of Anno Domini still carries "an assumption that writer and reader are both Christian" based on the notion that somehow the nonexistent word Nostri still exists. But of course, that's a matter of interpretation: The word "Our", although no longer there in Latin, may still appear to exist in English for some, especially Christians, although not for others. Considering that both translations (with or without the word "our") are possible, you are urged to find a source explicitly declaring that the usage of Anno Domini implies "that writer and reader are both Christian".

WP:UNDUE quotes Jimbo Wales as follows:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Please provide some reference(s) backing "assumptions" about the religious orientations of the "writer and reader" claimed in the above passage. And let's see if they satisfy WP:UNDUE.--Endroit (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's straightforward exposition that follows logically from the terms themselves, and therefore needs no reference. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we are not allowed to explain things. If one is strolling along and encounters a building inscribed "ÆDIFICATA ANN DOM MDCCCLXXI ANN COLL HARV CCXXXV," one does not need a reference to deduce that the inscription was written by Harvard men for Harvard men. If there's a building at Yale dated "ANN COLL HARV" let me know and I'll eat my words.

However, if one were strolling with a companion who knew no Latin, did not know what "ANN DOM" or "ANN COLL HARV" meant, and asked for an explanation, it would be perfectly reasonable to explain them. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt your interpretation that the "ANN DOM MDCCCLXXI" (AD 1871) part of the Memorial Hall inscription "carries an assumption that the writer and reader are both Christian" (even back in those days).--Endroit (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph about differences

User: Endroit has applied fact templates to two sentences in the lead paragraph that attempts to summarize the differences between Common Era and Anno Domini notation. The first sentence with a template reads "Anno Domini (which means in the year of the/our Lord) both ties the epochal event to the Christian religion and identifies Jesus as one's "Lord", thus carrying an assumption that writer and reader are both Christian." Perhaps "carrying an assumption" is not the right way to convey the meaning here. In reality, the writer and/or reader may not know or care what Anno Domini means, beyond it being an identifier of the year numbering scheme. Perhaps we could say that if "Anno Domini" were interpreted literally, it would constitute an acknowledgement by the writer that Jesus is the lord, and an implicit expectation that the reader will at least tolerate, if not agree with, this acknowledgement.

The other sentence with a fact template is "Christian Era also ties the epochal event to the Christian religion, but makes no assumption about the writer and reader's culture or religion." Again, we don't really know how real readers or writers will interpret "Christian Era". It could be interpreted as "numbering years the way Christians do" or "the era that begins about the same time the Christian religion began" without stating whether or not the reader or writer is a Christian.

There was some discussion about the best way to word this before. I think what we need here is a paragraph that gives an overview of the connotations of the three terms, and I think the current passage does get the idea across with respect to "Anno Domini" and "Common Era"; now that I've given it more thought, I'm not so sure the paragraph gives the correct connotation of "Christian Era". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But the usage "Christan Era" is entirely incidental. The article title is Common Era, not Christian Era, which is something bunged in after the event as a backronym for CE. We can solve the problem entirely by moving all references to christian era from this article to a new article of that name and making CE a disambig. --Red King (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At present, CE and BCE redirect to this article, therefore, this article MUST present any recognized expansions of CE and BCE. Since some dictionaries expand these to Christian Era and Before the Christian Era, those expansions must be in this article.

The alternative would be to replace the redirects with disambiguation pages. If recognized expansions of CE and BCE ever come along that have nothing to do with calendars, we might end up creating disambiguation pages anyway, but no such non-calendar expansions have come to my attention yet. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

CE does have a non calendar meaning - see CE mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red King (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out for US readers that the CE marking is has far greater significant in Europe than the FCC mark does in the US, because it applies to a far broader range of goods that have health and safety implications, not just consumer electronics like FCC. --Red King (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It may suffice to remove the sentence about Christian Era:

• Christian Era also ties the epochal event to the Christian religion, but makes no assumption about the writer and reader's culture or religion.

Then the comparison between Anno Domini and Common Era can be reduced to what exists in real life, per WP:UNDUE.--Endroit (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that lobby are unlikely to accept such a 'tidy' solution, and in particular will assert that CE means Christian Era just as much as it does Common Era. So rather than have a permanent revert war, I make the modest proposal for demerger - see below. --Red King (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to demerge

This article is running into difficulties because it is trying to do too many things. They need to be split into sepearate articles.

1. Common Era: the religion-independent designation used around the world by most people of differing faiths and none.
2. Christian Era : synonomous with Anno Domini but we need a home for all the Vulgar Era stuff.
3. CE and BCE : disambiguation articles pointing to the reader's choice of association.

Otherwise this article will be a continual battle-ground with the fundamentalists. --Red King (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Common Era" has a less overt religious connotation than "Anno Domini" or "Christian Era", but there is some evidence that the phrase was created by Christians around the same time "Anno Domini" came into use in English. Also, there is the fact that it still uses the same epoch as AD, and no plausible event other than the Incarnation of Jesus has been suggested for choosing that epoch, so Common Era is not religion-independent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A pure 'Common Era' article could recognise the historical antecedents but these are essentially incidental to its modern usage. Today it is the era that is commonly accepted as a convenient de facto standard used in worldwide business, by people of many faiths and none. --Red King (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Support arguments are -still- nonsensical

Are they still going to be there? Can't we find a proper, logically meaningful way of supporting this argument? My (archived) comment, contesting the internal coherence of some of them, is here:

I am perplexed at the argumentative value of some of the arguments brought in support to this notation, especially the first three:

• The label Anno Domini is almost certainly inaccurate; "scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating."

Then CE / BCE is also inaccurate because it the years are numbered identically in both. This is a valid point against the etymological accuracy of the AD/BC system, but not necessarily a supportive point to CE/BCE in particular.

• It is simple to change from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation, since the years are numbered identically in both (e.g., 33 BC becomes 33 BCE), Documents with years that do not have AD designation do not need to be changed at all (e.g., 1066 remains 1066 in AD and in CE systems).

I can devise any arbitrary system with any arbitrary name which copies the existing one. This statements merely says that the new system will be absolutely identical to the previous one. But then why this should be in support of changing?

• Both BCE and CE are used as suffixes, unlike BC/AD where BC is used as a suffix and AD as a prefix. This can be beneficial for computer usage

This happens only in English as, for example, in Italian both a.C. and d.C. are suffix. The same argument could be brought supporting a system which replaces AD (prefix) with AC (suffix).

• Evidence that AD and BC have not lost their religious significance is the fact that much of the opposition, some of it intense, to switching to usage of CE and BCE has been on religious grounds.

Uh? :?:

Honestly, the only argument that has a meaning is the fourth:

• "Use of BCE and CE shows sensitivity to those who agree to use the same calendar, but are not Christian."

That is, the true reason behind the usage of this system is that some secular westerners want to remove the traces of their religious heritage from their convention. I don't blame those who want to live in a secular society where the choice of religious not based on rational facts will not influence them, but I don't see why a convention bound to the history of Europe, and thus deeply connected to Christianity, should be changed for absolutely no reason. As a secular person, I can see this not being a tribute to Christianism - just the acknowledgment of its relevance in the history of our civilization.

Herbrand --81.1.120.126 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much whether the arguments for and against make any sense, what matters is whether or not the arguments are frequently used by advocates. It would be great if we could find a prominent neutral entity to weigh the arguments, come to a decision, and publish it, so we could quote it. Unfortunately, when it comes to religious issues, there is no entity that most advocates will recognize as neutral. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This why we simply must split this article. We must give equal recognition to the view that 2008 CE is just a number that we all agree to use for the current orbit of the earth around the sun, from one aphelion to the next. Common Era is a positive decision not to assert the supremacy of any one religion, which merely happened to have the chair when the music stopped. It is actively designed to be value-free. If anyone wants to read the Christian antecents, the Common Era article can direct readers (in a low key way) to the Anno Domini article. The omission of a detailed repetition here of that article here is not an insult to christians, any more (or less) than it is to Judaism, Islam, Sikhism or the many other religions that have their own traditional calendars and who might all insist by equity that they be listed in full detail too. It is not important and it is barely relevant. It is just an accident of history. --Red King (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In view of Red King's use of the word "we" in "CE is just a number that we all agree to use for the current orbit of the earth around the sun" and his failure to capitalize "christians" when he does capitalize "Judaism, Islam, Sikhism" I am forced to conclude Red King is an advocate who is pushing his own point of view. Also, it is highly doubtful that "it is actively designed to be value-free." There is a good chance that "common era" was designed by and for Christians about the same time "anno Domini" came into use in the English language, but that "anno Domini" won out. If so, the use of "common era" in the 20th and 21st century is not a new design, but a revival and re-purposing of an old phrase. It would be misleading to supress that word history. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me for upsetting your tender soul with a little mispelling. Your faith must be easily shaken. If you look back, I have sometimes remembered a cap C and sometimes not, but always at first use. Now can we leave off the mudslinging and have a rational discussion. Anno Domini (or Christian Era, if you don't hold with such popish latinisms) is a fulsome explanation of the Xian point of view. [That's X as in ΡΧ = Rex Christus in case you throw another wobbly]. It is not the only view of the world and anyone who cannot abide the idea of an article about a neutral calendar without calling in the Spanish Inquisition is the one who is pushing the POV. "We", in the sense I used it, should be obvious to anyone as referring to mankind in general, irrespective of religious affiliations. If you want to 'reclaim' it for Xianity, that puts you in a tiny minority since the rest of the world uses Common Era to be a value free world standard that tries not to stamp on the toes of people from other great religions and cultures but who still need to act on the world stage. --Red King (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So your statement should be read as CE is just a word mankind in general agrees to use for the current orbit of the earth around the sun? Um, mankind in general does not agree. English speaking people do not agree. Wikipedia has no policy requiring the use of CE. Therefore the statement does not express a neutral point of view. Also, I suggest you stop making guesses about my faith; so far your guesses aren't very good. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I say any of that? I said that common era is such a word: by bending it to say CE you deliberately introduce the christian era meaning. Mankind in general doesn't much agree on anything, but non-fundamentalist opinion seems content to accept a common standard provided it comes without a load of triumphalist baggage. I am perfectly aware of what the MOS has to say on the subject (and as I'm sure you know it doesn't mandate any system other than to say that editors should not change pre-existing conventions). I accept that none of this stuff can be expressed without a PoV - even trying to do so is itself a PoV - but the article as it stands is greviously biased towards the (christian) religious PoV. Finally I acknowledge that I came close to WP:NPA but if my guess is wrong I really don't understand what you are being so sensitive about. I'm trying to reach an neutral compromise here, so give equal weight to my good faith in doing so. The present article is not neutral and in my view (POV if you must) it won't ever be if we can't get past the pantomime "Oh no it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" stage. --Red King (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Common Era article needs to be written as independently as possible from the Anno Domini article, almost as if the AD article does not even exist (aside from linking to it). It needs to explain the origins of the term Common Era, without going into details about things specific to Anno Domini. It also needs to cover the other similar terms that CE can stand for. Common Era & Christian Era seem to have developed concurrently in the same culture for the same purpose, BUT best (tho' incomplete) evidence suggests that CE was first used as an abbreviation for Christian Era. Bear in mind that one of the best chances of getting CE accepted is that Christians can use it too. --JimWae (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if it is simply going to replicate the Anno Domini article, replacing all instances of Anno Domini with Christian Era.

I don't believe that the evidence supports the 'common era as christian era' argument - I think that this is a false inference from 'vulgar era'. Yes, in general the historic english word 'vulgar' is transated as the modern english 'common', but the distinction being made was with the regnal system ("in the fifteenth year of the reign of tiberius caesar', 15VicCapIII and so on). I also assert that in modern usage, common era is a religion independent world standard. That it uses the same numbering system as AD is an accident of history: had the medieval advance of islam into europe not halted and reversed, it might just as easily have ended up using the same numbering as the hijri. I accept 100% that the AD article should stress its (somewhat inaccurate) base date as the birth (or conception) of Jesus. But it is incidental to this article and doesn't deserve more than a footnote. --Red King (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Red King that most of the time, when one encounters "CE" or "Common Era" in the modern media, the writer intended it as term with less religious friction than "AD". It isn't at all clear to me what the word history is. If it were possible to find an article sometime around 1880 where some writer said, in effect, lets not impose a Christian era on all the non-Christians in the world, instead, lets use "Common Era", and then show that the use of the term "Common Era" increased steadily from that point, then we could say that the Common Era really is intended to be non-religious. But we can't establish the word history with any certainty. If we could, it would be original research, so we would have to get our conclusions published in a reliable source before stating the conclusion here.

Also, this is an article about an era. The starting date, who chose the starting date, and why, are inherently relevant to any article about an era. Therefore, the "base date as the birth (or conception) of Jesus" deserves more than a footnote. Since the "Anno Domini" article is available, the attention to the base date can be considerably shorter than if that article didn't exist. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a cleanup of the article to simplify the opening section and delete unneeded duplication of the AD article. I suspect that it won't meet everyone's approval, but it at least shows what a tight article could look like. I hope you will give it a fair reading. --Red King (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Red King. I think you did a wonderful job here. The less relevant material already covered under Anno Domini can be removed.

And the removal of the text I questioned (in this section above) satisfies WP:NPOV requirements. If this stands, I propose that we go ahead and remove the {{POV}} tag after 3 days.--Endroit (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• However, the lede no longer directly gives any information about why some people choose to use CE rather than AD. It does, however, still criticize use of CE. This is unbalanced - both sides should appear in the lede --JimWae (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Also, too much of the stuff relating to AD has been removed. There is no longer any mention that Dionysius used the AD system, no mention of how this year-numbering system became widespread. No mention that AD was not adopted until 15th Century in Spain & Portugal. These are all relevant to CE article. CE article should not be dependent on AD article --JimWae (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I question the need to go into adoption of AD in Spain and Portugal. This article is about an English name for the era; what is the relevance of the Spanish or Portuguese name for the same era? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Common Era is often criticized as being a "latecomer" (even sometimes as a neo-logism). The fact that AD was adopted so late in some parts of Europe is relevant to the article. How to word it is a separate matter. --JimWae (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

JimWae: you wrote that there is no longer any mention that Dionysius used the AD system; did you mean that was not in the lead anymore? Because the article still mentiones him a little later: "The year numbering system for the Common Era was devised by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in 525...." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unless his use of some other system than CE (such as AD) is mentioned, it is reasonable to infer he used Common Era denotation --JimWae (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other associations"

Well, we're right back to a bloated fork of the AD article again. So let's try some different weeding. The section "Common Era#Other associations" mentions usage of the term "vulgar era" by a non-notable sect. Crowley is just about notable but this sect is 'post Crowley' and the usage is not contemporaneous with Crowley. We don't accept citations from non-notable sources, so why is this here? --Red King (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability applies to what topics we have articles about, not what sources we use. Sources have to be reliable, not notable. Also, the notability guideline says "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." It is up to the consensus of the editors to decide if a certain passage is worth including.

I think our criteria should be whether a significant number of readers will have come across the term vulgar era in connection with the followers of Crowley and come to Wikipedia to find out more. I don't have an opinion about whether that is likely or not. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept that. Well of course you have me in that I know of no census that will confirm or deny the view that these are nobodies known to nobody but another bunch of nobodies who get a frisson from the myth of satan or worse still are taken in by the lie that "satanic abuse" is any more or less than child abuse impure and simple but with an escape clause. But I still think it deserves nothing more than a footnote. --Red King (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bloated? Fork? --JimWae (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the cap fits... --Red King (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference 62

I think reference 62 is a bad reference. It implies that NASA supports CE/BCE nomenclature, which so far as I can see, it doesn't. The reference relates merely to Fred Espanak's view. Granted he's an influential employee of NASA but I don't think he speaks for them. In any case, what he's stating is blindingly obvious; we don't need a reference to assert that an advantege of BCE and CE is that they both follow the year whereas AD doesn't, etc. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Readers should understand that a publisher, in this case NASA, might or might not fully agree with what they publish when the name of the author of the piece is given. This is a normal convention in written communication; it's part of knowing how to read, and it is the responsibility of the reader to understand that.

The reason for needing a reference is not that it is blindingly obvious. The problem is that various people can and do make all kinds of blindingly obvious statements in this article for or against CE notation. If we go along with that, this article becomes a vehicle for Wikipedia editors to advance their own arguments about CE. We shouldn't do that, even if the argument is true. We should find references to show that others are putting forward the argument. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, there is no disclaimer on the page in question that the views are those of Espenak rather than NASA. It would be very easy to assume that NASA endorses CE/BCE and I'm sure many readers will do so. Accordingly we should look for a better reference, and if there are none then pehaps the point should be removed. I accept the second point you are making. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I will e-mail Mr. Espinak and ask him to clarify whether the page reflects the views of NASA, and that the page be modified to reflect the answer. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in any response you get. Some time ago I emailed Espenak about an unrelated matter concerning solar eclipses; I never got a response. Email "blanking" seems all too common these days. I guess the people concerned are "just too busy". 82.20.28.142 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• The page says "This web site uses the dating conventions of "CE" and "BCE" in place of "AD" and "BC" whenever the terminology is required." It gives reasons, whether NASA sanctions the usage may be a different question from whether it sanctions the reasons. http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat5/catalog.html indicates some consistency for http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov . http://www.nasa.gov might never be faced with a choice, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/ has moved --JimWae ([[User

talk:JimWae|talk]]) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from Mr. Espinak notifying me that the web page has been revised. I have removed the reference from one point that it never fully supported, and is irrlevant to now. I left it on another point, but removed a quote that isn't there anymore.

The only remark Mr. Espinak made in the e-mail that isn't on the web page is that, to his knowledge, NASA does not have an official policy on dating conventions. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I take back my earlier remarks about Espenak not responding to emails. I emailed him at the time of a solar eclipse, so maybe he was deluged with mail. Thanks for making the changes. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

some stuff

The evidence presented in this article for "common era" as an existing standard rather than as something new devised for political correctness is intellectually dishonest and flawed. Just because a phrase was used in some form in the past does not mean it was any kind of standard in the past. If anything the supposed evidence only more strongly reinforces that those advocating the use of CE/BCE are grasping at straws looking for some kind of historical justification for their modern corruption of the language. 68.207.126.7 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's notable. There's no way this article will be removed~. We have articles about feces here.142.176.114.174 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use AC (After Christ) instead of AD

The most offending term is AD where D is for Domino, Lord, which is offensive to Jews and Muslims and other religions with a "Lord". Especially problematic is when school children asks what Domino means and the teacher must explain that it is not our Lord but somebody elses. The children then can not know what is reffered to when they read or hear the word "Lord".

The term Christ is less controversial, It is simply a guy in another religion. Sure it gives a connection to a certain religion, but one still has a religious connection with the BCE/CE -terms since the era referred to is only common to Jews and Christians. You can then also easier replace the meaning of the C to something suitable, for example Cipher (latin for zero) which would give you BC/AC (Before Cipher / After Cipher). 83.253.249.46 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot this was a talk page and accidentally edited out your post. Please forgive me... ZtObOr 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum to change the language; it's an encyclopedia. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

AD could just as well be After Death, which is the way I always thought of it and accomplishes the same thing without the changing of a letter.--Papajohnin (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

AD refers to years after the approximated birth of Jesus, not after his death, therefore "After Christ" would not be a suitable alternative to AD because it would exclude the years between his birth and death. Anyway, The term "Domini" (LORD) should NOT be seen as offensive if used by other relgions, because BC/AD was originally adopted by Christians, as other cultures and relgions also hold their own calendars. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

...yeah and erm "Christ" means annointed one in Greek. It is Jesus' title, not part of his name, and therefore IS offensive to anyone who doesn't believe Jesus was god or the son of god or whatever it is he's supposed to be. (At least anyone who bothers to be offended by such epic trivialities) 59.38.32.9 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments supporting BCE/CE are not consistent

If a student asks his teacher why do we start counting at this particular year, it is much more correct to say it is because of certain guy in a certain religion was born that year (although use AC instead of AD to avoid Domino as I argued above). Those opposing have two way of arguing 1) to say that it was a common era of Jews and Christians that started then, or 2) since year zero there is lot of stuff that has become common to the world citizens.

1. Those who use the first way of arguing doesn't solve the religious connection.
2. Those who use the second way of arguing, well maybe more and more things become common, but it is more a continues process. There are not more world-community-creating-events around year zero than there are let's say a thousand years later. 83.253.249.46 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say the year 1 was chosen because it was close to the time Jesus was conceived and born. It began as a Christian Era, the Jews didn't use it until it was so widespread that it was too inconvenient to not use it. As stated in reference 63 in the article, for reasons of convenience, "the Christian Era has become the Common Era" (emphasis added), but it didn't start out as a Common Era. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor might also like to read de facto standard. --Red King (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a foolish comment: "year 1 was chosen"! It's like living in USA and saying: "I choose to obey the rules of right hand traffic" Magnus Andersson (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Year 1 was chosen in the year we now call 525 by Dionysius Exiguus. Before that, Christians usually used whatever year numbering (or naming) scheme was in use by the civil authorities where they lived. So it is like living in the what is now the USA and saying "I choose to obe the rules of right hand traffic", except that the speaker is a native American living before European explorers introduced the horse to the Americas. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense is sacrificed for a bad attempt to create Religious Neutrality

Confusion is the price as Wikipedians tries to be virtuous

CE/BCE notations might have been used for subsections of society but to most people in the english speaking world it is about counting years Before' or After year zero. There are no eras involved with how we count year in most peoples minds. It is B for before or A for after, instead people are faced with C and E. Probably every English speaking person in the world will need to look up this new abbreviation, and become anoyed and think: why not use existing abbreviations. We don't have to go many years back before we find that CE is not dealt with at all in normal dictionaries.

We have hundreds of years of litterature, which you are neglecting. Why not look around on Wikipedia for how things are written.

So as I suggested earlier on this page, it is better to invent a new meaning to already existing abbreviations, so that people can choose. Religious Neutrality is good, but lets create it in a more sensitive way, rather than forcing the whole english speaking world to relearn. 83.253.253.250 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss the article Common Era. It is not to discuss whether BCE/CE notation is a good idea or not. Wikipedia does not care if it is a good idea or not. All that matters is that readers might want to look it up, so we should have an article about it. You said yourself "probably every English speaking person in the world will need to look up this new abbreviation"; that's what this article is for. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Well said sir. I never even heard of this crap before coming to Wikipedia and had to reference this article. I'm not even religious, it just doesn't make any sense. Since when does acknowledging that someone existed mean that you believe in someone or follow any religion?--Papajohnin (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But what if you don't even want to acknowledge that he existed, for good reasons? J. Christ is a myth which is founded upon other myths predating it for hundreds of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.140.226 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's still the christian era, whatever "fairy tales" christians may believe in. I'm Buddhist, I simply use "Buddhist Era" on my Mac. If I talk with others I said, year 2008. And for other uses I said 2008 Common Era... even if CE may mean "christian era". It's just the name; the name of a religious-based calendar. It's a de facto standard... but remember, it's just a name. You are not acknowledging anything. It may inflate who-ever's ego, it doesn't matter. Categorize it as "ignorance" and move on.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion above is further evidence that the specific reasons why some people desire to use something other than AD & BC need to be restored to the article: AD means "Year of the/Our Lord" and he is not everyone's Lord. BC means "Before Christ" and he is not everyone's Christ/Messiah/Saviour. Use of AD & BC is more than acknowledgement of his existence - it is using religious titles for him --JimWae (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am referring of course to "since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation" which was removed from the 2nd paragaph some time ago -- and so the criticism remains but not the rationale. Now if only we can find a source --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian or Gregorian?

The Gregorian Calendar was initiated in 1582 and it specified that the new calendar would not take effect until after Thursday, October 4, 1582. The Gregorian Calendar recognizes dates before Friday, October 15, 1582 (the 5th through 14th were omitted) in accordance with the rules of the Julian Calendar. Thus if a date is given before 1582, one can be sure that it is Julian. 1582 and after there is some confusion as many countries adopted the Gregorian Calendar in different years. During these years (roughly ending in 1900) dates are often specified OS or NS (meaning Old Style or New Style). To speak of the year 1AD of the Gregorian Calendar is very non standard as the first year of that calendar is 1582. One might refer to the Proleptic Gregorian calendar if this meaning is truly intended, but I have never seen that need arise and this meaning is certainly not to be assumed. Sean.barton (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Julian calendar was originally a Roman, not a Christian calendar. Over the millenea many year numbering schemes have been used with it, such as the regnal year of Roman emperors, such as an Annunciation era in an Alexandrian, Coptic, or Ethiopic context, reckoned from 29 August AD 8, the Indiction, or the Era of the Martyrs. Thus, to say year 1 of the Julian calendar could refer to many different years. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A Christians Comment

Does no one think it is offensive to do this to Chirtians? Does no one think we will find it offensive? (Coffeewhite (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

• Yes, it does seem that many Xns do find it offensive if any person does NOT call Jesus their Christ and their Lord. The Romans were also offended when the early Xns refused to proclaim their devotion to the Roman gods --JimWae (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikpedia reports whatever exists and is notable. It is not its function to make judgements about which realities or ideas in the world someone somewhere will find objectionable, still less pretend that they don't exist. However, part of its task is to report such objections (provided of course that enough people - or even a few notable people - find them objectionable). That is why the article has a section on "opposition". If you wish to edit the article to include additional material - with citations of course - then it is entirely your right to do so. The only thing you must not do (nor may I) is to write your own opinion. You may only report faithfully. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR

If you are asking the more general question about the sensibilities of people who use this notation, I guess you will have to ask them. But I don't know of any law anywhere that compells you to use it if you don't want to. --Red King (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for the X notation, see Chi (letter) and especially Chi Rho. --Red King (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced arguments

I am moving these arguments to the talk page because no sources for the arguments were provided:

• Other calendars with modern-day religious significance have not been subject to a movement to secularize. The push to remove Christian references out of the Gregorian calendar, therefore, is discriminatory to Christians.

• The removal of the Ammno Domini dating system is not coupled with any sort of improved system that would wholly justify its introduction, as compared to the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar that replaced it (outside of Orthodox Christianity).

Since it is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to add their personal opinions to the article, and that seems to be what happened here, I invite the editor to provide reliable sources for these arguments. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Opposition - ellipsis makes full quote necessary

• There is also the problem that some regard CE to have begun with the Crucifixion of Jesus around the year 30.< ref>Hywel Williams (2006). Days That Changed the World: The Moments That Changed History. Quercus. pp. p 13. ISBN 1905204760. Good Friday c. 30 AD... The start of the Christian Era {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)>{ {Request quotation|date=June 2008}}< / ref>{ {Request quotation|dubious without context|date=June 2008}}

--JimWae (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article: source is blog (likely self-published by editor)

• It is logically inconsistent to employ an arbitrary notation (such as BCE or CE) as a historical marker when the notation itself is detached from specific historical events.< ref>Dates such as BCE/CE "are just placed at an arbitrary time, with no basis on actual historical events....Historical notation must be founded in actual events, or it makes no sense at all." in "Why I Hate the Term BCE", http://www.zastica.com/entries/why-i-hate-the-term-bce/</ref>{ {Failed verification|quote is from article, but summary is not included in article's presentation - source neither mentions nor justifies use of "logically inconsistent" (which, if true, should be logically provable) - source is also a blog, which is not a WP:RS|date=July 2008}} --JimWae (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia and the BCE controversy

Reportedly, it was a student's use of BCE notation, which they had picked up from Wikipedia, which prompted Andrew Schlafly to found Conservapedia, which insists on BC/AD notation. See here. Would this be appropriate to add to the article, as a famous example of conservative opposition to the use of CE & BCE? Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources both for the notability of Conservapedia and the accuracy of the story about the history assignment seem strong enough to me to put something in the article. You probably know to cite the Los Angeles Times story directly, rather than trying to use a Wikipedia article as a source. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now added in some brief content on this. I started a new section as, this being an example of a reaction to CE notation (I.E. action taken in response), it does not really fit into the section listing only arguments against it.

Currently the Conservapedia entry on the Common Era condemns it as "an attempt to erase the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world", although the entry on BC acknowledges that "due to a miscalculation, the calendar start time does not correspond to the exact year of Jesus' birth". I don't think I can really quote these in the article, as they are wiki pages and liable to change, but I have briefly quoted the Conservapedia Commandment on date notation, which is not liable to change in a hurry. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

JimWae's abbreviation edit

JimWae made an edit where the effect of the edit seems contrary to his edit summary. In the list below, citation numbers are ommitted.

Edit summary

(all 3 abbrev CE)

Before

Common Era (also known as Christian Era and Current Era; abbreviated CE)

After

Common Era (abbreviated CE, and also known as Christian Era and Current Era)

Before the change, the phrase might have been interpreted as meaning that all three terms were abbreviated CE, or that only Current Era is abbreviated CE. After the change, the most likely interpretation is that only Common Era is abbreviated CE. The edit summary seems to mean that all three terms are abbreviated CE (which I think is partly true; whenever Common Era or Current Era are abbreviated, they are always abbreviated CE. When Christian Era is abbreviated, it is usually abbreviated AD but occasionally CE. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• In truth, I did not even notice the semicolon there before (it's quite overshadowed). The most important thing is that it be clear that Common Era is abbreviated CE - and though a strict reading of "the before" would allow such, it was not patently clear - it COULD mean all 3, or just the 2 in parentheses - or overlooking the semicolon, (as is so easily done) - just the last. Currently it is clear that Common Era has that abbreviation, yet I can see that it could be interpreted to be SILENT on the others (it does NOT say only one does & the others do not, nor is there any such implication). I suppose we could flatly state that all 3 have the CE abbreviation. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• The complication is that although Christian Era can be abbreviated CE, it is usually abbreviated AD. Flatly stating that Christian Era is abbreviated CE is misleading. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to alow consistency

is stated in the talke below is is felt that A.D dose not me Christian era. Many articles state that x date to x date Christian/common era i feel and it is evident that this is incorrect. i feel that it should be changed to Anno Domini/Common era. allowing for no argument and correct terminology over whats used.Alec88 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination

Just curious, but is there any reason why people feel they have the neeed to discriminate Christians and censor their contributions to society? Especially with the use of CE over AD? NeuterPOV (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Christian theologians use CE - it makes it easier to have discussions with the other Abrahamic religions. It is no more discriminating than the use of AD. And you have been told about WP:ERA, there have been long debates about this and Wikipedia is agnostic as to which is correct. Please don't continue to try to change dating systems just because you don't like one. dougweller (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An after thought on discrimination

I was reading the article and discussions and just wondered some things. I am not discriminatory by nature but one thing that stuck out in the article was,

"Although Jews have their own Hebrew calendar, they often find it necessary to use the Gregorian Calendar as well. The reasons for some using Common Era notations are described below:

Jews do not generally use the words "A.D." and "B.C." to refer to the years on the Gregorian calendar. "A.D." means "the year of our L-rd [sic]," and we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd [sic]. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. (Common or Christian Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).[51]".

I will have to study on this. I am from Christian up bringing and we use, and I will always use AD/BC when needed. Of course I do not care what others use and will add (CE/BCE) on any articles, and others can correct, but here is my problem;

"If" jews have their own calender and on reference use "our" calender then they are aware that it is "our calender". I will assure anyone that reads this that because the change is made to CE/BCE the Jews(or anyone else) will not change calenders simply because we now conform. I will stand corrected, and someone please let me know, if this happens.

I imagine that there are thousands of words, that can be found offensive by someone somewhere in the world. What is the proposal to deal with this? Before anyone blinks an eye please be assured that I am not against Jews. I feel sorry that the Son of God walked in their presence, they deny this, and that they have been persecuted for eons culminated by WWII. I feel sorry that some can not even use the word "Lord" in a discussion but use "L-rd"(sic) so as to imply that he can not be someone's Lord(an offense and discrimination) at all.

The point is why don't those that do not like our current calender form a consensus and make their own? Changing AD/BC to another term, as I saw mentioned, does not change the fact that the calender still reflects the same dates correlating with the same person that appears to offend some. So we take out some supposed offensive abbreviations, add others, but leave all remaining connections the same. Does this remove the offense? Oh! So we use abbreviations that can be translated by a certain person, to reflect his or her thoughts and ideas, and not be offensive. How is that working? At a point are we going to have to change the defintion of marriage(a contract or coupling of a man and a woman that is now offensive) to include animals because somewhere in the world it is allowed.

The word "gay" is now used primarily to refer to a person, that belongs to a group of people, that only gets involved with a member of the same sex. This is not the listed primary definition but certainly the most used in society. Use of this word is usually offensive in many contexts. Do we stop using the word because it offends someone? Maybe revert back to the first definitions of happy and others and delete the sexual connotation? If one refers to another as a "gay" person(meaning light hearted or happy) a fight will probably ensue am I right?

I don't know but it seems trying to step lightly to avoid offending a certain minority, at the expense of the majority, does not make it right. I take offense at the word "African American". I am offended not just because it usually refers to a black person with origins from Africa. What about a white person with ancestors from Africa? I am offended that race or ancestral lineage has to be included at all. I am an American. I have ancestors from Germany, England, and Ireland. I am certainly proud of my heritage but I am still an "American". We are a "united" country no matter where our forefathers(another insulting word to females as it excludes the mothers) are from.

The above(from the article) concerning the "Jewish" calender is highlighted in a box to call attention to it. Why does that not offend someone? Is it relevant to the definition? Was AD/BC changed to CE/BCE specifically because it offended Jews?

These are just thoughts that bounce through a thinking person's head, when reading things that don't make sense, so I thought I would air them. I really do not care if CE/BCE is used by someone else but I will proclaim that in the United States I live in we can still use AD/BC. I will still be proud to proclaim that I am an American regardly of anything else. Thank you, 207.191.14.150 (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to debate whether or not changing from AD to CE is a good idea. As for why the remarks about Jewish usage is in a box, that is because it is a direct quotation. There are several ways to mark up quotations, the editor who wrote that chose to use the {{quotation}} template. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism for BCE

"The use of BCE and CE has been criticized by some who favor the BC/AD system as being "the result of secularization" and "political correctness".[13]" The link to the citation is gone. The explaination provided for the criticism's reasoning is "political correctness" which makes me think the line was originally taken out of context, or is coming from a negligibly small group of people.

Perhaps the quote was taken out of context, although other editors have been watching this page back when the text was still available, so it probably was not taken out of context. In any case, since the text isn't available, the statement shouldn't be changed to indicate that BC/AD is non-secular; who can say if the unavailable citation would agree that BC/AD is non-secular or not? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found a new link to the resolution and updated the citation. I think the quote was not taken out of context, and I really don't think resolutions passed by a convention of a large religious group can be considered "coming from a negligibly small group of people". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing an essay right now, but from the looks of things, it seems that the person who originally installed the sentence meant to indecate their opinion of said criticism: 'the criticism for the BCE dating system were being politically incorrect.' I disagree that my rewording changed the meaning of the sentence. NOTE: The phrase "as being" produces some ambiguity here, so I can see why.

"The use of BCE and CE has been criticized by some who favor the BC/AD system as being "the result of secularization" and "political correctness"."

Vs.

"The use of BCE and CE has been criticized by some who favor the *less-secular BC/AD date system."

These sentences mean the same thing but the first describes the "political correctness" as being a reason for criticism of BCE which obviously isn't a factor for the reasoning if you read the source, but maybe I'm mistaken cause that page reads really funny to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.60.113 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed "some who favor the the BC/AD system" to "some (who favor the BC/AD system)" to try to make it clear that some think BCE and CE is the result of secularization and political correctness, and "who favor the BC/AD systems" is just a description of the "some". Maybe a more extensive reorganization is called for. How about this:

Some proponents of the BC/AD system have criticised the use of BCE and CE as being the "the result of secularization" and "political correctness".

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the original line it looked more like the speaker was in fact against "religious pluralism" and political correctness after all (I first read it as though he was just in preference of A.D. for it's non-secular value in contrast to BCE's "secular, politically correct, etc, etc" values.) After a deeper analysis I came to the following conclusions. The speaker hates all secular things because he precieves them as apart of an "anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness" movement endemic in the culture around him (how anti-supernaturalism and religious pluralism go together is beond me, so maybe in fact, the speaker does hate each of these things individually). ...So, because BCE is secular he hates it also because it contributes to this movement that he doesn't like. The way I see it, simply stating that BCE is secular alone is a fair reasoning for the criticism, or referencing the entire quoted movement is fair, but just taking the secular part and the political correctness part distorts the meaning of what was being said, because the speaker is quasi-brainwashing people into attributing all secular things / other religions as --in fewer words-- attacks upon their religious beliefs. This is crazy! But I don't think the intent of the speaker was to indicate that he was against forms of political correctness; unless his beliefs were some how involved. So IMO:

Some proponents of the BC/AD system have criticised the use of BCE and CE as being the result of a secularist, anti-supernaturalist, religious-pluralist, political-correctness encroachment on their christian beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.60.113 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proleptic Gregorian not required for CE

I change the lede a bit

• conversion to proleptic Gregorian requires some math, conversion to CE does not, so 1st sentence could not be right
• I integrated (with another paragraph) the paragraph about the Greogrian calendar being internationally recognized
• moved some things around

--JimWae (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed birth to Incarnation; see the Anno Domini article for references to Dionysius' text. Whether he meant to refer to the birth or conception is not entirely clear. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

JimWae tried to change Incarnation to birth because it's still the same year, and because Incarnation isn't neutral. I reverted.

1. Incarnation vs. birth does matter, for a few reasons. The degree of error made by Dionysius Exiguus will be different, depending on whether he was trying to date the conception or birth. We don't know which he was trying to do. Also, while the common era has been in effect, various countries have had various dates in effect for the beginning of the year, and had more than one kind of year running simultaneously, so the conception and birth may not have occurred in the same year (all this is based on the premise that Jesus was a historical person, which is not proven beyond a doubt). All sources of uncertainty in the discussion should be recognized, including the uncertainty about which event Dionysius was trying to date.

1. The epoch was clearly intended to commemorate the Incarnation of Jesus; to suppress this information is revisionist history, which is itself not a neutral point of view (even if the event never happened). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, I changed incarnation to conception. I should probably have made it the same "birth or conception" as in the AD article. More later --JimWae (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nobody is "suppressing this information" - the term appears in the article several times. It is, however, meant as an ascription of divinity to Jesus - something that is not neutral language. We can say people referred to an event as an Incarnation, we cannot say it was an Incarnation. Jesus' name appears in the lede several times, but Dionysius is not (and is not needed) - and the terminology he used does not need to be explained in the lede--JimWae (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Dionysius clearly has Annunciation on Mar 25 & birth on Dec 25. He assumed exactly a 9 month pregnancy (though there is really nothing to support such). Since the civil year in Dionysius' time began in January, both events would be the same number of years ago. Thus, it would be correct to say he was trying to determine how many years had elapsed since the conception AND birth of Jesus, but I would not bother to revert "conception OR birth"--JimWae (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• What material have you found to support these statements? Everyone knew that March 25 and December 25 are only ceremonial dates. Perhaps Dionysius had some idea about the actual dates, but that information has not been preserved. Furthermore, the Diocletian era that Dionysius replaced changed year numbers around the end of August. Who knows what date he regarded as the date on which year numbers change?

As for replacing Incarnation with "birth or conception", I have no problem with that, since the information is in the article elsewhere. In the lead, it might be better to use terms that people are more familiar with. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading the phrase in context, I see it is even more important to change "and" to "or" because the sentence read as though it were a fact that Jesus was conceived and born in the same year; there is general agreement that the actual time of year for either event is unknown. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaaaaawwwwwn

Face it, the only reason for this IS political correctness.

But, what does it accomplishes? Nothing. The fact is, the year still refers to the birth of Jesus. If a child asks his fundy atheist parents what happened in the year 1 of the "common era" they still need to admit what's it about. You PC people gain nothing.

I have never met a muslim, buddhist, jew or hindu who was offended by BC/AD.

Incredible, that the BCE/CE notation seems to be spreading in the USA. I am from Germany, and here, in Germany, the notation "vor Christus/nach Christus" (before christ, after christ) is much more prevalent than "v.u.z/n.u.z" (vor unserer Zeit, nach unserer Zeit - before common era, common era). Even in left leaning magazines in the like.

If the USA becomes more PC than EUROPE (!!!), then we are all in big trouble, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.9.51 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to describe the nomenclature. Debating whether it is a good idea is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Gerry and agree with the previous user. This is important, because articles all over Wikipedia use dates and it becomes confusing when the common AD/BC is thrown out for the uncommon and Politically Correct CE/BCE (it IS about PC). Based on some opinions in this article some may start using the somewhat obscure CE/BCE in Wikipedia articles even more. Really what does this article say? It almost says that if you don't use CE/BCE in Wiki articles then you are being proud and insensitive.

For those who really care about CE/BCE, get some sources to back up it's "growing use". Also I've never heard CE been called "Christian Era". If it did really mean Christian Era then I'm sure people wouldn't be switching out AD for CE. It means "Common Era" and is used to remove Christian references. The way this article is written almost determines what system Wikipedia endorses.

70.116.107.215 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (user is krosstown86 not signed in)

The proper place to discuss whether Wikipedia should use CE or AD would be either Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). If this article understates the confusion that would be created amongst the general English-speaking population by switching from AD to CE, that would indeed be a problem with the article.

Something that is lacking is some kind of scientifically sound survey of how confused people would be by seeing CE instead of AD, and what people think CE stands for. Certainly "Christian Era", spelled in full, has been used as a name for the dominant world-wide year numbering scheme. Certainly references in text and dictionaries can be found that show CE can be an abbreviation for Christian Era. But what these abbreviations mean in the minds of most modern readers is hard to say without a proper survey.

If the editor at 70.116.107.215 knows of such a survey, I'm sure the editors who have been working on this article would be delighted to see it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's for political correctness, nobody debates that. Christians represent 25%-33% of the world and want to push the rest of the world around with "before Christ" and "in the year of our Lord." You can use it as "Christian Era" if you want, but that is actually true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankjohnson123 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Christians push the rest of the world around? lol. Cry more! BC/AD is just tradition. Get over it. Thursday means "Thor's day" do you whine that the Norse are pushing you around? January is named after the Roman god Janus. Are the mean old Romans pushing you around? How sad. Face it, there are religious traditions all around us. Some people are just so intolerant that they want to cut any reminders of religion out of language, or blast them out of cliff faces (that's right, I'm comparing you to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.204.109 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth G. Wilson

I'm (Gerry Ashton) moving a comment that was in the wrong section:

The argument that "we might as well cast aside the numeral system, given its Christian basis" is simply erroneous; indeed, Kenneth G. Wilson, whatever his credentials, would do well to read the article on "Arabic Numerals" on this site, so that he might better understand the history of what he discusses. Secondly, is not CE/BCE clearly more scholarly, making no cultural assumptions, while still recognizing a major convention of Western culture? 22:07. 4 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.98.181 (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some problems with this comment. First, Wilson didn't write "numeral system", he wrote "conventional numbering system". Second, in context, this means the system of numbering years, not the system of writing numberals. I have added a note in square brackets to clarify this. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"(Christian Era is, however, also abbreviated AD, for Anno Domini.)"

I would say it is not abbreviated to AD. The AD nomenclature is an alternative to, not an abbreviation of, CE. LevenBoy (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The system that designates this year 2009 has many names, including "Christian Era". If one wants to abbreviate "Christian Era", one usually abbreviates it "AD:, but can also abbreviate it "CE". Abbreviating Christian Era according to its Latin form rather than its English form is akin to abbreviating "pound" as "lb".

Another way to think of it is if one encountered the abbreviation "AD" and wanted to spell it out, it would be equally correct to write "Anno Domini" or "Christian Era". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Era doesn't have a latin equivalent, it stands on its own. This is different from pound (libra) where the abbeviation is clear. Abbreviation: shortened form of a word. The proponents of CE are quick to tell us that it's not the same as AD (of course it is, but that's another matter). LevenBoy (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

oh my god... not another one I just got done cleaning up a chinese dragon page and now this! Is wiki the super-liberal highway? Not politically correct (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And please do not do that again. Wikipedia is neutral between bce and bc and you should not be going into articles and changing them because of your political preferences. dougweller (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

LevenBoy, this has been discussed at length; go read the talk page archives. In short, dictionaries can be found that support just about anything; AD is an abbreviation of Christian Era, AD is an abbreviation of Anno Domini, or AD is a word in its own right. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I took Latin in school, and I can assure you "Christian Era" (actually Era of the Christians) is Aevum Christianorum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankjohnson123 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"fat world aka Western World"???

Is there some meaning for "fat world" than simply an insult against westerners? Admittedly, obesity is a problem in the US, but still, I think this addition was made purely out of spite. Either that, or someone's genuinely racist against westerners. 131.252.240.112 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it's been removed, just some vandal. dougweller (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

lack of consistency

Wikipedia uses popularity, widespread of use and google searches, to establish which term to use in case of city names, concepts and everything else. Same rule should apply to use of AD vs CE, the latter is barely known, it's used exclusively by few people that try to proliferate its use. This is unacceptable for an international encyclopedia. A compromise could be writing AD (CE) in parentheses following it. This is not some political or ideological agenda, but common sense. --24.185.7.139 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to change the guidelines, which disagree with you. dougweller (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although my bias would have me agree that CE is indeed only a neologism used by those who wish to proliferate its use, it is undoubtably acceptable for use on Wikipedia, based on editor consensus. As it stands, Wikipedia policy allows editors to use either the AD or CE notation when editing, but ensures that each article is consistent in which notation is used. Again, ideally I would agree that AD should be used exclusively in this international encyclopedia, but clearly the consensus has been to use either system. Many of those who populate Wikipedia are atheists (studies show that atheists prevail on the Internet), meaning that the prevalency to use CE is probably higher among Wikipedia editors... a bias that is thus hard to avoid when creating policies and guidelines. Sad as it is, the personal biases of the collective Wikipedia community (many being atheists, as I said) affect the neutrality of guidelines and policies. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you can get more neutral than BCE/CE. BC/AD is clearly not neutral. It's also used a lot in scholarly works, which is a key reason that Wikipedia policy is what it is. I would argue that it is not 'barely known', and that the nice thing about it is that it can be intrepeted as 'Christian' or 'Common'. It is not used only by those who wish to proliferate its use, it is usually used by people who want to be neutral, eg [1], a book written by a Christian aimed mainly at Christians. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can think of plenty of ways to be more neutral than BCE/CE... such as creating another dating system altogether that is not based on the presumed birthdate of Jesus. Sorry, you can't just say "it's too much trouble to change the calendar epoch date itself, so we'll instead just remove references to Jesus and then call it neutral". Until a new calendar system is accepted, I find that BCE/CE is in fact more biased than AD/BC because the latter is the original and long-accepted designation for the epoch. To me, Common Era's increased popularity is simply an example of (very) modern political correctness and has no place for usage at par with "Anno Domini" in a neutral encyclopedia. I can sympathize with those who support the BCE designation, but I think it only brings attention to the fact that AD and BC are religion-loaded terms... something that most people don't even think or care about. Just imagine if someone were to lobby changing the name of "Wednesday" to "Third day" to avoid religious connotations to the Norse god Woden! Ridiculous idea? Exactly. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 02:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To add CE is indeed only a neologism used by those who wish to proliferate its use and proclaim their atheism. and then proclaim their pov as "neutral"!! ClemMcGann (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BCE/CE are not neutral terms; their impact waters down centuries of our western heritage and tradition, ostensibly to avoid offending non-Christian religions (for which there is scant evidence) in the name of political correctness, but in reality are often part of an anti-Christian agenda which of itself causes offence. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's your pov, which you are entitled to. Others think that BC/AD gives offense. I've let myself get sucked into this debate -- this page is NOT to discuss which is correct, it is a page to discuss the article, not what system is used in Wikipedia. I shall probably delete this section shortly as it is not about the article and this page is not a discussion forum. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First Line

Wouldn't the first sentance be better as: "Common Era (also Christian Era or Current Era), abbreviated as CE..." Having the other two names not right off the bat seems a little awkward, and the sentance that they're attached to now seems a bit useless. 76.226.113.196 (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Concealing world-wide use of AD/CE numbering scheme

I view the recent series of edits, including this one to be a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that the year numbering system that designates the current year as 2009 is widely used throughout the world. This seems like vandalism, and I will revert all such attempts. If this is not in fact vandalism, but is intended to express some other idea, please explain yourself here on this talk page. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Section about months/days

The whole edit was:

Some critics contend that if the year naming convention is to be secularised, then the names of the months would also have to be renamed in order not to offend those who don't worship Roman deities, and the English days of the week would need renaming in order not to offend non-Norse pagans.[2] Other areas of common language which have a background which could be perceived to be biased include:

• Addio (Italian), adeus (Portuguese), adieu (French) or adiós (Spanish) which literally translate to 'to God' but are used to mean 'goodbye' or 'farewell'.

• The names of the planets in the Solar System are based on Roman and Greek deities.

• Religious based names of places including Saint Kitts and Nevis, Christchurch, Athens, Mumbai, São Paulo, Islamabad, San Francisco and Saint Petersburg.

• Names of people and places with the suffix -el, the Northwest Semitic word for 'deity'. Examples include the name Daniel and the country Israel.

The IP posted on my talk page but their first post got archived before I saw it, and I was busy in RL until now. But the source, religioustolerance.com, says nothing about critics contending anything. It gives as an example that people might object, mentions no critics, and concludes "Fortunately, very few people are aware of the etymology of the days of the week and months of the year. Thus, it does not create much offense. However, "Before Christ" and "In the year of the [Christian] Lord" is obviously based on a single religion.". So, it doesn't back the statement and thus the statement shouldn't be in the article, although if there are modern equivalents to the Quakers' complaints in the 18th century, then maybe. The second part is pure OR with no attempt to offer references, and as this is not an article about other terminology which might offend, it doesn't belong in the article because it is OR and because it is no about Common Era. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't archiving that removed your original request on my talk page, Ryurgin (talk · contribs) was doing rapid fire vandalism of my talk page and being reverted by other editors (nice of them), and your edit got removed as collateral damage. I'd warned Ryugin about a personal attack a few days ago and he took offense. :-) Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That part is complete OR. Even the part about names of months & days, though frequently brought up, is really pretty irrelevant to the topic - unless one wants to also argue that a lesser insensitivity justifies a greater insensitivity. I would be OK with removing even that.--JimWae (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't referenced as I think I show above, and I also don't see it as relevant to Common Era except as a red herring - it's not a real issue and if it is should have its own article. But I'm not reverting as I've reverted twice already today! Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The part about months & days is on the relig-tol page - but that does not mean our article should include such a spurious criticism (though it does indicate the irrelevance, pettiness and desperation of some). I do not think it can be determined if days of the week are named after gods or after celestial bodies. I will try to find out what names the Norse gave the planets.--JimWae (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the religious tolerance page does not say anything about any critics, so the article can't use it as a reference for 'some critics'. And clearly the website isn't critical of CE. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It can be reworded 'Research gathered on the debate found that some respondents...'. If a paper said that 10% of respondents said '...' then it would be worthy of inclusion. It's not important if the website is or isn't critical of CE - references either way can be used. I think that the inconsistency argument is a reasonable enough point (otherwise the quakers never would have acted on it), at least to consider and think about things holistically even if you reject it. wikipedia would be worse off without reflecting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What research? We need a reliable source mentioning research, critics, whatever. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The research is the information gathered by this source on the topic, which is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me, can you quote where whatever your are talking about mentions critics or research? Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The religtol page discusses all the issues related to bc/e and then makes a conclusion on it. part of this is a collection of arguments on the bc/e issue from both groups and visitors to the site that it has selected and discussed: 'Comments from visitors to this site:... Some statements against the use of CE and BCE, and possible rebuttals, are:' One of these is the days/months topic.

We could reword it as 'An argument against CE is ...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am an atheist and thus inclined towards religiously neutral names for everything and for timing conventions in particular. But religioustolerance.com does make a good point in saying that religious traditions, some of which are even no longer living traditions, are embedded in all languages; that it is inconsistent to change just one convention while leaving all others intact. Perhaps, then, we should indeed change all conventions to fit all sorts of neutrality, be it gender (eg, chairman X chairperson), national (eg, color X colour), or religious (eg, AD X CE). A cleansing from prejudice would make any language more correct, more proper, more civilised. However, I believe that development should come about naturally on the long term, like a phonological shift, instead of being deliberate. An artificial linguistic improvement is less likely to last, or to catch on, or to lessen real prejudices; rather, it is bound to generate a reaction such as the bizarre Conservapedia. I regret that rel-tol.com's point or my opinion are not, to my knowledge, backed by a respectable polling, a book, or a paper, and thus do not belong in Wikipedia. If anyone knows of a reliable source that mentions any of these two opinions, please add them to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.144.96 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No matter what event might be chosen, it would be open to objections of not being culturally neutral. Common Era notation has the advantage of not requiring any drastic change in all the documents that have dates on them using the "Western" calendar. The argument about the names of months (I specifically omit days since it is even more specious than the month one, since it cannot be determined days are named after gods rather than planets) is not attributed to anyone. Who would want ownership of such a bogus argument that suggests one wrong cannot be righted until all wrongs are righted? Btw, I have seen Chinese calendars that already do use numbers instead of names for the months. It is just a fact that the change to Common Era is gaining currency, while there is no such comparable movement to change the names of months in the English-speaking world --JimWae (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an argument that is brought up, so i think it deserves mention. I'm sure everyone has an opinion on it, but that's besides the point.

Personally, I wouldnt say it's bogus - we use the days of the week (only sunday/monday are debatable) and months of the year far more often than we refer to the era (and even then we use initials rather than words). If we had half of the days of the week named in a christian manner and half named in an buddhist manner, then we decided to only make the buddhist ones neutral, would that not be inconsistent and discriminatory in itself? The argument is that when you implement a measure it should be done in a non-discriminatory way. Our personal thoughts are irrelevant anyway - we could write off many of the objecting/supporting arguments personally. It is documented and discussed on a reliable site, so we should put it in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.199.71 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But 1>the argument cannot be attributed to anyone.(this is relevant to whether to include it in the article, though not decisive) 2>Nobody is in charge of implementing "Common Era", nor of changing the names of months. Changes in language usage are rarely done by fiat. "Common Era" has currency. I am not aware of any replacement for names of months that has any currency at all.(this is another reason why the argument is bogus, but this is less relevant to inclusion)--JimWae (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The argument doesn't need to be attributable to anyone - it's reliably sourced. 2) My opinion, your opinion, everyone's opinion is irrelevant. Every reader will decide that at least one (and probably most) of the arguments for/against listed in the article are bogus/unimportant. That doesn't mean we should scrap them. The point of the article is to list reliably sourced arguments, and this is one. It's a fact that it's inconsistent. The reader can read that and then decide is they think it's an important factor in deciding to use BC or BCE. Hiding/concealing information is trying to force our opinion on them. We list the reliably sourced facts, the readers decide.

I'll put it in as "An argument exists that if the era-naming...". It's an argument and can be refuted or considered unimportant the same way all arguments can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But a theoretical notation (which does not exist) is essentially irrelevant and elicits the respnse 'so what?'. I have deleted it as a red herring. --Red King (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that no campaign to change the names of days or months is exactly the point of the argument; the obvious inference is that there should be no campaign to change from AD to CE. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be what is obvious to you, but it is a completely invalid inference. Usually the point made is that Xns feel "singled-out" or "targeted" because of this - another invalid inference, of course --JimWae (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Inferences are up to the reader. All that needs to be said is that it's inconsistent with other naming conventions. For editing purposes it doesnt matter whether the reader decides that it discriminates against christians, or that it's ok cause ppl dont know the meanings of days of the week or that it's not ok because things should be done consistently or that it's ok because christianity is a single major religion or whatever else. Fact: it's inconsistent. Add to article. Finished. No hiding, concealing, deceiving, biasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to indicate that I personally believe in the argument, only that religioustolerance.org, who published it, seems to think it suffices to point out that it is inconsistent to move away from the notation "AD" but not move away from the notation "Wednesday". Apparently the publication thought readers could take the next step on their own—that whatever reasons exist for not moving away from "Wednesday" apply equally to "AD". Religioustolerance.org goes on to say that the day/month case differs from the AD case because few people are aware of the etymology of the days of the week and months of the year, and also that AD concerns a single religion (although religioustolerance.org does not explicitly say so, days involve Norse and possibly Roman gods, and months involve Roman gods, so there are at least two religious traditions involved.)

On a slightly differnt note, if religioustolerance.org's assessment that few people are aware of the etymology of days and months, it might be worthwhile to point out to people that such religious connotations are embedded in familiar calendar terms. It need not presented as an argument; a parallel could be drawn between the present campaign to move away from AD and the refusal of Quakers to use the names of the months on the grounds they were named after pagan gods (the religioustolerance.org site has information on this). --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to find other sources making that parallel, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Just because one site casually says something is not a reason for inclusion in this article. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"you don't have consensus for this, or evidence that this is a significant view or that it's relevant" this could be said for virtually every argument listed in the article (e.g. computer programming argument). Most arguments are sourced to just 1 person/site. An argument about consistency is clearly relevant, and, on a related note, your lack of consistency in not calling into question the relevance of other arguments makes your involvement in this discussion highly questionable - e.g. for computer programming, how is the position of the initials relevant wen the article is about what the actual initials/words are, not their position? The consistency argument is reliably sourced and that's all that matters. Consensus on trying to stop people from hiding and concealing facts from the article? Moving from branch to branch trying to find and latch onto new arguments to keep facts out is dogmatic sophistry. Why are you working so hard to keep a simple fact out of the article: CE is inconsistent. All subjective opinions on this fact are debatable for inclusion. The fact itself shouldnt be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This argument is simply not noteworthy nor made by anyone noteworthy, so it should stay out until further sourcing can be found. Auntie E. 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument is reliably sourced - that's all that matters. Subjective 'noteworthiness' is thus irrelevant and POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But this article is about CE. If you want to start a new article about days of the week and can show notability, go ahead and do so. Someone's opinion about what the days of week should or should not be, no matter how well cited, are no more relevant that the timetable of the Orient Express, which is also well cited. --Red King (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If it wasnt relevant then religtol wouldnt discuss it in their review of CE. Thus, we have a reliably sourced confirmation of relevance. Please provide a reliably sourced confirmation of irrelevance. Relevance is sourced, the argument is sourced, it's an objective fact that is being added to the article. There is no reason why it shouldnt go into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.199.71 (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There's the fact that Wikipedia works by consensus and the consensus is it shouldn't go in. And then there is WP:UNDUE which here means it's not important enough to go into the article, as shown by the fact that your only source for it is a trivial mention on a website. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkmate: p111 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fsni_qV-FJoC&pg=PA111&dq=common+era+anno+domini+days+pagan&ei=1fKTSsqOEY_4lQTzsoWeBw#v=onepage&q=common%20era%20anno%20domini%20days%20pagan&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." You have a quote? Auntie E. 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As now cited in the article, the information comes from Steele, Duncan (1999), Marking time: the epic quest to invent the perfect calendar, page 111. If attempts to see the Google preview don't work, you can visit the library. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the page? Can I see a quote or not? Auntie E. 18:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was able to see the page both times I tried to access it, both before and after Auntie E. asked for quote. It says

Despite being an atheist myself, I do not object to the B.C./A.D. system, because it is that which is best understood, in general terms. To me that is no different from using the metric system in all the scientific research which I do, and yet thinking of myself as being five feet nine inches tall. If one is going to argue about using the B.C./A.D. convention, then one should also reject all other aspects of our dating system, because as we have seen our time of day, days of the week, and months of the year have origins tied in with pagan, astrological, Jewish, and Christian beliefs. The Quaker system of doing away with all such references I can appreciate (even if I do not wish to share); the selective argument against B.C./A.D. I have no time for.

--Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This link works for me, but we do not know which argument against CE/BCE is referred to, nor is there any context for the "Quaker" comment. The argument would be selective if the comparison was with "Jesusday" or "Buddhaday" - neither of which claim that the person is either "the Lord" or "the Messiah". It would be inconsistent to argue against AD/BC & not argue against LordsDay (literal translation to English for many Romance languages) - but this is not an issue for the English language. As far as improving the article goes, 1>the point needs to be reworded to not have so much ambiguous context, or 2>a better source is still needed --JimWae (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read Steele's book, although I do not have it at hand. The whole book is about the development of calendars, including days, months, and years. It shows that pagan, astrological, Jewish, and Christian beliefs permiate the calendar presently in use. Steele is saying he has no time for the selective argument against BC/AD, meaning that the BC/AD opponents have selected BC/AD for removal from the English language but are not striving to remove all the other pagan, astrological, Jewish, and Christian influences in our calendar. If you want to know what all those other influences are, go to the library and read the book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The article presently reads (omitting footnotes)

Critics including astronomer Duncan Steele argue that if one is going to replace AD/BC with CE/BCE then one should reject all aspects of the dating system (including time of day, days of the week and months of the year) as they all have origins related to pagan, astrological, Jewish and Christian beliefs. Duncan makes note of the consistency of the Quaker system, which removed all such references, and rejects the argument against BC/AD as a selective argument

There is a subtle difference between what Steel wrote and the summary in the article. Steele wrote "if one is going to argue about using the B.C./A.D. convention..." meaning if one is going to make any argument against BC/AD (or perhaps, any religious argument), not any one particular argument. Perhaps we should change the article to say "...and rejects the opposition to BC/AD as selective." Another alternative would be "...and rejects the religious opposition to BC/AD as selective." --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

AD is an abbreviation for Christian Era

A recent change claims in the edit summary that Christian Era is not abbreviated AD. However, the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus. (American edition) (1997) gives this entry:

A.D. abbr. (of a date) of the Christian era (Latin Anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord".

This dictionary is logically consistent with its entry for "lb":

lb. abbr. pound (weight).

Please note that I have tried to word this carefully. I have not said that CE is not an abbreviation for Christian Era. I have not said that the the abbreviaton "AD" can't be expanded to "Anno Domini". --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC) --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be better though if more than one dictionary agreed. "lb" is a LITERAL translation from another language. Anno Domini does not literally translate to "Christian Era" They are not entirely comparable. Perhaps "Christian Era is also sometimes given as what the abbreviation AD means"--JimWae (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides being a "pocket" dictionary - hence significantly abridged "The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus was the first American reference work to offer integrated dictionary and thesaurus entries." By integrating the 2 reference works, this could easily result in a tendency to try to accomplish both at once - offering the most useful approximations, instead of more accurate (yet more opaque) renditions--JimWae (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My "Concise Oxford Dictionary" (1428 'standard book sized' pages of dense type) says
"AD abbr. (of a date) of the Christian era. ... [Anno Domini 'in the year of the Lord'].
So the OED is saying that AD means Christian era and its origin is Anno Domini. Don't forget, dictionaries are primarily about meaning, the etymology is an endnote. It follows therefore that Jc3s5h has misunderstood. The OED is not saying that AD is an abbreviation of Christian era: it is saying that AD is an abbreviation that means Christian era. --Red King (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Suppose a person had written "of the Christian era". Suppose the person's boss tells him the text is too long and he must abbreviate "of the Christian era", but the boss gives no further instructions and we know nothing else about the author. We cannot predict whether the author will use the abbreviation "AD" or the abbreviation "CE". Thus, both are abbreviations of "of the Christian era". Both dictionaries that Red King and I consulted support "AD" in the sense that the meaning will not be changed. No source has been presented indicating that one should not use "AD" to abbreviate "of the Christian era". Indeed, I have never seen a source (with two exceptions) that tells you which, of several abbreviations with the same meaning, ought to be used.

The two exceptions are

1. style manuals for particular publications, which rightly make arbitrary choices about what is to appear in their publication
2. weights and measures documents, such as The International System of Units (SI); the weights and measures community have generally avoided commenting on calendars.

--Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that CE is an acronym of Christian Era (and Common Era), whereas AD is not. When it comes to individual choices on what abbreviation to use, that choice is inevitably value-laden. A bible belt Christian would certainly not choose CE, lest it be (mis!)read as the NPOV term Common Era. In other words, whilst one could choose CE to represent Christian Era, it is highly improbabable that anyone would. De facto, CE has come exclusively to mean Common Era in the sense used by rationalists: religionists have decamped to AD. See Conservapedia etc. --Red King (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think we should recognize that the operations abbreviating and expanding abbreviation are not quite inverse operations, and a round trip may not get you back to your starting point. I will try to list operations that are likely among modern writers. I'm excluding cases where a writer is deliberatly changing the tone of someone else's work.

Anno Domini ➜ AD
of the Christian era ➜ AD
of the Christian era ➜ CE
in the year of our Lord ➜ AD
in the year of our Lord ➜ CE
Common Era ➜ CE

AD ➜ of the Christian era
AD ➜ Anno Domini
AD ➜ in the year of our Lord
CE ➜ Common Era

My list reflects the concept that some writers regard "in the year of our Lord" or "of the Christian era" purely as formalisms to designate the year numbering system, and therefor regard CE as an acceptable replacement.

As for acronyms, some people think it isn't an acronym unless it is pronounced as a single word, like NASA (no one says en ae ess ae). --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of three-letter acronyms?.

I don't understand what you mean "regard CE as an acceptable replacement". Do you really mean that anyone would use CE (rather than AD) to abbreviate Christian Era? Conversely, do you really believe that any modern writer who uses the CE style means anything but Common Era? I would love to see a text in which a modern writer (who is not explaining the terms) has used CE to mean Christian Era.

I would be astonished if you could find one in the last 50 years and surprised if you found one in the last 100. --Red King (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can think of no way to search for a full version and a short version of the same text, so I will not attempt to find actual instances of how the various terms were abbreviated or expanded. But consider a law or proclamation from a government that requires separation of church and state; it might contain flowery language, such as "Anno Domini" or "of the Christian era". When such a law or proclamation is summarized, most likely the year will be given only in numerals, with the era implied. But if for some reason it were necessary to give an era designation, CE would be just as appropriate as AD, since the original authors were forbidden to express any religious connotation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is even a problem. AD means "of the Christian Era", but it is an abbreviation of "Anno Domini". Just as e.g. means "for example", but is an abbreviation of "exempli gratia", or viz. means "namely" but is an abbreviation of "videlicet". AD is not a shortened form of Christian Era, therefore it is not an abbreviation of Christian Era. It is an abbreviation of something else entirely that is used to mean "of the Christian Era". -- Perey (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with first citation

Take a look at the citation for the article's first sentence:

Common Era, abbreviated as CE, is a designation for the calendar system most commonly used world-wide for numbering the year part of the date.[1]

The citation note reads:

1. Astronomical Almanac -- Online. (2009). United States Naval Observatory. s.v. calendar, Gregorian in Glossary.

Err, that's not what the sources says. If you foolw the link to the USNO Astronomical Almanac you'll see this entry for "calendar, Gregorian":

calendar, Gregorian:

The calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 to replace the Julian calendar. This calendar is now used as the civil calendar in most countries. In the Gregorian calendar, every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for centurial years, which must be exactly divisible by 400 to be leap years. Thus 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 and 2100 are not leap years.

It says nothing about Common Era. This sentence either needs a different reference or it needs to be refactored. There are two problems here. First is that the source refers only to the Gregorian calendar rather than the CE system. Secondly, the source doesn't assert that it's the calendar system most commonly used world-wide ... only that the Gregorian calendar is now used as the civil calendar in most countries". I'm going to tag this sentence as "dubious". Can anyone help find a source which actually asserts that CE is most commonly used in the world? Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

It's not dubious that most of the world uses the same calendar system - but another ref might be needed. The ref says most countries. Add China, India, Europe & Americas & you get most people of the world who can & do (at least sometimes) use it. Do you thnk we also need a ref to show that CE is used with the Gregorian Calendar, (and with Julian)?--JimWae (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The text does not say that CE is the most commonly used designation. It says it is a designation for the calendar system that is most commonly used ("commonly used" modifying "calendar sytem", not "designation") It does not read: "a designation most comonly used for the calendar system" --JimWae (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree that the sentence needs another reference or references which show that (a) it's used with the Gregorian calendar, and (b) the Gregorian calendar is the most commonly used caelndar in the world. I don't think that it should be too hard to find citations. An alternative would be to re-word the sentence. I'm also concerned that readers may misinterpret it to mean that CE is the most commonly used notation system in the world (rather than BC/AD.)

Perhaps it could be re-phrased to say:

Common Era, abbreviated as CE, is a designation used with the Gregorian calendar system, which is the most commonly used calendar world-wide for numbering the year part of the date.

Your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Common Era is also used with the Julian calendar. Do you think the Anno Domini article also needs a ref to show it is used with the Gregorian Calendar? I think we can handle this issue with a footnote--JimWae (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Common Era is used either the Gregorian or Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar most often uses the year numbering system designated Common Era or other designations. The Julian calendar is mainly of historical interest, and over the course of history has been used with many year numbering or naming systems, including giving the names of the two Roman proconsuls.

The quote from the US Naval Observatory not only mentions the Gregorian calendar, but also describes the leap year rule in a way that only works with the Common Era year numbering systems (however it may be designated). I think the inclusion of the leap year rule, with no mention of any alternative rule for any alternative year numbering system, makes the quote sufficient. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Panikkar quote

The requested quotation from Panikkar (the full relevant paragraph):

Here is an example of the incarnation's historical-sociological implications among those who feel themselves furthest from Christianity. In certain North American academic circles one can see a return-with repercussions elsewhere-to the most bigoted Christian colonialism, along with the good intention of overcoming it. It has been suggested that the terminology of the Western calendar, Christian in origin, be replaced by one that presumably would be neutral and universal. It is understandable that some would protest the use of A.D. (anno Domini), but by eliminating B.C. (before Christ) and substituting B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) scholars betray the depths of the cultural impact of the historico-Christian event. After all, Jesus was not born in the year 1. We select a single event but without any value judgment. To call our age "the Common Era," even though for the Jews, the Chinese, the Tamil, the Muslims, and many others it is not a common era, constitutes the acme of colonialism. (Panikkar, Christophany, 173)

I think this quote makes it clear that Delaney and Panikkar are making different points, and the {{request quote}} tag should be removed. Delaney is saying that changing the name does not remove the fact that it is the incarnation of Jesus that is the origin of the era. Panikkar is saying that Christian era is not a common era, and it is thus wrong to describe it as a common era.--Jc3s5h (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delaney (at http://books.google.com/books?id=ETOrkt7DeN0C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=common+era+euphemism&source=web&ots=SD_-W5H1iK&sig=K_4v6oeAJ5htOwJPO4DoGGI883A#v=onepage&q=common%20era%20euphemism&f=false) also discusses the political implications & also gets into what she sees as an implicit colonialism. This Panikkar bit belongs in that paragraph with her rather than in one by itself. Much of the inserted explanation into the article is NOT in the quote. The use of "implies" has not yet been sourced to Panikkar & cannot be given in the voice of wikipedia. Ignored by both is that "other cultures" have adopted the "common era" terminolgy (often in their own language) without it being imposed on them by Europeans. The era was not commonly used for dating by anyone for many centuries (in parts of Europe it took 14 centuries to be commonly used). Some common dating system is needed, and it looks like the "western" one is it. With an era defined as A period of time as reckoned from a specific date serving as the basis of its chronological system. clearly there has to be some era that is commonly used to have a shared calendar. --JimWae (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Panikkar and Delaney are wrong; the point is their argument is used often enough to be worth mentioning. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Which is why I have not removed them. Someday there will be someone (right or wrong) who finally argues against their point --JimWae (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Quaker Calendar?

The article refers to an alternative "Quaker system", but the link under it leads to a section in the general article on the Quaker religion that seems to have been removed. Can anyone who knows more about this provide more explanation, a working WP link, or an external source? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

CE/BCE

Is an alternative for athiests and non christians not to use AD/BC. I have not see Chrsitian Era abreviated as CE apart from this article. It now appears the Christian religion is now hijacking CE/BCE with Christian Era/Before Christian Era which circumvents the original purpose. Religion is nolonger apart of every day life in the western world, this is not the middle ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.228.84 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• The usage is sourced in the article. There are lots of things people have never heard of before - that's some of what encyclopedias provide. Actually, if Christians can think what they want when they see CE, the chances of its usage spreading improve. --JimWae (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedea discussion of CE vs AD usage discussion in See Also section

Jack1755 reverted the addition of the link to the Wikipedia discussion of CE vs. AD usage from the See also section.

Wikipedia CE vs. AD usage discussion

I disagree with this.

One of the reasons that people are likely to find this article is to determine what is the Wikipedia standard with respect to this issue. For this reason it is useful to see the discussion of the issue that has gone on and to determine if a consensus was reached.

The link also serves as a source for information about the kinds of opinions that people have about the issue.

I do not understand the basis of the removal for the link but I am also not a primary editor of this article and perhaps their are reasons for the revision that I am unaware of. --Davefoc (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See also sections are for links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. Ideally there should be no links as they should already have been mentioned in the article. Sure, lots of articles could hypothetically have links to Wikipedia discussions, guidelines, whatever -- and you are welcome to change the guideline at WP:LAYOUT, but at the moment I can't see any reason to ignore the guideline. And what we really don't want is what would inevitably happen with such a link, lots of people trying to edit what is an archive that shouldn't be edited. And I very much doubt that one of the reasons people would find this article is to discover what our guidelines are on the issue. Those who are interested are likely to know how in any case - once the idea occurs that there is a guideline or standard, the next thing is to figure out where to look for that, and that's not hard. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll defer to your apparent greater understanding of this issue. But I found this article exactly because I was looking for information about what the Wikipedia standard was for this. And finding the area where the issue was discussed and the information that there is no Wikipedia guideline on this issue apparently because people couldn't agree was exactly the information I was looking for and for me, at least, it wasn't completely straightforward to find that discussion. As an aside, it is interesting that whether CE or AD is used there's a reasonable chance that somebody will change it to the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would hope strongly that people would not change an existing usage. This is exactly parallel to the convention that articles written initialy in UK English are not changed to US English or vice versa.--Red King (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrections for clarification

I am new to this so before anyone jumps on me I would like to explain:

I was looking up the word Era Vulgaris and was redirected to "Common Era" There was mention of "During the 19th century, "Vulgar Era" came to be contrasted with "Christian Era", and "vulgar" came to mean "crudely indecent", thus no longer a synonym for "common"." I had to read farther to find mention under "Other associations". I also noticed that BCE was redirected but again had to read more than I should have to "get to the point".

If there is a redirect there should, in my opinion, be relevance. If anyone, being the masters of Wikipedia editing, change(or decides to revert) this please remember that I was just trying to clear up redirected links so the information(that was obviously being searched for in the first place) could be found. Also, I added a new topic here because I did not know how to "join in" at an appropriate place.

I have noticed that some, that have vested interests in articles, take exceptions to changes. I would hope that my discussion is read and taken into consideration before a random revert would be administered.

If anyone has hints, suggestions, or advise for a "new" editor please let me know. This would be concerning this topic so I will be able to make a correlation. Does my improvement help? What would be, or is, a better way? If there is a classification for editors I would be the one that adds pertinent information or corrects what I see as errors. I do not, and probably for a long time to come, intend on doing anything else. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed "Before the Common Era(abbreviated BCE);" on purely technical grounds. Text elements should be marked up according to their function; this text was serving as a low-level heading, but was marked up as running text.

The reason this is a bit hard to find is because the lead is too long. It would be nice to shorten it, but because this is a controversial topic, someone always gets bent out of shape when their pet peeve is removed from the lead.

I have moved one paragraph out of the lead to make it shorter. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I do not think the recent changes have improved the article, instead they have made the text a bit of a jumble.

The first "sentence" (of what newly begins the second paragraph in the lede) is repetitive and not even a true sentence, being written in headline style (something that is at least "very rare" on WP):

Before the Common Era(abbreviated BCE); Dates before the year 1 CE are indicated by the usage of BCE, short for "Before the Common Era", "Before the Christian Era", or "Before the Current Era". Both the BCE/CE and BC/AD notations are based on a sixth-century estimate for the year in which Jesus was conceived or born, with the common era designation originating among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615 (at first in Latin).[8]

That paragraph, as recently edited, also has no main unifying topic, having been split from the original first paragraph. It was sufficient to have 'Before the Common Era in boldface within a sentence. (Keep in mind that many browser searchers give a preview of the first paragraph of wiki articles & there are benefits to having that first paragraph be as complete as possible.)

Problems with the following:

The abbreviation BCE, just as with BC, always follows the year number. Unlike AD, which traditionally precedes the year number, CE always follows the year number (if context requires that it be written at all). Thus, the current year is written as 2024 in both notations (or, if further clarity is needed, as 2024 CE, or as AD 2024), and the year that Socrates died is represented as 399 BCE (the same year that is represented by 399 BC in the BC/AD notation). The abbreviations are sometimes written with small capital letters, or with periods (e.g., "BCE" or "C.E.").

1> "thus" has no application within this paragraph

2> The facts that the current year is written 2009 in both systems and that the year Socrates died has the number 399(BCE/BC) assigned in both notations were in the lead to give a specific example emphasizing that the year numbering is the same in both notations both before and after the epoch marker. Right now, the SYNTAX of the abbreviations is also buried way down in the article.

I do not think keeping this in the lede makes the lede "too long". According to WP:lede: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article... As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." Without the refs the page is about 14,200 characters and 31,700 with refs. The page is 56 kilobytes long. Having THREE paragraphs in the lede is within the guidelines. It was 3 paragraphs long before the recent changes, and is still 3 paragraphs

I am not aware of any guideline that indicates that if a topic is redirected to an article, that the article should give that topic a headline or a paragraph unto itself. The heading change to "Era Vulgaris" was OK, though --JimWae (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the "headline text" and restored the 1st paragraph to its earlier, cohesive, state. Now, at only 2 paragraphs, the lede seems too short, and I still see no reason not to also restore the original 3rd paragraph --JimWae (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

User:Bermicourt added {{citation needed}} to the statement "Common Era, abbreviated as CE, is a designation for the calendar system most commonly used world-wide" with the edit summary "the citation doesn't support the implication that CE is the most common calendar designation". The statement says it is the system that is most commonly used world-wide; it does not say that the designation is most commonly used world-wide. The source cited supports the statement. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a change to emphasize that "Common Era" is not the only designation for the year numbering system. Since the statement is now even more clearly supported by the citation, I have removed {{citation needed}}. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)