Talk:Common Era/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Non-Christian Objections

The objection by non-Christians to the use of AD is not that it refers to an date that used to be thought to be the date of Jesus' birth. It is that it means 'In the Year of Our Lord' and as such does not apply to non-Christians. It is not the year of Our lord, it is the year of Your lord. Its an expression of Christian belief, and is simply not right for a non-believer to use it. I personally have much less problems with BC, and I think others do, but since the thing comes as a parcel the only non-biased way to do it is to use CE and BCE. Which are, by the way, very common in Europe. (remark echoed in AD) The Rev of Bru 18:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The comment that CE and BCE are very common in Europe is misleading. Their foreign equivalents are used in some foreign languages, but the terms are virtually unknown and unrecognisable in English speaking areas (mainly UK and Ireland). Indeed, I'm not aware of any UK English style guide that even recognises that CE and BCE could exist as terms to describe dates. Of course, using BC or AD as place markers for dates is as much as expression of Christian belief as using the terms 'Wednesday' or 'Thursday' are expressions of belief in Norse mythology or using 'July' and 'August' are used as terms of respect for Julius and Augustus Caesar. Just like for those examples, many people who use the terms (BC and AD) do not know what they stand for. jguk 19:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The comment that CE and BCE are common in Europe is not misleading: I live there, studied there, and was brought up there. Admittedly I live in one of the least religious countries in Europe, but nonetheless CE and BCE are common in usage in university and college papers, television, magazines and even conversation. Some use CE, some use AD - but everyone at least knows what BCE and CE mean.

Your ignorance of 'English' media using the terms does not mean others with more knowledge than you aren't aware of such things, or that there aren't any. Using 'In the Year of Our Lord' as a date marker is indisputably a statement of religious belief; although many people might not be aware of it... thats the result of their lack of knowledge, not a lack of bias in the words. None of your examples are relevant - they don't profess a belief in the gods as part of the expression.The Rev of Bru 19:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where in Europe you lived - but the UK and Ireland are the only Anglophone countries in Europe and these terms are not generally known here in the British Isles. Most people here do not under CE and BCE and you are under a misapprehension if you think otherwise. As I note, there are no UK English style guides I am aware of that even see fit to acknowledge the term. I can honestly say that I've never really seen the term in England. The misleading bit was the implication that it is used in English by those speaking English in Europe (essentially, those in the British Isles). (Stating what happens in foreign languages or American schools in Europe is irrelevant here: it is that which is misleading.)

The idea that every time I use BC or AD it is a statement of religious belief is laughable, and can be rejected out of hand. They are place markers. Why on earth would I want to bring my religious belief into a discussion of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece or the Pharoahs of Egypt? And your suggestion that people can make a statement of their religious beliefs without being aware of it is preposterous. The terms BC and AD are used almost exclusively as placemarkers, having no meaning other than that. jguk 19:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am sure where I live - and here in the UK most people do know what the words mean. Most educated people, in any case. I can honestly say that the term is used often enough in the examples I gave to substantiate the claim that most semi-educated people know what the terms mean. It is used by native english speakers, from the UK. Not as much as AD, of course, but every so often. I can honestly say that I don't believe you have never heard it used. What is laughable is your total refusal to accept the religious element inherent in the phrase. I suppose swearing on a bible in court or to be accepted as a memeber of the armed forces is not a statement of religious belief? (Which is why the irreligious don't do so, and instead swear on their mothers lives, etc)The Rev of Bru

JGuk, its customary to actually debate things in talk, not just claim that you did, before reverting articles. CE and, to a lesser extent BCE, are common enough in the UK to suggest that most partly-educated people know what they mean, and also to suggest that their use is more common than in largely christian countries. What part of this do you disagree with and why? The Rev of Bru

My discussions and questions for you are at the bottom of the page. Address them there. Add onto the list why you think the UK is not a predominantly Christian country (I don't believe the 2001 census results showed this), and where you source the evidence the CE/BCE are common in the UK when the style guides I have seen (in particular Fowler's Modern English Usage, The Times, The Guardian, The Economist) do not even note the form (if only to dismiss it); and a google search on BCE for .uk websites [1] shows only a handful of sites using the term. jguk 13:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has really suggested that the general public or the media in Europe/ NA uses the term CE and BCE. Certainly that's opposite to my experience. However, it's common in academia. I think that's what the first poster meant.

To a person who considers these issues, the idea that AD is a statement of belief is not laughable. You might reject it out of hand, but don't tell me what to do. What we should reflect on here is what's happening the world, not what individual case studies might believe.Sbwoodside 19:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it is sad that people go to college, spend all their parents money, and all they can do is rename things, and take away any achievments of Christains. This calendar was created by Christian people, and these educated people who feel guilty about the sex orgies they had in college wants any thing of tradition erased. Here's an idea, how about if they create something themselves, then they can keep the greatness. I will now go out of my way to put AD when I write the year, just because of you dorks. I did just write 11-1-70 for my birthday. I now will write Nov 1rst 1970 A.D. What if I was offended by the word burrito? and I felt that all races ate burritos, so why does it have a Spanish Name. I now rename the Burrito, the Wrap. From hence forward, it shall be called the wrap. The Mexicans invented burritos, they have the right to the name. Come to think of it, they are calling things wraps now.

Hang on a moment, the Christians did not invent the calendar. They changed its zero date and made a minor improvement to the leap year cycle (after worrying for a long time about the date of Easter). They instituted a seven day week. Otherwise, it comes from the Romans who probably based it on Greek/Egyptian ideas. See Julian Calendar and Gregorian Calendar.

---

However, Common Era has been an alternate designation for anno domini for some time. Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses use the designation because they recognize the need for a common calendar, but do not accept the divinity of Christ.

You are missing key points of the Wikipedia project: comprehension and a neutral point of view. We all have strong opinions one way or another. However, we strive in an encyclopedia to maintain neutrality. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, atheists, and others read our articles on religion. We may put forward a point of view, but we may not present that point of view as the sole truth. We must allow conflicting interpretations to be heard, even if we disagree.

I hope that you continue to write and contribute. I do suggest thinking before letting your emotions dominate your writing. This is not a message board; this is a living document.--GABaker

Moved back to Common Era

This article should be moved to Common Era (and un-redirected from Anno Domini!). (The article name "Common Era prime" is just temporary) Sbwoodside 04:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is a split off from Anno Domini ... see Talk:Anno Domini for details. I wrote the first revision from scratch and then added the content on the subject from the AD article to here and deleted it from the AD article.Sbwoodside 04:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Common Era was moved to Anno Domini at some point, now it's back. I wrote a new article from scratch and then added the elements that survived the transition to AD back into the article. This article is about the designation, Common Era, what it means, where it comes from, why it is used, and why some people object to it being used.

Personally, I prefer CE and think it should be used by secular institutions (obviously the Xian church can and probably should keep using AD/BC...) but since this is wikipedia that's not how I wrote the article. However I think that it should be clear at a minimum that a) CE is not just political correctness and b) Common Era is used enough on its own that it deserves its own article....

If someone wants to beef up this article I would suggest going to a university library and doing a periodicals/journals article search on it. There's probably been scholarly papers on the subject of why use it, and how much is it being used (like a survey of usage of CE). Sbwoodside 02:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An interesting (but not really scientific) test is to carry out a Google search for the terms. Clearly you can't search for BC/CE/AD etc., but a search for ["Anno Domini" OR "Before Christ"] yielded 155,000 English pages. A search for ["Common Era"] yielded 32,300 English pages ('Common Era' should also pick up 'Before Common Era'). As I said, not scientific, but it perhaps indicates the relative popularity of the terms. This new article seems to over emphasise the popularity of CE. I think it's fair to say that 'CE/BCE' is increasing in use in North America but is relatively unknown in Europe and much of the rest of the world. It has been said by numerous contributors that "most" or even "virtually all" recent history and archaeology text books use the CE notation (even British ones). I have a fair collection of recent historical text books. I think the notation is used in just one of them. Arcturus 19:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately the social sciences seem to be very poorly represented on the web. I think that a literature search at a library would be necessary to be accurate. Sbwoodside 05:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might be right. I've just obtained a copy of a major new publication in th UK called "Ancient History" by J.M. Roberts. It uses CE/BCE exclusively, and because of the subject matter the terms are used extensively. I understand that Roberts died a few years ago. He was, shall we say, a traditional English academic. As such, I wonder if he used CE/BCE in his original manuscript; I suspect not. Much more likely that a recent editor has modified the text. This might also explain use of the ridiculous term 'Humankind' instead of 'Mankind'. Arcturus 07:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The terms CE and BCE are virtually unknown and unrecognisable in the UK. I have never seen a UK English style guide that even recognises that they could be used to indicate dates. As far as how popular a term they are, google does offer a general guide. Of course, we expect google will have a bias towards academic articles in this regard (think about when anyone would use the term!).

When using google searches, I also bear in mind that when searching for '250 BC' or '460 BCE' one could find a vacuum cleaner rather than an article on some aspect of history. But searching on a date followed by BC and the same date followed by BCE, and a date preceded by AD and the same date followed by CE, some idea of CE/BCE's popularity can be found.

Approximately 1 in 10 of the articles used CE/BCE. 9 in 10 used AD/BC. The articles using CE/BCE were almost all American (with the very very occasional Canadian or Israeli site mixed in).

Although this is only a rough test, some things can be concluded. The most popular formation worldwide is clearly AD/BC by a long, long way, and the terms CE/BCE have only limited currency outside the US. jguk 19:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Religious' vs 'Irreligious'

I have reverted again:

1. the comment about some irreligious countries is untrue (back it up with sources).
2. What is meant by irreligous countries?
3. Isn't your answer to 2 going to be POV?
4. The current phrasing has weasel terms. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms
5. Isn't your claim that the US is religious going too far? Some Americans are religious, many aren't?
6. The whole claim is misleading. The term Common Era, insofar as it does have currency (which is limited), has that currency in the US. Any google search will show the overwhelming majority of instances of CE/BCE dates are for US sites; and perusal of a library will show that the overwhelming majority of instances of CE/BCE are in US books.

If you're going to make claims such as this (i) you need to be specific rather than using weasel words; (ii) you need to cite your sources. jguk 08:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing me to the weasel terms and peacock terms (avoiding use of) articles. They are a real eye opener! In the light of what they have to say it appears that this article should be scrapped, or at the very least completely re-written, and that goes for many other articles. It's interesting that the weasel and peacock articles themselves are nothing but blatant opinion on how one should write.Arcturus 13:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't need to be scrapped. But it certainly could be improved. Ideally the article would refer to some properly researched evidence supporting how common these terms are, and how common they are understood. Unfortunately I can't help - of the British usage guidance I have looked at, none even refers to the terms. This is indicative of the terms not being in general usage here - but it's only negative assurance. A report from a reputable, well-researched guide would be useful. I just don't know where to get one:) jguk 19:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit of internet research of the usage. So far I've only come up with this Q&A on the Chicago Manual of Style website, seemingly asked by a propronent of BCE/CE:

Q. Do you recommend the use of BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead of BC and AD? Has the debate about these been settled or is it still in flux?

A. We are not aware of any intense debate. The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated. Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so.

Perhaps someone should direct them to the intense debate on Wikipedia:) jguk 21:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BCE/ CE in the UK

The point I made, which you have singularly ignored, is : CE and, to a lesser extent BCE, are common enough in the UK to suggest that most partly-educated people know what they mean, and also to suggest that their use is more common than in largely christian countries. What part of this do you disagree with and why? The wording was 'more irreligious' not totally irreligious: which, by any definition, the UK in general and Scotland in particular are less religious than the U.S. Your claims that CE and BCE are almost completely unknown in the UK are ludicrous and false. The Rev of Bru

Google search pages from the UK only for the term 'Common Era.' Result: 254,000 pages found. Google search pages from the UK only for the term 'Anno Domini' Result: 6,550 pages found. Clearly Common Era is far more common than you think. This means more pages should refer to that fact. Notwithstanding that, more pages should use CE because it is not offensive, it does not promote the Christian POV, and it is more accurate (since Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, was not even born in the year '1') You might also like to look at this link, it sources from an authority I'm sure you will accept http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2007739.stm

The Rev of Bru

This discussion is about usage of the abbreviations BCE/CE - so your google searches are not relevant to this. Though I will, in passing, note that my google search gives a somewhat different result [2] and [3]. (If you had given me the URLs of your google search I could check what you're looking at yourself.) I take it you meant your link to refer more to the comments you're making on irreligion. It states that 'A Kirk survey found that the number of Scots claiming to have no religion matched the number of Church of Scotland members.' But there are many other Christian denominations other than the Church of Scotland in Scotland. (I'm sure you could name many more such denominations than me.) This does not say that there are as many Christian Scots as there are Scots with no religion.

Returning to the point in hand - if you are aware of a proper academic report into the usage of BCE/CE, let us have it. As noted above, I have been unable to find a UK usage guide that even recognises the term. jguk 18:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didnt give you a google link because all you have to do is go to google, enter the phrases, and see for yourself. I disagree on the validity: Searching for a short string of letters throws up thousands of irrelevant pages, so much so that the entire search is useless. Only by searching for the entire phrase can you see relative useage. According to the search, which anyone can do for themselves at www.google.co.uk, Anno Domini is a very rarely used term, while common era is much more likely in the UK. Are you sure you are from the UK? If you were, you might know that the Church of Scotland is by far the largest denomination here, with the irreligious being second most common by a few percent. Style guides have absolutely nothing to do with the point in hand. Most, if not almost all, educated people in the UK know what the terms CE and BCE mean. That is the point; that is what you are trying to deny. More pages should use CE because it is not offensive, it does not promote the Christian POV, and it is more accurate (since Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, was not even born in the year '1')The Rev of Bru

I've been to google, but can't replicate the results you quote. Please provide the link. Searching for "Anno Domini" and "Common Era" is no indication of the usage of the abbreviations BCE/CE. I agree searching just on BCE or CE gives meaningless results too. As I note above, we need to see proper research on usage if we are to make definitive comments that it is generally understood in the UK.

I am English, so I am not familiar with how large the Church of Scotland is in Scotland. I'm sure most people in the world are equally unfamiliar, and the world is Wikipedia's readership. If you are going to say there are more people in Scotland who responded to that particular survey that they have no religion than who say they are Church of Scotland - that in itself, is meaningless. If you also state that X% of Scots responding to that survey have no religion, or Y% of Scots identified themselves as Church of Scotland in that survey - then, it is meaningful. But without putting the statement into a context that can be internationally understood, it is meaningless to most people. I'm also not sure that that statement would fit in any article other than one on the Church of Scotland itself. If you've got the figures for X and Y, and can supply a verifiable reference for them, maybe you'd like to add the data there. jguk 20:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link for Google UK is www.google.co.uk . Then you click on 'search pages from the UK only,' click in the little text box and enter the phrase in that, and then press 'search.' Indicating popular comprehension from a web search, apparently more people would know what Common Era is rather than would know what Anno Domini is. You can see that for yourself. I don't see what is not easy to understand about 'countries with a higher proportion of irreligious people'. By any survey conducted in the last few years, Scotland has a high proportion of irreligious people compared to the US. Other European countries also have less religious peoples than the US, mainly coinciding by the standards of education in the country. These people are far more likely to know what the term common era means. It is simple fact, and I cannot see why you are so loath to include it in the article. Does this statement of fact offend you? Does it offend your beliefs in some way? Do you think stating the facts in a NPOV way is against policy? The question is whether or not countries with a higher proportion of non-religious people have more use of the non-religious dating system. i think that is pretty obvious what the answer is.The Rev of Bru

I've finally worked out how you did your search. A link would have been nice. It's [4]. Your search is in error, however. You have searched for articles that contain the words 'common' and 'era' anywhere in the article, regardless of whether they are together or not. For instance, this page [5] was one of the first 100 to appear. I'm sure you'll agree that that page has nothing to do with this point. To perform a search of the phrase 'Common Era' together (ie of sites where the words common and era appear next to each other and in that order) you need to put double quote marks around the phrase: "Common Era". The correct search is here: [6], which gives startlingly different results. There are 2,210 UK sites (including some duplicates) using the term 'Common Era' and 4,850 using the term 'Anno Domini' [7]. I don't know what point this makes other than the one that you were quoting incorrect data.

On your point of using the phrase 'countries with a higher proportion of irreligious people'. It is imprecise. Where you've used it it implies that the UK is irreligious, where in fact only about 15 or 16% have no religion. It is not backed up by data about the US. Maybe you could reconstruct the phrase along the lines of 'in countries where a smaller proportion of the population is Christian....', whilst providing references to the differing proportions of each population is Christian. However, I don't think you're overall point: that BCE/CE is more common in the UK than in the US is true - and you certainly have not demonstrated it.

As stated above, I have not seen the abbreviations BCE/CE in the UK other than when I have been reading material written and produced in the US (and in your discussions here). (That doesn't mean the abbreviations are never, ever used, but it does show why I am extremely sceptical of your assertion.) I have not seen a UK usage or style guide that even refers to the term. This is not true of US usage and style guides: the ones I have seen refer to the term even if they advise not to use it. Internet searches show the occurrences of BCE/CE are almost all on US websites. If you are going to make assertions such as yours, you must quote evidence to back up your claim: so far you have failed to do so.

In short, if you (or indeed anyone else) are to add assertions you must produce verifiable evidence that they are correct, they must be precisely stated and they must be relevant to the matter in hand. In the spirit of precision, I will double check the reference I quoted on irreligion and see if I need to correct it. jguk 18:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Numerous occurrences of BCE/CE in the UK

I have added some material about the use of these abbreviations in British schools to the article.

Entries for BCE and BC are found in all British dictionaries which I could find including the The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. In both recent editions of Fowler's Modern English Usage, the abbreviations are rather hidden, but they are referenced under AD and BC. However the Oxford Guide to Style[8] includes them in 7.11.2, stating:

Some authors prefer to described it as the Common Era, designating CE instead of AD and BCE instead of BC; the choice is theirs.

That final clause is instruction that editors should not change such usage. The abbreviations also appear in the following table of similar indicated with attached explanations. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage gives them their own articles.

Some examples of British books by British authors that use CE and BCE rather than AD and BC: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

The expressions appear in the titles of courses offered by the University of Oxford [20] and by Cambridge in their discussion of Hebrew and Aramaic courses[21]. I could not find names of courses offered by Cambridge on that site. Courses with BCE in the title are also offered by the University of Edinburgh [22]. The Edinburg Dictionary of Continental Philosophy Style guide recognizes both AD/BE and CE/BCE. I stopped searching universities at that point. See also the history category divisions at the bottom of a page from Oxford University Press[23].

The abbreviations are used casually by British bookstore sites [24], [25], [26].

If the abbreviations are used less in Britain than in North America, they are obviously widely used.

Jallan 05:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still can't see what you're referring to in Fowler's. The entries I'm reading for BC and AD don't give any mention of CE/BCE or "Common Era". I hadn't realised what the mad liberals in the Department of Education had been up to here - they've completely transformed the UK education system so that pupils work harder than ever, but come out of school less qualified for professional life than ever before. However, you note the opposition to it - and clearly if the terms have only been referred to in schools in the last 2-3 years, that suggests that most people in the UK don't actually understand the terms BCE/CE (as indicated by the newspaper reports you quote). Either way, we can see that BC/AD are used universally by the main media (newspapers, TV and radio (well, "hear" rather than "see" for radio)). The evidence you cite suggests currency in purely academic fields alongside BC/AD, but none outside of academic fields. I think the article now reflects that. jguk 10:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the external link to the Evening Standard report (whoever did it). I particularly like the following quotation from the article:

The Rev Rod Thomas of Reform, the Church of England's evangelical network, said: "What they are attempting to do is educate children into believing there is a way of measuring our calendar that takes its dates from an event, the significance of which, they are trying to deny."

This says it all really. Arcturus 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid the Rev. Thomas actually misses the point entirely. The question is NOT whether the event that serves as the basis for our calander is significant or insignificant. Clearly it is significant. The question is, what is the significance. Proponents of BC and AD are suggesting that the significance of the event is the birth of "our" lord and savior. This is POV and most people simply consider it false. Whaverve happened at that null point in time, my lord and savior was most definitely not born. But I agree aht a significant event did occur: someone was born that was of central importance to the dominant culture on earth today. The significance has nothing to do with the nature or charcter of whoever was born, it has to do with the political and economic power enjoyed y cultures who, for whatever reasons, find his birth notable. Christian civilization, by the time of the age of discovery in the 16th century, had come to dominate, and its calander had come to dominate. That is pretty damn significant! I am more than willing to recognize this significance. The Christians have imposed on non-Christians a calandar that marks its start 200 years ago. Thus, the past 2000 years represent an era held in common by many people, including non-Christians. I am content to call it the "common era" That strikes me as accurate and NPOV. Slrubenstein

I'm afraid it appears that it's you (Slrubenstein) who's missing the point. The statement from the reverend is absolutely the case. If you don't like the christian calendar and its BC/AD notation then use another calendar; don't try and modify it.Arcturus 17:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. No one owns the calandar. The Christian religion doesn't own it, nor do you. Anyone can try to change it if they want. Whether they are successful or not is another thing, but a huge number of scholars, journalists, and popular writers now use the notation "CE" and BCE." You know, Marco Polo got noodles from China and the Italians turned it into Spaghetti. Americans got the Burrito from Mexico and created the chimichanga. People modify things all the time. Deal with it -- it is your problem, not mine. But as far as Wikipedia goes, we must adhere to NPOV policy which means using BCE and CE. Slrubenstein

So it would be alright to start using the Islamic calendar but object to the AH/H notation - or even suggest it be changed to some other letters (and try and promote this idea), simply because one doesn't believe that Muhammad was anyone special? I think most, if not all, muslims would find that offensive. As for BC/AD being POV - what!! These terms have been used for centuries and all of a sudden someone comes along and says they are 'Point of View', and by implication 'CE/BCE' isn't. No, if POV relates to this argument - and I don't actually believe it does - then the new idea which is trying to replace the established custom is surely POV. In any event, as I understand POV as applied in Wikipedia it's about putting a balanced argument - points for, and points against, within an article when discussing controversial issues.Arcturus 21:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page move

The general policy on Wikipedia is that articles should be under the most common name for a subject. In this instance, the most common name for the subject is "Christian Era", not "Common Era". Certainly most dictionaries I've looked at have "see Christian Era" under "Common Era". Also google returns 233,000 hits for "Christian Era", and only 67,800 for "Common Era". I therefore propose to move the page to its more natural home. jguk 13:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, your Google count is going to be terribly inaccurate here, as "Christian era" refers to much more than the CE numbering system, whereas this is the primary meaning of "Common era". Secondly, if you could name the dictionaries referenced, that'd be great. I don't have that many available to me, but only one (Merriam-Webster) actually directly points to "Christian era". Houghton-Mifflin, for instance, says "The period coinciding with the Christian era", which as with the Google search simply refers to the broader meaning. -- Perey 14:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, this article is called "Common Era" - not "CE/BCE numbering system" (though you may prefer it is moved to such a name). I disagree with you entirely that the primary meaning of "Common era" is the CE/BCE numbering system, and I note below the definitions of "Common era" and "Christian era" on a range of internet dictionaries selected based on what yahoo.co.uk comes up with. To me (and to these dictionaries) "Common era" is entirely synonymous with "Christian era". Note that none of them defines "common era" as "the CE numbering system" as you suggest. jguk 19:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

Yahoo reference dictionary

Common era: The period coinciding with the Christian era. [27]

Christian era: The period beginning with the birth of Jesus. [28]

Wordsmyth

Common era: 1. see Christian Era. [29]

Christian era: 1. in Christianity, the era beginning at the birth of Jesus Christ, about 1 A.D. [30]

Wordnet

Christian era, common era -- (the time period beginning with the year of Christ's birth)

FreeDictionary.com

Common era - the time period beginning with the supposed year of Christ's birth [31]

Christian era - the time period beginning with the supposed year of Christ's birth [32]

Marriam-Webster online

Main Entry: Common Era Function: noun

CHRISTIAN ERA

Main Entry: Christian era Function: noun

the period dating from the birth of Christ

Word Assault

No entry for “common era”

Christian era: the present era, commencing with the birth of Christ. It is supposed that owing to an error of a monk (Dionysius Exiguus, d. about 556) employed to calculate the era, its commencement was fixed three or four years too late, so that 1890 should be 1893 or 1894.

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary

No definition of “common era”

the Christian Era noun [S] the period of time which begins with the birth of Jesus Christ [33]

Allwords.com

Common Era noun 1. A culturally neutral term for the present era, reckoned since the birth of Christ, sometimes used instead of anno domini. See also BCE. [34]

Christian era noun 1. The period of time from the birth of Jesus Christ to the present. [35]

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Common era: ...abbr. C.E. The period coinciding with the Christian era.... [36]

Christian era: The period beginning with the birth of Jesus. [37]

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Common era: noun another term for CHRISTIAN ERA. [38]

Christian era: noun the era beginning with the traditional date of Christ’s birth. [39]

MSN Encarta

Com·mon E·ra

noun Christian Era: the Christian Era, especially as used in reckoning dates [40]

Chris·tian E·ra

noun period since the birth of Jesus Christ: the period of history dating from the year in which Jesus Christ is believed to have been born. Dates in the early Christian Era are often indicated by ad, and dates before the Christian Era by bc. [41]

Rhymezone

Common era: noun: the time period beginning with the year of Christ's birth

Christian era: noun: the time period beginning with the year of Christ's birth [42]

jguk 19:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's fairly comprehensive, thanks! But let me clarify with regards to Christian Era/Common Era/CE. The Christian era is quite literally the era of Christianity for any given place or culture. With regards to the whole world, the Christian era is taken to be the AD epoch, for numbering purposes. In contrast, there is no "Common era" independent of dating. What would it be the era of, commonness? However, when in the context of a dating system, "Common era" logically means "the commonly accepted era (for dating systems)".

Dictionaries define "Common era" with reference to "Christian era" because it's the best explanation of where it comes from. "Christian era" is a logically understandable phrase, and "Common era" derives from it. Now, in my experience, "Common era" is the preferred term in the dating context (Encarta, at least, supports me on this—"especially as used in reckoning dates"). Naturally I don't assume my experience to be wholly representative, but when I came to this page, I was reassured by the indications that others had the same opinion.

Note that none of them defines "common era" as "the CE numbering system" as you suggest. That would be backwards. The CE numbering system comes from the "Common (or Christian!) era", not vice versa. -- Perey 03:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right to say that "Common Era" derives from "Christian Era". The first people to use the term, I guess, would have been Christians living in overwhelmingly Christian countries, and the term would easily have been understood as synonymous. You then go on to say there is no "Common Era" independent of dating. I think you mean "common era" (with a small "c") - as it may be used in saying "two fossils of dinosaurs share a common era". But that's not what this article's about - it's about "Common Era".

This article should reflect what "Common Era" means. It's dictionary definition is a starting point. So is the evidence that "Christian Era" is the more common term. I must say that, before doing any research on the internet, that I was likewise reassured by comments others had made here, and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), that "Common Era" was the preferred term over "Christian Era". However, I was surprised by my own results: it seems clear that the overwhelming preference is for "Christian Era" over "Common Era".

As far as the dating system is concerned - first I note that the article should not primarily be about it (as we both note the article is called "Common Era", not the "CE numbering system). On the other hand, the article would be missing something if it did not refer to the CE numbering system. Second - I don't know what you mean by saying the CE numbering system is preferred. Preferred by whom? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of the general public. Even internet searches, which I would guess are biased towards usage by academics, historians and the like, and bias towards US usage, suggest that the BC/AD notation has a 9:1 advantage over BCE/CE.

The article needs to reflect the facts dispassionately, not reflect opinions of what a small minority would like. I am concerned that it has been influenced by those who wish to promote an alternative numbering system at the expense of reflecting accuracy. I am, of course, willing to look dispassionately at whatever sources and research others can provide. But ask others to look dispassionately at the sources I quote too. jguk 08:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you mean "common era" (with a small "c") - as it may be used in saying "two fossils of dinosaurs share a common era". But that's not what this article's about - it's about "Common Era". I have no idea what you mean by this. I am saying that "Common Era" doesn't have a meaning independent of its use in numbering years. If I meant "small-c common", as you suggest, then it would have an independent meaning (if a very broad one): "any era common to two things". "Big-C Common" means the epoch starting in the year 1 (CE or AD). It is defined to be this and has no other use except this. "Christian Era" comes from the rise of Christianity and can be used as a concept in history, for instance—but the Common Era is nothing but an epoch for numbering years.

As for the "CE Numbering System", this is nothing but a combination of the Common Era as a point of reference with standards of year length and basic mathematics (year 1, year 2, year 3...). It's what the idea of a Common Era (the "commonly" accepted reference) is for. I don't know what you're saying this article should be about if not numbering years. Common Era and CE numbering are twin concepts. CE numbers require reference to the Common Era to explain them, and the Common Era has no use unless you're numbering years.

I don't know what you mean by saying the CE numbering system is preferred. Preferred by whom? I don't recall saying this, not without answering the question you pose. I know perfectly well that CE/BCE is not generally preferred to AD/BC. All I can find myself or anyone saying is that "Common era" is preferred to "Christian era" and that CE (with either meaning) is preferred to AD/BC by certain people. -- Perey 10:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common Era/Christian Era debate

I had added this at the top of the page in hopes it would be more visible (I hate that these pages aren't in reverse chron order!), but here it is down at the bottom with the rest of this discussion.

There has been some disagreement about the place and significance of the term "Christian era" on this page. For my part, I believe that, although it may pre-date "common era," the term "Christian era" has been specifically applied as an alternative to "common era" notation. I did my own google search of pro- and anti-common era viewpoints on the web before I wrote anything about it in the article itself.

"Christian era" may indeed be more commonly used in some speech communities, but this article is not about which term with the initials "CE" is more widely used. Rather, it is about the term "common era" and its use as an alternative to BC/AD notation. I believe any dispassionate review of the evidence will show that within the context of this article, the term "Christian era" should be nothing more than a footnote.

I should also add that dictionary definitions are irrelevant here. Any dictionary will tell you that the common and Christian eras describe the same period of time. They will also say that "CE" and "BCE" can refer to the Christian era as well as to the common era. But encyclopedia articles aren't (or shouldn't be) primarily about which terms, ideas, or concepts are more popular or widespread. Instead, they should concentrate on describing the topic at hand. Hell, if everyone already knew every entry in an encyclopedia, then why would we need one in the first place?!

Note to Jongarrettuk: You seem to have strong feelings on this subject, yet your edit comments often range from the cryptic to the nonexistent. This makes collaboration difficult. Before you reintroduce your preferred edits yet again, please talk a bit with the rest of us.

--Dablaze 05:57, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Your most recent edits (as of 5 mins or so ago) appear more or less reasonable, accurate and NPOV. Good work. And yes, it does seem to hang together much better now, though you will see me make small changes. jguk 13:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gee, thanks.

I see from your latest edit that you changed "AD 1" to "birth of Jesus Christ." Same thing, I suppose, but I've noticed here and in the Chinese art article that you seem very intent on showcasing Christianity (BC/AD instead of BCE/CE, birth of Jesus Christ instead of AD 1, Christian era this and Christian era that, etc.).

I have no problem with religion. What I do have a problem with is the irrelevant insertion of religious beliefs -- anyone's religious beliefs -- into what's supposed to be an objective encyclopedia article. I won't repeat my thoughts on your agenda here, especially as they're only a few lines above.

So even though you may have had some valid concerns about POV here, you did not bother to share them in an a considerate, or even intelligible way. And in my opinion, you just ended up inserting POV of your own.

Fortunately, someone will probably come along at some point and put in their own changes. I guess that's the beauty of Wikipedia. But I urge you to be a little more communicative and open-minded in your future activities.

--Dablaze 13:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with taking a pro-Christian stance. It's to do with having a NPOV article here and making articles as intelligible as possible to readers in general elsewhere (which generally means using the most common words/construction for things and not using a word/construction that's peculiar to any one regional variety of English). Best to keep the arguments over religion to the religious articles (if they must appear anywhere in Wikipedia). I think we've gotten just about to a NPOV article here. Let's keep it that way. jguk 23:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I did have a compromise to offer, but two edit conflicts later, and after looking at the present state of the article, I'm throwing in the towel and saying it looks good to me too. :-) -- Perey 13:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's edits

Given the spate of controversy in this article of late, I'm going to tread lightly and not revert the last edits, yet. But here's a kickoff of discussion on why they're wrong or at best unnecessary (with the exception of pointing links to Jesus, not Jesus Christ which is a redirect).

• It has/has not entered into general use — There's a long discussion on how widely used Common Era dating is on this page. It seems that the consensus (if any) is that CE is not in general use outside academia and particular writers' preferences.
• ("in the year of our Lord") — Repetitious. Occurs both in the linked article and further on in the present one.
• Dropped half a paragraph in Opposition — As before. Common Era dating isn't widely accepted and used.
• Jesus (Christ) — Fair enough as a link target, but the longer form is appropriate when the context is "majority-Christian societies".
• It is an example of political correctness. — I can't even guess why this was removed. Even if you don't agree, this is a reason why other people oppose Common Era dating, and hence it should be a point in the Opposition section of the Common Era article.

-- Perey 08:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted these as the assertions do not appear to be supported by the evidence we have on this talk page or in the article to date. Neutrality, if you have evidence to support the claims, please quote it here. jguk 10:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)