Talk:Common Era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This is not a page for discussing CE/BCE; it's a page for discussion about Wikipedia's NPOV article on it, so discussions about whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea are not on-topic.

For information about dating styles on Wikipedia, please read the Manual of Style first, and then go to Wikipedia:Eras. Thank you.


Contents

[edit] Archives

Earlier material for this talk page can be found at:


[edit] Please reference sources

A lot of recent edits to this document appear to represent the editors' own arguments about the CE/BCE issue. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please provide references for all claims and arguments. I will delete any further unreferenced additions.

In the near future I will add [citation needed] flags to unsupported material, deleting this material if no one comes up with a reference within a reasonable time.--CJGB (Chris) 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition argument

From the article:

"It has only become popular in the USA due to political correctness/cultural sensitivity, a phenomenon that has no worldwide significance, and is mostly limited to only the United States. Many non-United States of Americans are not even familiar with the Common era terms."

The idea that political correctness/cultural sensitivity is solely an American phenomenon with "no worldwide significance" is ludicrous. The argument even goes on to call U.S. citizens "United States of Americans." Surely we can all see the irony here? If it is true that people outside the U.S. are generally more unfamiliar with the term (I doubt it), then this argument should probably stay in the article, but it definitely needs to be written from scratch. 64.252.16.248 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, CBE/CE are not really all that much used, BC/AD is practically standard. I would say most people here, if they know what CBE/CE means would think of them as Americanisms. LDHan 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:64.252.16.248, I assume you're from the US, as you say you "doubt" that CE/BCE are unfamiliar outside of that country. As per LDHan, the terms are definitely unfamiliar in the UK, and if at all familiar they are associated with the USA. This is the same in all other countries, and because (I assume) you are an US American, you are inherently of USA's POV. (By the way, I use "United States of American" not "American" because there are alot of other countries in "America")— OLP 1999 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses its use in Australia, Canada, UK, and China --JimWae 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am from the UK - and I am familiar with CE/BCE from teaching in a multi-cultural environment in the UK. In recent years, these terms have been and now are as familiar as BC/AD was a generation ago. If you are making accusations of POV, it is important to ensure your own POV is not discounted. Ian Cairns 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
They are certainly *not* as familiar. Most people - those who know better - stick to the old system. 70.53.109.126 14:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
CE/BCE is not in common usage in the UK David n m bond 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We have two people from the UK here contradicting each other. Icairns says CE/BCE is as popular as AD/BC, and LDHan says it is considered an "Americanism" and that AD/BC are the standard there. The fact remains that the general non-USA public, aside from those in the History field and those with higher IQs, know about CE/BCE. I have inserted the "worldwide views" template and think it should remain—many, including Encyclopedia Brittanica (as cited in the article), simply view CE/BCE as "Christian Era" and nothing more— OLP 1999 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a slight clarification: I said that BCE/CE was as _familiar_ as BC/AD, not necessarily as _popular_. I will concede that many older, more conservative, Christian folk would find BC/AD more popular, but, in the modern multi-cultural environment in many parts of the UK, most sensitive souls in my experience would tend to avoid terms which could possibly be taken as religiously-slanted Ian Cairns 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. You're really trying hard, I'll give you that. I'm not religious, so I don't give a shit about using a system that dates from the supposed birth of Jesus. It's just that BCE/CE is the exact same system! Get that through your head. It's not getting rid of religion. Were I a non-Christian I would be offended by the use of BCE/CE. Until someone comes up with a new, better system that is actually different from one already in use, we should stick to the old one. 70.53.109.126 14:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everyone. OLP1999, you are correct in assuming I am from the U.S., however what I said was that I doubted (no need for the scare quotes) it was any MORE unfamiliar outside of this country; the assertions about AD/BC being standard and CE/BCE being much less known are true for the United States, as well, I think. Keep in mind, too, that I am all for keeping this argument in the article if it is true and I gladly defer to you and the other editors to decide on this. Also, I was not knocking the author for using the term United States of American (though, personally, I prefer U.S. citizen), merely using it to illustrate the invalidity of his/her argument that political correctness/cultural sensitivity are uniquely American constructs. The controversy over the naming of citizens of the United States of America is a great example of this phenomenon at work on a global level (especially here on Wikipedia). 64.252.16.248 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

im from canada, and here we use this quite commonly, and its even the official thing to use in the ontario government system.Crawfordknights 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted this in passing and thought it might be useful for me to mention that I'm from the UK, and have never seen the terms used anywhere other than Wikipedia, including school history textbooks and UK websites. I've never heard it spoken at all. It seems to me that the vast majority of Brits seeing/hearing CE/BCE would just be confused, as I was the first time I saw them. Of course, none of this has much to do with the original point, it is indeed true that political correctness is not an exclusively American phenomenon! Modest Genius talk 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offical Verdict

Has an offical verdict been rendered on the issue? If so I will change BCE and CE to BC and AD whenever I see it. --Jorbian 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It matters not how much support AD/BC has, no matter how many votes CE/BCE looses, reason and common sense will not prevail. If you try to improve wikipedia by removing these novelties all you will get is an irrational edit war. Its not worth the effort. ClemMcGann 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, but reason and common sence works. And they can't change everything... --Jorbian 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you exercise reason, reflect on what happened before. There was an attempt to impose a ban on AD/BC Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Common sense pervailed. The attempt failed. Then the proposer of the failed proposal took issue with an editor doing as you suggest. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. It's just not worth it. ClemMcGann 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What's reasonable about making arbitrary changes to things that make little difference one way or the other and will generate a revert war? It's only stirring up trouble.--Prosfilaes 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok... Ok... but I will guard my own articles from this, like I would a store of platinum. --Jorbian 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And how exactly do you determine which articles are yours? — squell 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

well, i think it ould be better to use bce an ce in articles about hinduism, jewism, islam, etc. everything religious and not christian. same for governments that use ce an bce exclusively, only those articles should be changed.Crawfordknights 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view" The majority of the world and the majority of people reading Wikipedia accept the birth of Jesus Christ as a significant point in history. There is a great deal of "reliable sources" that state that Jesus existed. There is no evidence he did not. Weather people believe Jesus was a member of the God head, a prophet or a con artist doesn't really matter. He is a generally accepted and highly significant person in history. Love him or hate him or don't care about him there is way too much evidence that he existed to dispute it. Most religions believe in Jesus, and most people of no faith think he still existed.

Yet it doesn't really matter if you dispute the existence of Christ. The initials "BC" are a part of the English language and is in almost all dictionaries. It has been used through history books and resource material. The origins of words and terms in the English language should not matter to their usage. Plants were often named after Greek gods, are we to rename them next? The origin of names, words and phrases do not matter.

BC and AD are common terms of the English language.. It is globally accepted and has been. We should not change our languages for strange fads.

If the abbreviation AD bothers you, then I guess don't use it. There is no need to use "AD" unless you are talking about a time in history relevant to Christ. In which case AD is less offensive then saying "The birth of Jesus Christ" If anything AD is more "politically correct". Still i was born in 1977 not 1977ad. And there is not such thing as an "ATM Machine" ATMs are made by people not machines.

According to Wikipedia's own page on "NPOV" "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented"Mantion 06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence removal

I removed the sentence "Conversely, Roman and Norse religious references are perhaps of less concern because they are dead religions and so do not elevate one population over another" from the opposition section. While there's a fundamental nugget of truth in the sentence there's a few important issues with it, in my opinion. Firstly the "dead religions" line isn't strictly true, there is still a (small) group of pagans who worship the old Norse and to a lesser extent Roman gods. The "do not eleveate one population over the other" both scans horribly (religions can't elevate populations per se, it's only followers of religions who can do so), smacks a little of POV (as it implies that the AD/BC system has a role in elevating Christianity/Christians) and isn't reflected in the cited source. Finally, and most importantly IMO, it's a little out of step to include a counter argument in a section titled "opposition". There's nothing inherantly wrong with offering counter-arguments (this particular argument certainly leaves itself open to them) but it really should be done evenly: either all the proffered arguments have counter-arguments next to them or none of them do. Countering some arguments but not others is stepping into the realms of POV. --Daduzi talk 12:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact template

I have added fact templates to two block quotations in Common Era#Origins. The first quotation claims to be from Peter Daniels but fails to say in what publication the quote appears. The second claimes to be from a gravestone in Plymouth, England, but neither identifies a publication in which the quote appears, not gives directions to the location of the grave. Before placing the fact citations, I did a brief Google search and only found sites that appear to be quoting Wikipedia. If sources are not provided in a reasonable time I will remove the quotations. --Gerry Ashton 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 AD =? birthyear

Near the beginning of the article we find the phrase "the period of measured time beginning with the year 1, the traditional birthyear of Jesus". However, as discussed in Anno Domini#History of Anno Domini, the person who first proposed the Anno Domini epoch, Dionysius Exiguus, left the birth year of Jesus unclear:

  • He may have considered the Incarnation to be the conception of Jesus, also known as the Annunciation.
  • He may have considered the Incarnation to be the Nativity of Jesus.
  • He may have intended the Incarnation to occur in what today we would label 2 BC, 1 BC, or 1 AD. (The year 2 BC is a possibility because one of the year start-dates Dionysius used was the beginning of Emperor Diocletian's reign, 29 August.)

This article is not the place for an extended discussion of when the nominal Incarnation occured in the AD system, but the article should not contain a statement that many scholars do not agree with. Can anyone come up with a concise rewrite that reflects the uncertainty about the exact date of the AD epoch?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs).

  • Perhaps an acceptable rewrite would be along the lines of "the period of measured time beginning with the traditional birthdate of Jesus", since we know that the AD system is based on Jesus' birth, but do not know if Exiguus intended 1 BC or 1 CE as the actual year.— OLP 1999 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't read Latin, but in the translations I've read (see reference sections of Dionysius Exiguus or Anno Domini), Dionysius refers to the Incarnation, not the Nativity. He may or may not have considered them to be the same. So "traditional birthdate" may not be correct. We could say "traditional Incarnation", but that would be misleading because the modern meaning of Incarnation is conception. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, upon review of the Common Era article it appears as though someone has removed any reference to Jesus altogether. I suppose this could work but if you want to incorporate Jesus into the opening paragraph then it could be a confusing dilemma for word choice.— OLP 1999 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregorian

JimWae introduced the word "Gregorian" in an edit dated 19:50, 9 October 2006 UTC. However, AD and BC were introduced hundreds of years before the Gregorian calendar, therefore, the initials AD and BC do not necessarily mean the Gregorian calendar is being used. As far as I know, CE and BCE are completely chronologically equivalent, so CE and BCE also do not necessarily imply the Gregorian calendar. --Gerry Ashton 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I suppose a better wording of that section could thus be "the period of measured time beginning with the traditional time–frame of Jesus' birth", but I'd also like to hear your take on what should be done.— OLP 1999 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I left an invitation on JimWae's talk page to discuss this here; in the second paragraph of the introduction the article says "Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not remedy the pivotal year 1 still centering on the supposed year of Jesus' birth" so I suppose we could concentrate on a better word or phrase for Gregorian in the first paragraph, and leave the birth vs. Incarnation issue for the second paragraph. I don't like something as vague as "time-frame" because there are other estimates in the same time-frame by authors other than Dionysius. --Gerry Ashton 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think the article states that AD implied Gregorian, does it? Perhaps that Gregorian implies AD & BC, but that is not the issue & who has a problem with that?
  • I do not think my edit says CE necessarily means Gregorian either. 800 CE would not imply Gregorian. After adoption of Gregorian, the connection is a contingent connection, rather than a necessary one. The term "year 1 on Gregorian Calendar" does not mean the Gregorian Calendar was in use in year 1
  • Chronologically equivalent does not mean semantically equivalent. Were the 2 terminologies semantically equivalent, then necessary implication could become a concern.
  • The CE article now says
    The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1, on the Gregorian calendar.
  • The Gregorian calendar article says:
    Its years are numbered based on the traditional birth year of Jesus Christ, which is labeled the "anno Domini" era
  • There appears also to be the same "problem" raised re "birth year" on the Gregorian calendar article - well maybe not, since it is just "based on"
  • I am aware that under the Julian calendar it was not the year 1 at all. The Gregorian calendar article says it "includes year numbering". If that is determined (somehow) to be incorrect, I think the wording I have offered is still completely unambiguous - and it would still not be inaccurate to say "year 1 on the Gregorian calendar". Absent a "better" wording, I see no problem in leaving it as is - --JimWae 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the more clear-cut problem is the statement "the Common Era system of notation is completely chronologically equivalent with dates on the Gregorian calendar." This says outright that all Common Era dates are on the Gregorian calendar, which is not the case.
The first sentence in the article, which you quoted above, is OK in the sense that the year AD 1 Gregorian mostly overlapped with the year AD 1 Julian; 1 January AD 1 Gregorian is 3 January AD 1 Julian; it may just confuse someone who wonders why the word Gregorian would be applied to a year that occured about 1500 years before the Gregorian calendar was invented. --Gerry Ashton 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw that just a few minutes ago and changed it. --JimWae 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the outright error that had a potential for causing some genuine confusion is resolved; thanks JimWae. I still see two related issues:

  • The first is matter of indirectness. The first sentence reads "The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1, on the Gregorian calendar." Understanding this sentence requires several steps; the Gregorian calendar uses the same year count as the Julian calender as it was practiced in Christianity in 1582 CE. That year count in turn is based on a year 1 adopted by Dionysius Exiguus. Dionysius chose that year on the basis of his estimate of the incarnation of Jesus. A statement that links the system more directly to what the system is based on would be better.
  • The second matter is the sentence "Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not remedy the pivotal year 1 still centering on the supposed year of Jesus' birth." The translations I've read (see the reference list for Dionysius Exiguus or Anno Domini indicate that Dionysius counted time from the incarnation of Jesus, not necessarily the birth of Jesus. While in modern times, incarnation is considered synonymous with conception, some ancient writers (including Bede) consider incarnation and birth synonymous.

[edit] Other Calendar Eras

This section contains the item:

The Neo-Pagan Calendars include that used by many pagan religions today, often called the Wheel of the Year.

There is no such thing as a "Neo-Pagan calendar." Different Neo-Pagan faiths may use different calendars, but few if any use dating systems that do not match CE; the Wheel of the Year relates to the seasons and dates of a given year. I'm going to yank this item if no one objects strenuously. Septegram 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregorian versus Julian

Joe Kress changed the first sentence to read "The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 of the Julian or Gregorian calendars." JimWae then edited the ending of the sentence to read "year 1 on the Gregorian calendar." and stated his reason in the edit summary: "to whatever degree Julian calendar includes year numbers, it was not year 1 on Julian calendar."

The problem with this reasoning is that the Gregorian calender did not exist in 1 CE either. Whenever 1 CE or AD 1 is written, it indicates a relatively modern person is extrapolating our current year numbering system back several hundred years. In come cases, the person doing the extrapolation is not being precise enough to care about the difference between the two calendars, but when precision is needed, the extrapolator might use either calender, depending on his purpose. So I am restoring the version with the reference the Julian calendar. --Gerry Ashton 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It does not matter that the Gregorian calendar did not exist then. The Gregorian calendar (at least according to our article on it) DID include a numbering system for years - and so did include a year 1. The Julian calendar did not necessarily include year numbers & if it did, would have noted something about Rome - not taking note of any event in the life of Jesus as year 1. "Year 1 on Gregorian calendar" is unambiguous. "Year 1 on Julian calendar" is not. Your revert is misplaced --JimWae 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not think of your point about the Gregorian calender having always been associated with the common era, but the Julian calendar being associated with many eras. I have undon my revert, and added a paragraph about the Julian and Gregorian calendars. --Gerry Ashton 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epoch is nativity or conception?

A discussion is on progress on Talk:Anno Domini. Since Common era#Chronology and notation lists "Anno Domini as the main article, I believe the question should be decided on the Anno Domini talk page, and once resolved, any necessary edits to this article be made. --Gerry Ashton 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See Epoch is nativity or conception? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contest Section, pro con CE

I contest the current state of this section for the following reasons. The format for the section, of pro and con, is unencyclopedic and argumentative. The points seem to be foils for one another: it has been widely accepted, it has not been widely accepted; it is confusing, it is not confusing, &c. This section only uses two sources, both internet sites, one of which (a BBC how to guide) is referenced nine times. It is the sole support for 9 points. The second website is only referenced concerning one point, and the site itself uses the first as one of its sources. A further two points are unsourced. Thus of the total points 75% come from one internet site source, and of the sourced points 90% come from this site. Some of the arguments in the opposition section sound more like a straw-man than a fair summary of the view. Ultimately, the section itself seems a bit too argumentative, and thus at least to appearance employs foils and straw-men. Lastly it employs weasel words like "some argue" without actually expressing who does the arguing, with a source directly to that arguer. Lostcaesar 09:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To be specific about problems with the website that is our only real source, besides the obvious problems of one source itself, is that expresses a (secularist) point of view. It considers the problems with CE to be that, in some sense, it is still based on a religious calendar. It considers arguments in favor of AD to be that it is not overtly religious, and that any religious association it might have is tempered with the fact that it is commonly in use. Thus it does not give a neutral presentation, instead it give a secular one (one which expresses the point of view that something public is better if it does not contain religious elements). This bias is not a problem if the source is one of many with its pov given proper say. But it is serving as the framework for this article, an article that must be neutral. Lastly, the source contains factual errors, such as the statement that the AD dating system is "western", as if it was never used east of the Aegean. Lostcaesar 10:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose one of the pros should be that the dating system is a constant reminder of Jesus and tends to spread awareness of him into areas that use this calender but are non-Christian? --Gerry Ashton 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
To define western as "never used east of the Aegean" would be incredibly limiting. It was defined west of the Aegean, it was established west of the Aegean, and spread east of the Aegean by western societies. --Prosfilaes 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal, on what grounds?

Below are two presentations of the article, the section in bold having been removed, the explination being that it "has no bearing":

The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used, both dividing time according to the traditonal year of the incarnation, and neither including a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.
The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used, and neither including a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

Now I must ask how it can be said that the information provide has "no bearing" on their equivalence. That expressly is the equivalence. I cannot see how this information can be seen as anything other than beneficial information which helps clarify the matter at hand, briefly. I am really just curious, and perhaps a little perplexed, as to why this should be excluded from the introduction. It is a relevant fact that gives the reader important information. Why remove it? Lostcaesar 11:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Adding that to that sentence overly complicates a sentence that needs to CLEARLY state that there is no difference in the numbering of the years. CE could use that year as the year 0 - using the same year does not make them chronologically equivalent. If you feel this must be included in the article, put it in a sentence of its own - however, it is already covered in the introduction twice - and I do not see why it needs to be in the introduction three times
    1. measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar
    2. a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year 1 still centering on the life of Jesus
  • Using "year 1 on Gregorian calendar" sidesteps the lack of certainty of whether the incarnation or the birth is the central event. There is no need to bring in the statement that the year in either system is reckoned by incarnation rather than birth - since ACN clearly uses birth, it is not so clear. CE is indifferent about which inaccurately calculated event AD uses to "divide time". CE does not use the incarnation & it does not use the birth, and does not attempt to correct their being wrongly calculated - all it does it follow the existing numbering of the Gregorian calendar --JimWae 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel "dividing time" is not the best phrase to use. While not incorrect, some people might try to think of dividing time into equal sized periods, as in the mathematical meaning of division. These people would eventually figure out what is meant, but there would be an unnecessary mental hesitation about the meaning. Also, phrases such as "year of the Incarnation" are not ideal, because although this usually refers to the AD system, it can also refer to an Alexandrian system that has an origin about 8 years later. I consider the current introduction satisfactory. --Gerry Ashton 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
JW, I almost removed the phrase about the Gregorian Calendar because it seems wrong to me. BCE / CE & BC / AD can be applied to any solar calendar - all it requires is that a group of solar years is divided into two calculations. Russia used AD without the Gregorian calendar for quite a while. Hence, the Gregorian calendar is really irrelevant here. Maybe we should remove the Gregorian part and keep this phrase, if as its own sentence if you like. Gerry, what phrase would you prefer?Lostcaesar 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an argument against a reversal of concept inclusion. While AD does not require the Gregorian calendar, the Gregorian calendar did include the year numbering also and does require a specific year be used as the start of the era - so saying "year 1 on Gregorian calendar" is unambiguous as to which year is being referred to. See #Gregorian versus Julian and #Gregorian above also --JimWae 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the article makes it clear that CE/BCE is just an alternate notation for AD/BC. I think it is clear to readers that if they want more information about the epoch of the system, they should read the Anno Domini article. Also, the "Chronology and notation" section gives an adequate description of the epoch for a person who does not want to take the trouble to read the "Anno Domini" article. When I first saw the introduction of Gregorian into the article, I didn't think it was right, but I was pursuaded that Gregorian is always associated with AD unless otherwise stated. --Gerry Ashton 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced info in Origins section

These paragraphs were added to the "Origins" section:

The terms CE and BCE appear to originate in Israel after the establishment of the modern state and modern Israeli culture. This probably arose from the natural reluctance of Jewish people to use the terms AD and BC while recognising the importance of the system itself for scholarly and cultural purposes. From there it appears to have been adopted in the US in the universities, and spread from there.

The term is only used in the UK in certain university contexts. It is mandated for use in humanities textbooks by Oxford University Press, for instance. But in the UK it is not otherwise in common use.

I have moved the paragraphs to the talk page until someone can provide a source for this information. --Gerry Ashton 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why? All the information in this section would fail this objection. Roger Pearse 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains several citations. Although the paragraph about "Vulgar" does not cite sources, it could easily be verified in a good dictionary. The paragraph about the gravestone inscription is not well-sourced, in that it does not say exactly where the gravestone in Plymouth, England is. It has been marked as "citation needed" for a while now, and should probably be removed too. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The first blockquote is obviously false because "Common Era" is documented in the article itself as being used in the early twentieth century, well before the modern state of Israel was formed, and centuries earlier via "Vulgar Era". — Joe Kress 05:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph about Christian Era

The following paragraph was just added:

Its usage is not particularly recent; Edward Gibbon, a critic of Christianity, begins his epic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, first published in 1776, with the words "In the second century of the Christian Era".

The section was about using the abbreviations CE and BCE instead of AD and BC. I don't think the new paragraph is relevant unless Gibbon used the abbreviation CE as well as the words Christian Era. --Gerry Ashton 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He uses AD. That same opening paragraph contains a sentence that starts with: "During a happy period (AD 98-180) of more than fourscore years, ..." -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julian day number

West London Dweller added a passage about Julian day number under "Other Eras". Joe Kress deleted the passage on the basis that Julian Day Number does not use an era. Perey restored the passage on the basis that while it may not use an era, it has an epoch. The American Heritage Dictionary's (3rd ed.) first definition for era is "a period of time as reckoned from a specfic date serving as the basis of its chronological system." If we accept this definition, I'd say that Julian day numbers do use an era. --Gerry Ashton 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of western culture

The following statement was added to the Opposition section:

  • The culture of The West is essentially Christian. By erasing its imprints The West essentially destroys its cultural essence

I have moved it to the talk page until a source for the statement is provided. --Gerry Ashton 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three potential improvements:

To employ a Christian system, ad, is, also, a political correctness, theocorrectness, much as is ce. To prominently label one {the latter} thusly, & not do the same regarding the other {former}, seems completely pov. But, most of this website is pov, procapitalist, proChristian, protheist, handicappist, et al.

Further, some of these sentences could be clearer, if broken, from one, into two, possibly into three. More chronological might, as well, help.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that English is probably not your native language, but I think you have a dire misunderstanding of what "political correctness" is. Political correctness is when one changes, or alters, a commonly used word or phrase so as not to "offend" or "exclude" the reader/listener. Since the "common era" designation was created simply as an alternative to anno Domini, with no actual changes from the AD system otherwise, it can be seen as being politically correct. The AD system is in no WAY politically correct, because it professes that "Jesus Christ is the Lord", although that connotation has been somewhat dissociated from AD and BC over the years. For example, if one was to call Wednesday "Third Day" instead, that would be a PC attempt to not "offend non-Norse pagans". — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (my Xmas) 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Political correctness is not necessarily about altering words or phrases. To quote from the wikilink you cited:

The contemporary use of the term political correctness is said to derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line. The term was transformed and used jokingly within the Left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier. In this context, the phrase was applied to either an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or to a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance.

As you point out, BC/BCE is PC, because it is the alteration of a commonly used term so as to avoid giving offence. It was not "created simply as an alternative to anno Domini"; this was done with a rhetorical purpose. The BC/AD terminology at this point is simply an historical artifact; obviously some consider its use to be politically incorrect. MarkBrooks 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage and meaning of the term "Common era"

I haven't got it pieced together, but I'm almost sure there is a lot more to this topic than there is in the article.

There are really two separate questions: a) What are the origins, meaning, usage and connotations of the term "Common era," and b) What are the origins, meaning, usage and connotations of the abbreviations BCE and CE. I'm interested in question "a", the term, not the abbreviation.

What I've found so far is only what I've gathered from context, looking at the way the term is used, particularly in literature of the late 1800s. (In other words, I found out most of this by searching in Google Books for "Common era" and choosing "full view books only," and also in a few other places (the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica online, the Project Gutenberg corpus of texts online, etc.

There are many, many, many uses of the phrase "common era" in the 1800s. It's always in lower case, by the way.

The interesting part is that it does not always mean the Christian era. It is clear that it is a generic term, meaning a common era, of which there are several.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307 Here's another mention of "the common era of the Jews."

And "the common era of the Mahometans."

And "the common era of the foundation of Rome."

Similarly, phrases like "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" [1] and "there is no doubt that the common era of the birth of our Saviour is wrong by four years[2] show, by the fact that they specify which common era is referred to, that the writers thought there were other common eras.

So, "common era" is not a disguise or euphemism (or, if you like, dysphemism) for "Christian era."

When "common era" is used without qualification, it does seem to mean Christian era:

"puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[3]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men.

There are quite a few examples of long passages in which the phrases "common era" and "Christian era" are both used without any apparent distinction, as if the writer simply liked to vary the phrase.

Now, here's what I think is probably going on.

In Memorial Hall at Harvard, there is some inscription which refers an event as occurring in the year "Anno Domini" and in a certain year "Annum Collegium Harvardinum" or something of the sort. I've seen inscriptions in Boston that date things twice: Anno Domini and in the year relative to the founding of Boston (like the Roman "ab urbe condita").

Oh, and in the 1950s, the World Almanac used to have a little table giving the year AD, the Jewish year, the Muslim year, and so forth, and it always included a line like "year 11 of the Atomic Age," as if they thought people were going to date things from the year of the Trinity test.

I've read that in the middle ages, there were no national systems of weights and measures, but every city would have its own miles and hogsheads and ounces and so forth.

So: I suspect that there was a long period of time in which people ordinarily and customarily counted years from some important local event, and gradually there was also widespread adoption of "common" epochs. In order to retain sanity, any official record, or learned history, or anything of the sort, would typically mention two dates, the local one ("year VII of Trajan") and the year of the "common era," which might be the common era of the Christians (i.e. the "Christian era") or the common era of the Jews or some other common era. For that matter, an ancient historian, trying to relate historical events occurring in different locations, would have had to reduce them to some, well, common epoch.

If I can pin any of this down better, I will. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here is an 1856 example and a 1919 example of the use of the abbreviation B. C. E. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation

A user from the IP address 88.110.58.57 recently made an edit that described A.D. and B.C. as abbreviations, and AD & BC as something else derived from those abbreviations. I disagree and have reverted. I belive A.D., B.C., AD, and BC are all abbreviations, and it is just a matter of style which is used. To support this position, I point out this passage from the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., p. 460, §14.2:

It is often an open question whether or not periods should be used with particular abbreviations. The trend now is strongly away from the use of periods with all kinds of abbreviations that have carried them in the past....It is simple enough for user of this manual to omit periods if that is the style they wish to adopt.

--Gerry Ashton 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distraction from (better?) astronomical system

The recent edit by Special:Contributions/Hilesd(re distraction) attributes History Today - June 1999

Here is the list of articles from their site: from http://www.historytoday.com/dt_product.asp?gid=21344&aid=&tgid=&amid=&g21344=x&g21025=x&g21012=x&g19965=x&g19963=x

  • The War Games of Central Italy
  • Islamic Crossroads
  • Jacqueline Guy
  • First Europeans in Australia
  • Saving the Last Destroyer
  • Death of Countess of Blessington
  • Publication of 1984
  • First Performance of Elgar's 'Enigma Variations'
  • When Farmers Grumble
  • The Dutch, the Germans and the Jews
  • Menage a Roi: Edward II and Piers Gaveston
  • When the Boycott Began to Bite
  • Bonaparte at Toulon The Right Man in the Right Place
  • The Boer War and its Humanitarian Critics
  • Drawn to the Ancient World

Which did Darian Hiles (apparently the same person & editor of much recent unsourced arguments diff) write & which is about dating systems - or was it a letter to the editor?--JimWae 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC) There's no "Of Dates and Decimals" article in 1999 at all --JimWae 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a letter, which I've now indicated in Edit page. However it hasn't appeared in the main entry page! Hilesd
Letters to the editor have come up in discussions in the talk page for Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, and the concensus was that letters to the editor are not usually reliable sources, because publications usually do not have the same editorial safeguards for letters as for articles. I think there could be case-by-case exceptions. For example, if a letter was sent to comment about an article, and the author of the article responded, and agreed with the letter, I would consider the letter reliable. Is there any evidence that History Today took greater pains to make sure this letter is reliable than most publications usually take with letters? --Gerry Ashton 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. Yes, History Today placed the letter as an answer by a professional historian to a question by another writer about the start of the millennium. Although it was a letter and not an article, it presented new material and subsequent discussions indicated that it was a significant revelation to people who considered themselves experts in the field and that it influenced attitudes towards the timing of the celebrations.Hilesd 02:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English language national variants?

There have been a few edits recently which changed back and forth between US and UK spelling. Either is fine with me, but the article should be consistent throughout (except for quotes, of course). When the subject of an article is not obviously linked to one English-speaking nation, the usual Wikipedia convention is to follow the choice of the first editor. The earliest version of this article uses the word civilization, which I believe is considered a US spelling variant, so I believe this article should use US spelling. Are there any counter-arguments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that it should be consistent. The spelling of civilization is not solely a US spelling - the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as the main spelling, with civilisation as a variant. That said, the OED is regarded by many as idiosyncratic with its use of -ize and -ization endings. I would be happier if a less ambiguous precedent were found, along the lines of favor or color. WLDtalk|edits 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with either UK or US spelling, but I do believe the correct use of a comma on both sides of the Atlantic is to place it within the inverted commas.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the earliest version that is unambiguous in its use of US spellings is this one, with 'favor' in the last line. The Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines state that the comma should be placed outside the inverted commas, unless part of the quotation itself. "When punctuating quoted passages, Wikipedia strongly prefers to put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). This is commonplace outside the U.S." See WP:MOS#Quotation_marks. WLDtalk|edits 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected (although I'm going to have to work really hard to stop doing it the way my mother, the English teacher, taught me...
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions*
Did your mother also teach you to close parentheses? <grin> WLDtalk|edits 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not as well as she taught me to put punctuation inside the quotation marks.
I'm going to leave my blunder in place, partly so you don't appear clueless and partly as an object lesson in humility for me.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment on this, as I appear to be the first editor. (But I'm not really the first editor - my edit summary shows that I was just fixing a typo. The Wikipedia software that was used until January 2002 didn't permanently retain old versions, so old edit histories are often incomplete.) The spelling civilization is both British and American, though civilisation is an alternative in British English. Putting punctuation in quotes when it isn't part of what is being quoted is a peculiarity of American English, and is best avoided in Wikipedia. Who cares whether the article uses British spellings or American spellings? --Zundark 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The choice of variety of English to be used in articles is important to enough people for there to be a guideline in the Manual of Style for it here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English and here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English); a brief guide to spelling here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling); and documentation of the differences between American and (mostly) British usages here:American and British English differences, here:List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, here:List of words having different meanings in British and American English, here:List of British words not widely used in the United States and here:American and British English spelling differences. Overall, I think it would be best if editors did their best to use culturally neutral spelling in articles where it becomes an issue. I would generally expect an article on Pearl Harbor to be written using American English usage, and Dunkirk using British English usage, but an article on say, oceanography, to be neither overtly one nor the other. I would certainly expect confusing usages to be avoided - such as the use of alternate (Am.), which has a quite different meaning to alternative when used in British English. WLDtalk|edits 13:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New argument in the Opposition secton

The following argument was introduced into the Opposition section:

  • Changing the original BC/AD notations in favor of neutrality would suggest that other religious terms like "Wednesday", named for the god Woden, should all have their own euphemisms. To do this for every word and phrase with religious or sectarian connotations would be very time consuming and pointless, as almost every word has an originally religious or sectarian meaning.

I have moved it here until such time as a source is provided for this argument. The argument seems reasonable to me, but neither the opinion of the editor who introduced this, nor my opinion, is a valid reason to include it in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon scouring the history of this page, I discovered that there was actually a similarly worded argument in place around December 2006, and it was somehow removed unnoticed. It had a (shared) source, and upon visiting the source it clearly mentions the "Weekday names argument". I've put that argument back in, so the one above need not be added. Thank you.— OLP1999 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation for Christian Era

A recent series of edits contend that Christian Era is abbreviated CE. I do not believe this. When I look up "C.E." in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., I find that "C.E." is an abbreviation for chemical engineer, civil engineer, and Common Era. "Christian Era" is not mentioned. Note that I don't dispute the existence of the term "Christian Era", only the abbreviation. --Gerry Ashton 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, Google's 844,000 hits for "Christian era almost double the 450,000 hits for "Common era", thus at least suggesting equal due weight for the "Christian era" term. The American Heritage Dictionary does not represent everyone. Merriam-Webster has an article for "Christian era", but its article for "Common era" simply suggests that it is a synonym to "Christian era". Many other online dictionary/reference articles note that the abbreviations CE/BCE do indeed stand for "(Before) Christian era"[4], [5], [6], [7].
Although even by my observations "Common era" does seem to be more popularly noted publicly, the Google and Merriam-Webster sources for "Christian era" suggests at least equal notability for both terms, and I'd like to see some sources of yours that may suggest "Common era" deserves higher recognition than "Christian era". Finally, as for "Current era", it has less hits than both so perhaps should not be included if my edits are restored— OLP1999 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't take any position about whether "Common era" or "Christian era" is more popular. I contend that the abbreviation for "Common era" is "CE" and the abbrevation for "Christian era" is "AD". I believe this is a simple case of an English phrase being abbreviated according to the corresponding phrase in a foreign language, just like International System of Units is abbreviated "SI" or International Organization for Standardization is abbreviated "ISO".
Also, some people consider editing articles on the basis of Google hits to be original research, just as editing on the basis of an opinion poll you conducted yourself would be original research.
When I viewed the references in your talk page remark, I found in every case a definition for "Christian Era", not a definition for "CE". --Gerry Ashton 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand here. Where are your sources for why the term "Common era" is used moreover than "Christian era" for the abbreviations CE/BCE? All you provide is your personal POV. I didn't only provide the Google searches as sources, I mentioned Merriam-Webster as well which only acknowledges "Common era" as a synonym for "Christian era" (and since "Common era" is connotated with the abbreviation "CE", I assume Merriam-Webster sees "Christian era" as "CE"). Please provide me sources (or point to any that are already in the article) that would at least suggest CE/BCE never stand for "Christian era" as much as "Common era". Your simple opinion that "Christian era" is AD and "Common era" is CE is insufficient. After all, AD is only ever used as reference to years specifically, not as the entire era itself, thus redirecting "Christian era" to anno Domini is not appropriate— OLP1999 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I repeat from my first comment: "when I look up "C.E." in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., I find that "C.E." is an abbreviation for chemical engineer, civil engineer, and Common Era. "Christian Era" is not mentioned." I looked up C.E. in the dictionary, not Christian Era. As for my personal belief that "Christian Era" is abbreviated "A.D.", I have found a source: the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus (American edition, 1997) contains this entry: "A.D. abbr. (of a date) of the Christian era (Latin Anno Domini, 'in the year of the Lord')." When I looked up "CE" in the same dictionary, I only found that Ce is a symbol for the element cerium. --Gerry Ashton 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page to indicate that while CE is an abbreviation for Common Era, the abreviation for Christian Era is AD. If there is a reliable source to indicate otherwise, I'd be delighted to see it. --Gerry Ashton 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinese term for "Common Era" (公元)

The following is an explanation for some edits made to the text about the Chinese term for "Common Era".

The Chinese term for "Common Era" is "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán). To properly understand the term and its formation, one has to understand that most Chinese characters are ambiguous and represent more than one (relatively) simple concept. Chinese terms representing more complex concepts are often formed by combining multiple characters representing relevant simpler concepts. However, terms formed this way generally cannot be understood correctly just by arbitrarily combining the literal meanings of the constituent characters. This is because the constituent characters are generally ambiguous, and the etymology of a term is most often based on only one of the several senses of the constituent characters. Another reason is that sometimes one or more of the constituent characters are chosen not for their literal meanings, but for their figurative meanings. Further, it is common in Chinese for terms to be formed by combining characters taken from two or more existing multi-character terms.

In the case of "公元", "公" in Chinese has (among others) the meaning of "common" (in the sense of "shared"). In the Chinese term 公共 ("public") 公 is used in this sense. The Chinese character "元" in "公元" mostly likely come from (and is almost certainly related to) the Chinese term "紀元" ("era").

In some revisions of the article, the used of "公" as a common prefix in some Chinese translations of metric unit names was given to justified a literal translation of "metric era" for "公元". This is erroneous. The use of "公" in Chinese metric names came from the "公制", an informal name for the International System of Units (SI). "公制" in turn is an abbreviation of "万国公制" (old Chinese translation for SI; somewhat literally: "international common system" or "universal common system", or very literally: "ten-thousand-nation common system"). The prefix "公" is used to distinguish Chinese metric units from older units sharing the same base names. "公" in "公元" is unrelated to this "万国公制"→"公制"→"公" derivation).

As an aside, one should be very careful when consulting Chinese character dictionaries that provide definitions in English—a lot can be lost in translation. --71.175.22.69 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you've said more clearly (and elegantly) what I was trying to put across. The key point is that translating "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán) purely as 'Common era' is not correct - as you correctly point out, there are shades of meaning, and although 'common era' is one translation of that particular set of combined characters, it is by no means the only correct translation. Perusing multiple on-line and print dictionaries translates that set of characters variously as "A.D.", "Christian Era", and "Common Era" among other possibilities. As such, I do not think that the Chinese term is a confirming instance of 'common era' usage and it should not be used as such in the article. I linked to the on-line dictionary purely because few Wikipedia readers will have easy access to print dictionaries. If you disagree, please indicate why you think 'common era' is the only correct translation. Regards, WLDtalk|edits 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán) is not an example of 'common era' usage and it should not be in the article. Gongyuan can be translated to English as "AD" just as much as it can be translated as "Common Era". LDHan 10:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"公元" is an example of "Common Era" in a language other than English. Although it may be translated as "AD" (and I can believe that such translation is quite common), it is only because "AD" is the more common English equivalent that refers to the same thing—it is not a literal translation. However, in terms of the literal meaning, "common era" is the best literal translation based on the word formation. --71.175.22.69 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(In response to comment of WLDtalk|edits made 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC):) "Common era" is a correct and, in my opinion, the best literal translation of "公元" based on word formation. I have looked up a few online Chinese character dictionaries before, and have found them severely lacking. One problem is that the different senses of a character is used in different (groups of) terms and phrases, and those dictionaries don't distinguish between them and, perhaps unintentionally, suggest that the characters can be interpreted in different senses regardless of the words (in a sense, context) in which they occur. Print Chinese character dictionaries in Chinese generally illustrates the different senses with classical and modern example words in which the characters are used, and are often better for that reason. Note that the different meanings of a characters are very often more than just shades of meaning—they can be totally unrelated meanings attached to the same symbol. In the case of "公" in "公元", "common" is the only meaning of the character that makes sense in the context and the likely original from which the term was translated. For some corroboration of my explanation, I refer you to this online English-Chinese dictionary [8]. (BTW, I'm not endorsing the the dictionary, I'm merely using it as an example). Look up "common era" and you'll get Chinese translations of the two indivdual words. You'll see that some Chinese translations of "common" do begin with "公" and the first translation of "era" is "紀元". This is my opinion as someone who can read, write and speak Chinese and who can read classical Chinese (with a little help from a dictionary). --71.175.22.69 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be in violent agreement here. Yes, "Common era" is a correct translation. Yes, context is important. Yes, meaning can differ by more than just shades. Your opinion is that it is the best literal translation - but Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not opinion or truth, and it is actually not relevant, even if you can provide copper-bottomed citations of its being the best literal translation, as common era is not the only translation of those characters. As such, it cannot be a confirming instance of the use of Common Era in the English language, so as an example, it does not belong in the article. Now, the point that whoever it was who introduced the Chinese example into the article was trying to make may well be that the Chinese words that describe the calendar that starts at 0001-01-01 do not include references to concepts that translate into 'our Lord' - but that is not what was said, and I don't believe pointing this out adds to the article in any case. It's a pretty subtle point. Other editors will (obviously) have differing opinions here. WLDtalk|edits 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the Oxford/Commercial Press English-Chinese English- Chinese dictionary, which is almost the standard used by English speaking learners of Chinese, "A.D." is translated as "公元" (gōngyuán), and "公元" (gōngyuán) is translated as "A.D. ; Christian era" (note lower case e). Gōngyuán is not an example of 'Common Era' usage in a non-English language precisely because gōngyuán can also be translated as "AD". The point about "Common Era" usage is that it is an alternative to "AD". Whether or not "common era" is the best literal translation of gōngyuán is beside the point, actual translations must be used when you are attaching equivalent meanings to and usage of words in different languages. And as already mentioned, wikipedia is based on verifiability, not on original research. LDHan 16:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford/Commercial Press English-Chinese English-Chinese dictionary is hardly the authority for resolving the current issue: whether "公元" should be considered the Chinese equivalent of "Common Era". Translating dictionaries in general do not attempt to provide a comprehensive of list of equivalent terms in the destination language—usually they provide one or a few approximate destination-language equivalents of a word in the source language. Another common problem with translating dictionaries is that they often do a poor job in explaining the differences in the connotations and usages of the different "equivalents". My point is, relying on a dictionary like the one you cited is problematic. Going back to our question here, one issue that we have not discussed is what should be the criterion of equivalence in the current context. I think we can agree that "公元" and "AD" and "CE" have the same extension, i.e. they are different labels referring to the same thing. If having the same extension is the criterion of equivalence, all three terms should be considered equivalent. It would be wrong to deny that "公元" is the Chinese equivalent of "Common Era". However, given that there is a controversy over the usage of "CE" vs "AD" because of the semantic structures of these labels, I submit that extensional equivalence is not the relevant criterion. If the intensions of these terms, based on their semantic structures, are what really matter, then "公元" and "AD" are not equivalent—anno domini makes reference to "(the) lord", but "公元" doesn't. On the other hand, "公元" and "Common Era" are equivalent—they both represent a composition of the concepts of "common" and "era". The fact that "公元" is not the equivalent of anno domini is further evidenced by the fact that some Chinese Christians use the term "主歷" (literally "(the) Lord's calendar") as the Chinese designation for anno domini. If there were no semantic difference between "公元" and anno domini in the eyes of a Chinese speaker, there would have been no reason to create the word "主歷". --71.175.22.69 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of new information. <grin> By the way - did you mean 'intentions' rather than 'intensions' above? If you can cite good references for your statement above "some Chinese Christians use the term "主歷" (literally "(the) Lord's calendar") as the Chinese designation for anno domini", then this probably should be in the article - that is, that the meaning/semantic content of "公元" is "common era" and the meaning/semantic content of "主歷" is "Lord's calendar" - but it all needs to be properly referenced, no matter how good your own individual qualifications and knowledge are. If you have the luxury of citing your own work, so much the better. Without citations, assertions can be summarily deleted by any editor of Wikipedia - the fact that they usually are not does not make it good practice. Regards, WLDtalk|edits 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Intension" was not a typo—I did mean to use the term. (See Intension) "主歷" is indeed a term that some Chinese Christians used as the Chinese designation for anno domini. However, the term is only used in certain contexts. The term is typically used in more formal writings or speech in which a writer or speaker would otherwise use "AD", "anno domini", or "in the year of the Lord", and when the audience is also Christian. Some examples of such writings and speech are: sermons, writings and speeches about church history or the history of Christianity, formal announcements, and obituaries. A Google search on the term returns about 6800 hits, a fraction of which is spurious. I don't know when the Chinese term was first used. --71.175.22.69 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think AD and anno domini needs to be distinguished, they are not the same nor are they equivalent. LDHan 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
How not? "AD" is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini."
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)LDHan, do you mean AD and anno Domini should be distinguished in the context of translating to or from Chinese, or do you mean they should be distinguished in general. If you mean distinguished in general, please start a new heading, because people who don't speak or read Chinese may not be reading this heading. --Gerry Ashton 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Correct Meaning of CE

Whether CE is used to represent Christian Era, or whether CE refers to a time based on Jesus' birth is incredibly irrelevant. CE - as referenced in both an American and the major British Dictionary (see: http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=C.E.&ia=ahd4 and http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ce?view=uk) shows that CE is MEANT to represent Common Era. Not Current Era, not Christian Era.

However, I don't know how to properly reference this on the front page - I think the first sentence should read:

"The Common era, also (but incorrectly) known as the Christian era or the Current era."

Christian Era is a false etymology - there is certainly no good reason to come up with CE if it were only to replace AD and BC as they were - still religious.

If someone could change with evidence on my behalf, it would be most appreciated.

Katiejayn 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between the name Common era and the abbreviation CE. It's true that CE is the abbreviation for Common era; I have no source saying it is an abbreviation for any other era-related phrase. It is indeed incorrect to say that CE is an abbreviation for Christian era; there is a source already in the article that says the abbreviation for Christian era is AD.
However, we could say that the Common era is also known as the Current era and Christian era, because all these names refer to the era that numbers the year of the first moon landing as 1969.
I feel the first paragraph is overly complex, and I propose to replace it with the text that is currently in my User:Gerry Ashton/sandbox. I don't want to post it here because of the mess that would result from trying to put footnotes on a talk page. --Gerry Ashton 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[9] lists both "Christian Era" and "Common Era" as the expansion for CE. Wikipedia's article on Common Era itself quotes the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia article "General Chronology", which states that the terms "Christian Era", "Vulgar Era", and "Common Era" were in use (at the time the encyclopedia was published). I could not find evidence to answer definitively the question whether "CE" was originally specifically created as an abbreviation for "Common Era" and not "Christian Era". To confuse the issue further, Wiktionary's entry on "Christian Era"[10] describes the term as a backronym for "Common Era". However, I don't consider that information authoritative because the same entry cites Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), whose entry on "Christian Era" dates the term back to 1650–1660. I have yet to find a reference, authoritative or otherwise, that dates "Common Era" to that far back. So, at this point, I would hesitate to call it incorrect to say that "CE" also stands for "Christian Era".
"AD" is not an abbreviation for "Christian Era"—not in the true sense of the word "abbreviation". In terms of usage, "Christian Era" refers to a period of time that begins with a particular year. "AD", on the other hand, is used as a designation for a system of reckoning, when a year number is used. "AD" is not used in other contexts to refer to an era (i.e. a period). --71.175.22.69 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a situation where the abbreviation chosen would depend on context. If one wished to abbreviate "2007 of the Christian Era" one would probably write "2007 AD". In a case like the phrase "the initial date for the Christian Era was estimated by Dionysius Exiguus", I've never seen an abbreviation used; I don't know what, if any, abbreviation would be appropriate. --Gerry Ashton 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of "Common Era"

"Common Era" is a proper noun, it does not refer to just any era that fits the description of being "common"—it is a label for a particular era with a particular beginning year. As such, the term should be capitalized. Most (but not all) occurrences of "Common Era" in the article should be capitalized according to stylistic conventions in English. However, many of them are not capitalized. Unless someone comes up with a convincing counterargument, I plan to correct the inconsistent capitalizations to bring the article in line with normal stylistic conventions in that regard. --71.175.22.69 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literal meaning of "anno domini"

This explains the rationale behind a recent change to the literal translation of "anno domini", which was overwritten by later edits by JimWae shortly after.

I changed the "anno Domini" to "(in the) year of (the) Lord". I put "in the" and the second "the" in parentheses on the basis of them not being in the literal meaning of the original Latin phrase. In his remark on the changes he made, JimWae wrote:

"of" is not there either -- Latin uses declensions for prepositions

My rationale for not putting "of" in parentheses is that it is part of the meaning of domini, although not written as a separate word.

I invite other contributors to share their thoughts on my use of parentheses. --71.175.22.69 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the reference for that sentence (Blackburn & Holford-Strevens). Your change is not supported by the reference, so you should have either refrained from making any change, or removed the reference and replaced it with something better. --Gerry Ashton 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not cite that reference. I was correcting a problem with the literal translation. You have a valid point about removing or replacing the reference to preserve consistency. --71.175.22.69 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that we are under no obligation to translate foreign languages literally, and when a certain foreigh phrase is translated into English frequently, the most common translation is probably better than a literal one. --Gerry Ashton 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anno is second declension ablative case - that is where the "in" comes from. Latin does not use articles. Were we to follow your suggestion, AD would mean "year lord" --JimWae 05:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholar's essay

This perspective that "crosses the aisle" may be useful as a possible resource for the article. In it an evangelical seminary scholar suggests that BCE/CE be used in writing for a general audience. --Blainster 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of sources (BBC, Religious Tolerance)

The article is currently relying rather heavily on this source, which it cites as "BBC". Let's be clear that this essay does not represent BBC policy and was not written by a BBC journalist. In fact, it's from a kind of "Wikipedia-lite" section of the BBC and can be edited by anyone. For this reason, it cannot be considered a Reliable Source in the Wikipedian sense. It's not a bad essay, and I've no objection to including it in the External Links section, but we should be looking for higher-quality citations.

The Tolerance is another one that tends to get more cred in these kinds of debates than it really deserves. Just to clarify things, none of the people involved in the site have scholarly credentials in religious studies or other relevant areas - the main author is a retired engineer. It's not a bad web site, by any means, but it shouldn't be treated as if it were a scholarly journal or equivalent - i.e., it's not a Reliable Source. CJGB (Chris) 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Usage section

What is now the second paragraph of the Usage section has just been added by AncientEyes. I have some issues with the new paragraph.

  1. The citation to Toynbee is to a 12 volume work; I think it is unreasonable to give a citation to such a large work; specific volumes and pages should be given, or at least specific volumes and chapters.
  2. The citation to Toynbee is not properly formatted; the publisher should be given in this article, not in a Wikilinked article.
  3. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so the wikilinks to recognition, mind control, and negationism are not references. Unless these portions of the paragraph are supported by Toynbee, they should be removed, or reliable sources should be found.
  4. The paragraph uses the weaselwords such as "Many people" and "some". Rather than vague references to some unknown group of people, surveys published in reliable sources should be quoted. --Gerry Ashton 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


  • It does not belong in the Usage section at all - it is a variation of one of the arguments against already in that section - it merits speedy removal --JimWae 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

It appears that the effort to include logical references to the opposition to this topic is disallowed on this site. Perhaps this is because of an underlying goal to change this traditional approach to history. The start of the Usage section is as Weasil as anything I wrote. I have thus proven here that the effort is to change a societal norm and replace it with one that is based only on the preferences of a distinct grouping of the populous that has rushed to control the editing of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia.AncientEyes 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)AncientEyes

  • You have violated WP:3RR by re-inserting basically the same unattributed material 5x in less than 24 hours. As such, you are subject to being blocked from editing for a periosd of time to be determined by a wiki-admin. The section you keep inserting it in is about usage, whereas what you have inserted is about opposition to its usage - which already has its own section & where a more cogent, less antagonistic (mind-control?), and properly referenced version of your original "contribution" exists --JimWae 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AncientEyes' criticism of the first paragraph in the Usage section. I have provided a reference, and reworded it to only say what can be supported by the source. --Gerry Ashton 06:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the kernel of AncientEyes' main criticism in a single encyclopedic, if unsourced, sentence. I tried to make it sound a bit less speculative. Hope this helps. Yakuman 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use on Wikipedia?

Is there a prefered notation on wikipedia in refernece to years? If so, it should be listed in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.197.192.130 (talk • contribs) 16:19 28 March 2007 UTC.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), both are acceptable. --Gerry Ashton 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7ECommon_Era_f491.html"