Talk:Common Era/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

This archive page covers the dates of January to June 2005.

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

Contents

Does BCE date match BC perfectly

I recall when news of the Royal Onatario Museum's choice to switch BC to BCE, a problem was that some beleived that there was a year zero between 1BCE and 1CE. Hence a one year difference between BC and BCE. Hence, the dates would be one year off (only for BC/BCE). Based on wikipedia, and cited sources, nobody else seems to think that. Am I imagining this claim? I looked for sources, but have found only ones that aren't worth citing (they're just opinions, like me). Has BCE been numerically equal to BC?

The spin I understood was originally the term BCE was used for the very purpose of having a year zero, which makes "year math" easier. Then, only later, was it's "non-religious" nature used as a reason for it's existence. Feel free to correct me. Sorry in advance if I'm misinformed. If I'm totally wrong, than at least this article should explicitly debunk the rumor, by mentioning the beleif, and then stating it false, with proof. --rob 05:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Our article is correct, BCE and BC have the same value. The idea behind BCE/CE was to come up with a non-religious system of dating. I've never seen anything on the addition of a year zero for BCE/CE. That would defeat its purpose. I do agree, though, that if you can find an authoritative source that states this, we should include it in the article. Sunray 06:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Rob, thanks for pointing out the lack of clarity on this point. I have added a sentence to the article explicitly stating how the year zero is handled. In fact, astronomers (see astronomical year numbering) do use year zero, but most others don't. --Blainster 06:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it's good you made the note about astronomy. I think one confusing point for me, and maybe others, is given that the numbering system is consistent, then we can say BC *is* BCE, and CE *is* AD. These are therefore perfect synonyms. Now, wikipedia is filled with synonyms, and it always gives a single, article, with the "article name" and then mentions the "alternate" names. It might also give a "history of naming" that discusses both sides of a debate. But, aside from that, the article procedes with the rest of the discussion based on the "article name", making clear one entity is being discussed (not two). A great example of this is all the physical locations on Earth with violently disputed names. Yet, wikipedia manages to pick a name for the article, and collect all the information together, making it clear we're talking about one place. In this case, I just don't "feel" that wikipedia has unified BCE/CE and BC/AD the way other much more controversial "naming disputes" have been done. In theory this article should be merged with Anno Domini. --rob 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

An anonymous AOL editor of this article Common Era, added to the list of Support "* It corresponds to Oxford style and is used in the OED and ODWR." User:205.188.116.136 (see the edit: [1]).
Where is the evidence for this?
I have a pocket edition. I doubt that the OED supports the use of the BCE/CE notation. Perhaps I have an old edition?
When the OED discusses its own history, is uses the AD notation. [2] “The new dictionary was planned as a four-volume, 6,400-page work that would include all English language vocabulary from the Early Middle English period (1150 AD) onward, plus some earlier words if they had continued to be used into Middle English.”
In its “List of abbreviations”, the OED does list B.C. and A.D. It omits BCE and CE. [3]
The on-line Oxford Reference requires subscription; however they provide sample entries without charge. These entries use ‘ad’ and ‘bc’ to the exclusion of BCE/CE. Consider [4] “Pompeii appears as a dependent port-settlement of Nuceria in 310 bc” (unless you are aware of others)
Is there confidence in the edit? What is the source?--ClemMcGann 13:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I struggle to believe this addition myself - so I have removed it. If there's evidence to support it, it can be added here. It's a while since I've read the article, and it seems to have improved quite a bit since I last read it - this was the only bit that didn't seem right. As Clem notes, the OED abbreviation guide suggests very strongly that they never use that abbreviation. And the AskOxford website appears to use BC/AD notation too, jguk 19:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the other ‘support’ claims have references, which are entries in the h2g2 (h2g2 is an alternative to wikipedia. Anyone can create an entry.). They may look like it’s the BBC, but they merely host this free-for-all guide. Many of the articles are reminiscent of wikipedia. It does not seem to me to be an appropriate authority to support a point being made here. --ClemMcGann 19:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I too feel uneasy about the references to both the h2g2 and the religioustolerance.org websites. Neither has any academic basis or any intellectual standing of note - being in the former case, as you say, a smaller version of Wikipedia, and the latter being written by one guy with no intellectual standing and not pretending to do anything than represent his beliefs, jguk 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Both references add information that is relevant to the article. Moreover, both meet the criteria for an External link (described above), which are not as stringent as the criteria for references. There has been ample discussion of the inclusion of the Religious Tolerance, earlier on this talk page, and a consensus established for its continued inclusion. Unfortunately Jguk (in the minority on this matter) has been unable to abide by the decision. Apparently, he won't give it up. Sunray 07:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, when there was a RfC on this, most outside visitors agreed with me. Also, the article has improved somewhat since that discussion, and we have quite a number of relevant and good external links. IMO, having these two somewhat non-academic ones (one of which supports using AD/BC notation and the other which supports using CE/CE notation) only serves to reduce the quality of the article, not improve it, jguk 07:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside visitors commenting on an RfC would have little bearing on the consensus established for a particular article on the talk page of that article by the writers of that article per the guideline on consensus. Let's try stay within Wikipedia policies, Jguk. They are there to guide us through the shoaly waters of disagreement. Sunray 08:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
It has been established that the OED claim was false. Perhaps the OED should have been moved to 'opposition' rather than just deleted. The references quoted for other claims in the article are dubious. h2g2 and answers.com, where anyone can add an article, can hardly be described as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Although you have expressed a preference for BCE/CE I hope that you will be able to recognise the need to raise the quality of this article. These questionable references should be removed. ----ClemMcGann 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Neither of these links is used as a source in the article. They are external links. The criteria for external links are less stringent than those for sources. Are you saying that either or both of these links do not meet the criteria specified in the guideline? If so, would you be able to indicate which of the three criteria are not met? We have already gone over this ad nauseam for the Religious Tolerance link and the consensus was to keep it. As to h2g2, I believe it was Jguk that used it originally. There was brief discussion of it and someone wanted to keep it (as I recall). No one else seemed to feel very strongly about it. Sunray 21:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The criteria for External link does say “On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link.”. There isn’t a ‘detailed explaination’. However that is not my objection, although perhaps such explainat. Out immediate concern should be the quality of the article. Arguments are made and references are given in support of those points. The OED is quality and would command respect. Are you of the opinion that an entry in h2g2 or answers.com is equally suitable in terms of quality?--ClemMcGann 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Point taken about the explanation. However, I gather that rather than fix that, you would prefer to drop that link. Which of the three criteria do you think that the h2g2 link does not meet? Sunray 19:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favour of "fixing". I would rather not get into a legalistic discussion on the definition of criteria. My question remains: "Are you of the opinion that an entry in h2g2 or answers.com is equally suitable in terms of quality?"--ClemMcGann 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I will take another look at it. Sunray 07:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled, but the point remains - neither religioustolerance.org nor h2g2 are good links to have (from an objective viewpoint) as they both reflect the personal viewpoints of people who have no reputation in the field in which they are reporting, jguk 18:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am unable to spot where it says in policy that external links must not be from a personal point of view. It is not one of the criteria listed for inclusion/exclusion of an external links. It is apparent that you will never give this up, but I will keep on trying to get you to abide by Wikipedia policies. We have established consensus that the religious tolerance link stays. If you want to open this again, you could try a survey, but it would be far better IMO to just live with the decision. Sunray 00:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
On the issue of consensus - based on explicit views stated on this talk page, five people have at some time in the past expressed a view to keep the link to religioustolerance.org (Sunray, Azkar, Nike, Dablaze, Jayjg), three to delete the link (Jguk, Noisy, Vacuum). Of these, Noisy and Vacuum were outside views in response to a RfC on the subject. Although a majority, this isn't consensus - and now the article has improved quite a bit since these views were expressed, it's not improper to discuss here whether views have changed.
Wikipedia:External links offers little guidance and mostly gives guidance on how best to link once the decision to link has been made. The only "do nots" are advertising links. What it certainly doesn't do is require any external link to be made.
I still don't understand why you believe the views of a retired engineer and the views of whoever it is chose to write the h2g2 are so particularly notable as to make links useful. From a point of pure intellectual rigour, they should be removed.
Wikipedia:External links does say: "If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question. If you cite an online article, try to provide as much meaningful citation information as possible."
Well, currently we don't do that for either religioustolerance.org or the h2g2 link - both of which are confusing. Religioustolerance.org has attracted a lot of web traffic because it has a very good name - but it remains the personal ruminations of one Canadian retired engineer with no academic or political standing on religious issues. The name itself is misleading - it suggests it is a wider-held view than just that of one man (and possibly four of his mates). If the link is to stay, we should describe it - and I would suggest something along the lines of "a personal view in favour of using BCE/CE notation by a Canadian retired engineer". The h2g2 link is confusing as it suggests that it is the view of the BBC, or at least has gone through normal BBC review procedures. In fact, h2g2 is the BBC's version of Wikipedia, although it does require some form of peer review before anything goes live. If it is to stay (and again, I don't think it should), we should add a proper warning to the reader and describe the h2g2 article as the personal view in favour of using BC/AD notation by a contributor to a user-written encyclopaedia hosted by the BBC.
Maybe others would like to comment - should we remove both links, or add a description that's detailed enough so that readers know what they're getting? jguk 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Some quick comments: I cannot resist telling you that I checked out Noisy and Vacuum at the time and recall that the latter was a sock puppet—not that I am making any accusations, mind you. :-) As to your comments about External links. We have gone over this at length. The guideline provides three criteria. My assessment at the time was that the religioustolerance.org link met those criteria. No one questioned this. Finally, you mention the retired engineer. Jguk, please. Neither you nor I know what the man's qualifications are to put up a website on religious tolerance. For all we know the guy could have been a mover and shaker (pun) in the Sensitivity Traning movement of the 1960's and led T-groups on religious tolerance. I asked you at the time what qualifications you thought one should have to talk about religious tolerance. You didn't answer as I recall (don't answer now, it's over). I suggest we move on. Sunray 22:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the links are fine, and they wouldn't benefit from POV descriptions; we just need to remove all those excess links related to that NSW tempest in a teapot. Jayjg (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Cease-fire on eras

I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

The article quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia in a misleading way. The phrase and we now designate such a date A.D. is omitted. See: [5] Is there any reason why this should not be included? --ClemMcGann 16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the quote is about early uses of the phrase "Common Era", not about the term Catholics use. Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry speaks of the "Common Era", designated as A.D.
By leaving out the "AD" the false impression is given that "Common Era" was designated by "CE"
That is not what the Encyclopedia said. Trucating the quote is misleading--ClemMcGann 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
No such impression is left; the entry is talking about the use of the term. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Please re-read the entry in context. It is just after the claim "CE and BCE came into use in the last few decades". --ClemMcGann 10:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I have re-read it; it is in the paragraph that starts "However, the term "common era" has earlier antecedents.", and then it goes on to list earlier antecedents for the term "Common Era", including the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
And it omits "Common Era", designated as A.D.--ClemMcGann 21:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Because it is not relevant to early usage of the phrase "Common Era", which is the actual topic of the paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps because you would rather that it was not said? --ClemMcGann 19:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I would rather that all the information in the paragraph actually be on the topic of the paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Then should it should be clarified that the paragraph is about the words "common era" rather than the designation "CE" --ClemMcGann 23:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph is quite clear as to what it is about; it states it in the opening sentence. Jayjg (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you will not revert if I clarify the issue --ClemMcGann 23:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Propose your "clarification" here first, please. I'm unconvinced we need any "clarification", since the section is quite clear already. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

At a minimum there should be a link to the specific article - which there was at one stage - so that it can be read. It illustrates that, a century ago, the term "Common Era" was used - but (and in our context this 'but' is relevant) but Common Era was designated as AD. This, I suggest, illustrates that the Latin "Anno Domani" had slipped from common usage (if you will excuse the pun).

If we are to be honest, the present article does not distinguish between the term "Common Era" and "CE". One would think they were one and the same.

You may be "unconvinced" of the need for clarification, but surely even you can admit that this entry, as it stands, is dishonest --ClemMcGann 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Surely even your can admit"? Please re-think your wording; I'll respond to less hostile comments. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
No "hostility" was intended. I was hoping that you would reflect, and reconsider being "unconvinced" --ClemMcGann 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like having to repeat myself. The paragraph in question is showing early uses of the term "Common Era"; as such, it is restricted to that topic. The fact that the Latin "Anno Domini" has slipped from common usage is not particularly relevant, as the English equivalent "in the year of our Lord" was still commonly used. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

With respect, and acknowledging that ClemMcGann lost his temper at 1 point, in my opinion he's still right. There is a confusion implicit between the use of "common era" simply as a designation for the dating system based on the birth of Christ, using years Anno Domini, and the use of the acronyms CE and BCE in writing to repace AD and BCE. Reading the whole sentence of the Catholic Encyc. as quoted by ClemMcGann, it is clear that while the authors could refer to the Christian dating system as the "Common Era", they never envisaged AD being replaced by CE! The paragraph on early uses of "Common Era" certainly read to me as if the examples of early use of the phrase were intended to support its use. There is a basic problem here: surely, many authors through history must have referred to whichever dating system was in near-universal use in their culture as "common" dating, without ever implying they were suggesting changing to "Common Era/date etc" in use. If this article is not primarily about the modern substitution of BCE and CE for BC and AD, its basically meaningless. IanB

Links on NSW BCE/CE controversy

Do we really need four links to reports on the same controversy? Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The two links to Hansard are references for the statement that questions were raised in both chambers of parliament - plus they have the benefit of allowing the reader to see the statement in context. It's certainly useful to have a link to how the controversy was reported outside Parliament too. Finally, they are all good sources that the user can quickly assess the reliability of (unlike the somewhat misleading link to the religioustolerance.org site, which is just a personal blog of a retired engineer - and therefore meaningless as a serious reference; or the link to h2g2 which is a user-written encyclopaedia like WP). I wouldn't object to moving the Hansard links to a separate "References" section though, jguk 18:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like excessive detail to me; the newspaper reports are probably enough. There's a huge amount of information in the article already about a minor issue in a small state, I doubt it needs to be mentioned at all (unlike the other links you mention, which are actually useful). Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

NSW is the largest state (population-wise) in Australia, which is a major English-speaking country. It's perfectly proper to comment on the usage (or rather lack of usage) of CE notation outside the United States. Indeed - surely it's better to give a worldwide view rather than just the view of certain American academics? jguk 17:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I see now that the whole reference to the NSW incident has been removed. I really don't understand why - it is demonstrably true and clearly relevant to the subject at hand: it shows real-life opposition to changing to what was a very minor change to BCE notation in Australia. The Hansard reports and newspapers show that it was a matter of some public interest. The scale of the reaction compared to the scale of the change is particularly interesting and shows considerable discontent (at least amongst the NSW public) about which many in NSW saw as unnecessary and unwelcome political correctness. It also shows reports that religious leaders in NSW have no problem with BC/AD notation - thereby providing a counterbalance to the arguments in the "support" section that there are religious difficulties in continuing with BC/AD.
This seems to have started with a question over the links and resulted in the removal of interesting and relevant information. There was one too many link - we only need one newspaper report linked to give a picture of how the (minor) controversy was reported, and the two links to Hansard as they are references (and can and should be moved to a references section). I propose restoring the text and amending the links/references accordingly, jguk 08:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the NSW incident, because I think the event was too minor to be worth mentioning. Outside of New South Wales, this is nothing. None of the links that are provided in the article say anything about religious leaders having "no problem" with BC/AD notation, and it's apparent that few people even had a problem with it; those few people just decided to take action. I've read all three.[6][7][8] --Berserk798 15:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree; it seems to be a few letters to editors and MPs by a small number of disgruntled people in a small state in a small country (population-wise). Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
No objection from me—not that what goes on in NSW isn't important, mind. Sunray 22:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Alright. I think it would be cool if we could get an example of BCE/CE notation being applied successfully so that people don't get the impression that it's less effective, but that's another matter for another time. --Berserk798 23:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Above all, hide all criticism of CE. Conceal the facts. Preserve ignorance.--ClemMcGann 23:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on how giving an example of BCE/CE being used successfully "conceals the facts"? Please do. --Berserk798 23:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
It would hard be "concealing the fact" - "inventing" perhaps?
The concealing refers to the heading of this section "Links on NSW BCE/CE controversy" and your deletion of them. --ClemMcGann 23:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
We just agreed that the NSW incident was too minor, and that we had larger incidents already mentioned in the article. There's no reason to include NSW's case. --Berserk798 23:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The NSW incident illustrated the consequences of enforcing CE. It seems you want a "whitewash" --ClemMcGann 00:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's nonsense to say the NSW incident is "too minor". What do people expect - people taking to the streets either for or against it? We're only going to get cases of people using and not using CE notation, and of problems encountered by using that notation. We shouldn't censor something that suggests CE notation is unwelcome. This certainly seems like a whitewash. I propose re-adding it - there's nothing in WP policy that says we remove well-referenced and relevant information because it goes against an argument that some wish to run, jguk 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The NSW "incident" is an excellent example of the problems that ensue when political correctness takes hold; it is not minor. NSW is a significant entity both in Australia and the rest of the world. Having such examples also goes some way to addressing the massive Anglo-American bias currently present in Wikipedia. I'm re-instating the section. It is useful content. Arcturus 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you're accusations of "whitewashing" are quite without basis. I clearly said that we have two more prominent examples of opposition, and that the NSW incident is not only redundant but extremely minor in comparison. It's bloating the 'opposition' section, and it adds nothing new. I still propose that we remove it. --Berserk798 19:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good example because it demonstrates how the man in street has responded to this issue. I've already re-instated it, but perhaps pending further discussion here I'll go with the majority view. I suggest it's left for the time being, until a few further comments are received. Arcturus 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
To Arcturus: my compliments, but how long will it remain?
To Berserk: I aapreciate your honesty in saying that it bloats the opposition section. However that is reality, if there was an article on flat earth , would to remove arguments for a globe as they were 'bloated'? --ClemMcGann 19:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I'm looking at it: We have no examples of BCE/CE being used successfully (i.e. naming a reputed museum[s] or newspaper[s] that uses it) but we have three different examples of it NOT being successful. We only need one or two examples for the opposition and the support, but when we have three for the opposition and zero for the support, it looks unbalanced.

Also, with a third example for the opposition, it just looks bad. The opposition section appears topheavy and even a little crowded. I don't think removing the minor incident that occured in NSW (it's minor in comparison to the English National Curriculum and Royal Ontario Museum) will detract from the opposition's case at all, and it will lighten up the article substantially. --Berserk798 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

If you can cite examples of BCE/CE being used successfully, then please add that information. Lack of citations of support amongst the general public for BCE/CE is not an excuse to remove examples of opposition to BCE/CE amongst the general public.
On your second paragraph, I strongly disagree. I think the most significant of the examples is the NSW example. It was in response to just one instance in one exam of BC being changed to BCE (accompanied by a footnote to the effect that it was the same as BC). IE, it was in response to a very small change. And this led to it being mentioned not only in newspapers, but also in both chambers of the state parliament and an acceptance in parliament by the Education Minister that the change should not have been made. That's quite a response to adding one letter E into one exam. The other examples are interesting, as they offer a glimpse of the views amongst the general public in England and Canada, but they are much weaker evidence, amounting only to angry letters in newspapers in England and letters of derision in Canada. Despite all this, all three examples are interesting and relevant and worthy of retention - if you're concerned that we haven't got examples in favour then if some exist, please add them, and if they don't, please accept that they don't, jguk 21:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should not be making too much out of these examples either way. The controversy over the Royal Ontario Museum's switch to BCE/CE occured mainly because a national newspaper picked up the story but it was relatively brief. The ROM uses that date notation today for all its exhibits without a problem. The Smithsonian uses BCE/CE and I've never heard of a controversy about that. Likewise with the British Museum. People learn. On the other hand, there is a minority who will probably go to their grave opposing BCE/CE (as their religious forefathers did regarding Sunday shopping). Sunray 01:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
You state that the British Museum uses BCE/CE. It doesn't, jguk 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was going on a statement by another user. However, when I checked it out, I could find no use of BCE/CE Sunray 06:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Minority?

Sunray, this has nothing to do with “Sunday shopping” let alone “religious forefathers”. Most who favour CE say it means “Christian Era” – just do a Google, “Christian Era” is twice as common as “Common Era” – if you will excuse the pun.
Why do you say “minority who will probably go to their grave opposing BCE/CE”. Do a Google on any term plus BC and then the same term plus BCE. You will, in almost every case, find BCE has only in single percentages.
Let us measure what you term a ‘minority’. Do a Google on any term. Try an alternative to 'King'.
*4,860,000 for King BC 
*  442,000 for King BCE  
*  340,000 for King BCE –wikipedia 
*  101,000 for King Christian-Era
*   47,000 for King Common-Era
*   35,000 for King Common-Era -wikipedia
So, let us be honest.
  • when BC or BCE dates are used, BCE accounts for less than ten percent
  • wikipedia and those who feed off it account for almost ten percent of BCE use
  • CE is more than twice as likely to mean Christian Era than Common Era
  • If Wikipedia is excluded CE is three times as likely to mean Christiam Era
If we were honest, we would change the article name from 'Common Era' to 'Christian Era'. It is not our job to change the world, just report on it. --ClemMcGann 17:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
ClemMcGann, your method of deciding which is more common has got to be the most inaccurate method I've ever heard of. BC is an acronym for many things, and isn't exclusively used in dates. Off the top of my head, BC can stand for 'British Columbia', 'Boston College', or 'B.C.' the comic strip. BCE doesn't have multiple acronyms in the same way.
Jguk, I clearly haven't done a good job at looking through this entire article and I apologize. There are already examples of BCE notation being used successfully under the 'Usage' section, but I propose that the Usage section be merged with the support section. --Berserk798 19:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Oh! Come now, a difference between 4,860,000 and 340,00 being explained away. On the other side BCE really means the European Central Bank (Banque Centrale Européenne) – lets add that to the article. While CE really means that a manufactured item adheres to European regulations. Just do a Google on “CE Europe”. Why do you want to merge ‘support’ with ‘usage’, is it because support is lacking?--ClemMcGann 20:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Seriously Clem, use your head. Your "statistics" are seriously flawed, and google is no way to conduct a survey. When you type in the letters 'BC', Google automatically includes things like British Columbia and Boston College. Look for yourself.[9] I think we should merge the usage and support sections, because the opposition section includes examples of BCE notation being rejected, and the entire usage section is made up of examples of it being accepted. It would make more sense and would make the article more symmetrical if we did the merge. --Berserk798 21:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that its not a perfect way to do a survey. It could be improved by adding –“British Columbia”. However it does demonstrate that AD/BC is not a ‘minority’.
How do you explain “CE Christian-Era” rating twice or three thime “CE Common-Era”? --ClemMcGann 21:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
No one said that BC/AD is used less than BCE/CE. --Berserk798 00:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Usage and support are two separate things (just as non-usage and oppose are two separate things), jguk 03:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Sunray said: “there is a minority who will probably go to their grave opposing BCE/CE”.
Berserk said: “No one said that BC/AD is used less than BCE/CE” --ClemMcGann 09:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
When Sunray says, "there is a minority who will probably go to their grave opposing BCE/CE", he means that people who strongly oppose it are in the minority. He isn't saying that people who use it are in the minority.
Jguk, if non-usage and oppose are two separate things, why are they under the same heading in our article? If you believe what you're saying, why haven't you split the opposition section in two? I think if opposition and non-usage are together, than support and usage should be too. --Berserk798 19:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Berserk: You are quite right in your interpretation of what I said.
I don't understand the reasoning behind merging the "Usage" and "Support" sections. The "Usage" section was put there to demonstrate who is using the term and how it is used. The "Support" section is there to balance the "Opposition" section. It seems to make good sense to leave it this way. Sunray 05:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well my reasoning was that if they give examples of it not being used in the opposition section, we should have the examples of it being used in the support section. But I guess I'm in the minority here, so I'll drop it. It's not a big deal, it would just make the article more symmetrical IMHO. --Berserk798 19:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Ancient Rome ceased to be a Republic and became an Empire in the year 1, when Augustus was made the first Emperor. The coincidence is too great. Our annual count may have begun with the start of the Roman Empire, and was possibly in standard use long before the Roman State Religion became Xianised. The supposed wrong calculation may be a fraudulent attempt to pretend that the years date from the birth of Jesus, who was born during Herod's reign, which means that Jesus could have been many years older in the year one, not four with a miscalculation. Norm Tered 02:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We normally start new comments at the bottom of the talk page. Furthermore, we have Wikipedia:No Original Research; stuff like this needs more than it feels right, it needs references. --Prosfilaes 03:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Roman Empire did not start in Year 1 so your assumption is incorrect, the most common dates for the start of the Roman Empire are 31BC, 27BC or 23BC depending on how one sees it. In 31BC Augustus defeated his last rival and became Sole Ruler of the Roman world however there was no official transfer of power so it is rarely used as the date of the beginning of the Roman Empire. In 27BC Augustus (then known as Octavian) was given the title of Augustus and in 23 BC he obtained the titles Tribune of Rome and Princeps (First Citizen), the date of 23 BC is the most common date for the beginning of the Roman Empire, NOT year 1.

CE begins at 0, not 1

I thought the CE began at 0, not 1. Am I missing something here? 72.9.29.11 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To either 69.28.157.199 or 72.9.29.11 (I don't know whether the second is a vandal or a sock puppet): All historians regard CE as beginning at 1 without a 0. Only astronomers and ISO 8601 use a year zero, but neither of them apply an era designation like CE to it. It is incorrect to apply CE to either. — Joe Kress 04:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

"The calendar used by the West has become a global standard - one built into every computer's hardware. It should be religiously and culturally neutral out of consideration for those cultures compelled to use it out of necessity."

The first sentence is false; our AD/BC or CE/BCE calendar is not built into every computer's hardware. Computer hardware generally measures time in fractions of a second since an epoch, which is not the same as the Christian epoch. Consider Unix time. The AD/BC calendar is a software layer that interprets or translates the computer's clock value to form that is meaningful to the user. Many software languages/packages/programs go to great lengths to provide "localizations" that allow for different calendars (for example, Java). 198.160.96.7 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Where did the second sentence come from? It's pure opinion - and the opinion of a very small minority at that. It has no place in the article, jguk 16:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not certain, but I do not think there are other calendars available for the BIOS display. The paragraph is part of the section on arguments supporting use of CE --JimWae 06:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words

A recent edit has replaced the word academics (as people who prefer to use the term) with some. According to Wikipedia style guidelines the use of a word such as some in this context is descibed as a weasel word. We should attempt to say exactly who, or which groups of people, prefer this term. Arcturus 20:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

BC is BC

The people who created the calendar used BC and AD. I think that they could be considered experts in the calendar that we use. These same people that say BC is "Bigoted" would like to do away with our year system completely.

The word "month" is from pagan religions for moon. Should we not drop the word "month" because it is bigoted since it from a religion? This seems to be the logic of the people that want to drop AD and BC. (Unsigned posts by User:Clydeman)

Are you familar with Wikipedia:NPOV? What our opinions are shouldn't matter. Please don't rant on the issue on the talk page.--Prosfilaes 04:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This is hardly a rant, and in any case, if you want to rant do it on the Talk page rather than the article. Keep it coming Clydeman. There's nothing like a good old vitriolic debate. Arcturus 12:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
A good old vitriolic debate does nothing for creating an encylopedia. On a subject that is controversial, we should be trying to supress our POVs and discuss things from an NPOV angle, instead of showing our POVs at every point and making it an argument about the topic instead of about the article.
In any case, the word "month" is not from pagan religions; like every word in every language, it's from a language that was once spoken by pagan speakers. It doesn't even mean anything religious; it means moon, which is appropriate since the months are based originally on a lunar cycle. We don't dismiss everyone who comes up with a constitutional amendment with wanting to do away with the constitution completely, because they disagree with creating the constitution.--Prosfilaes 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuing discussion under "Catholic Encyclopedia" above:

With respect, and acknowledging that ClemMcGann lost his temper at 1 point, in my opinion he's still right. There is a confusion implicit between the use of "common era" simply as a designation for the dating system based on the birth of Christ, using years Anno Domini, and the use of the acronyms CE and BCE in writing to repace AD and BCE. Reading the whole sentence of the Catholic Encyc. as quoted by ClemMcGann, it is clear that while the authors could refer to the Christian dating system as the "Common Era", they never envisaged AD being replaced by CE! The paragraph on early uses of "Common Era" certainly read to me as if the examples of early use of the phrase were intended to support its use. There is a basic problem here: surely, many authors through history must have referred to whichever dating system was in near-universal use in their culture as "common" dating, without ever implying they were suggesting changing to "Common Era/date etc" in use. If this article is not primarily about the modern substitution of BCE and CE for BC and AD, its basically meaningless. IanB

I also do not agree with this use of BCE and CE. As has been pointed out, there are many words and traditions which are used in everyday language which come from a religious background. It is just part of human history, and I don't see anything wrong in acknoldging this, regardless of your stance on religion. In fact, what I do find something wrong with is trying to change the system merely because it has a religious background. If a better system were deviced to replace the current one, on the merits of actually being more accurate or better in some significant form, I'd have no problem with that, but tha does not seem to be the case here.

I came to this page because I saw "CE" on another page and honestly thought it was an error. So, I looked it up and found this. I decided to post this up here first before making any changes. I just want to know if there is some established policy on this matter. Otherwise, I think the use of BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, is confusing to many readers and there is no good reason to employ it.-- Tuxley December 18, 2005

Thanks so much for posting to ask that question. There isn't a particularly well-formed policy on this issue, and that fact has led to countless petty edit wars, a situation which is clearly sub-obtimal. A group of Wikipedians are talking at Wikipedia:Eras about the possibility of amending the Manual of Style to find a better approach to this issue, which has proven to be quite controversial. At least one proposal has been rejected by the community already. There are significant numbers of people who are very much against either system. If you'd like to help us hammer out a workable policy, please check out the discussion currently being jump-started at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Eras. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

no longer common religion?

I'm not one to be easily offended, but this sentence bothers me -- "in an age when Christianity was the common religion of the West". What "age" is being talked about? What fact is being used to imply that Christianity is not "the common religion" of the "West" today? History of Christianity#The spread of secularism even admits that most folks still identify themselves as Christian.

The phrase *could* be referring to the nearly ubiquitous nature of Christianity in Europe for many centuries compared to the present time, since ubiquitous quality is no longer true.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 12:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Secularism isn't the only alternative. Most western countries have significant populations of other religions than Christianity - I'm sure that's what the sentence is talking about. Joziboy 8 March 2006 (CE, ha!), 18:34 (UTC)

Links again

I don't see the purpose of having a total of 6 redundant links over two very minor controversies caused by the introduction of CE notation. WP:NOT a link farm, and this section only serves to magnify the controversy (and I note that the section concerning usage only contains one ambiguous link). The linked articles are also not of a very high quality, and basically consist of letters (and the subsequent responses) from readers, adding little to nothing of value.

I suggest either condensing the controversy links to two, or alternatively adding a lot more links to style guides and institutions using BCE/CE for balance. Sortan 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

They are not so much links as references, and as references they should stay. I have edited the article to make it clear that they are references. Incidentally, it is a pity that the parts of the article other than the "oppose" section are not currently referenced (and therefore appear to be of dubious integrity), jguk 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
What's the difference between these two "references" [10] and [11] that you need both? One link to the transcript would suffice. Sortan 19:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You really should be concentrating on adding references to support the rest of the article rather than trying to remove good references that we already have, jguk 19:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they're not good references... you really should be concentrating on making this article neutral rather than using it as a vehicle to push your point of view. Sortan 19:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why aren't they good references? They are contemporary reports of an event by the leading Australian TV network and a leading, well-renowned newspaper that has quoted the Australian Associated Press agency as its source - these seem like good sources for the events described, jguk 20:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

More on references

Following on from the above, I have been looking at other references in this article, as well as unreferenced assertions, and it does appear many references are lacking somewhat. Clearly, if the information in the article is verifiable, it should remain - in which case it should be possible to find a reputable source to back the information up.

To begin with I'll look at the comments in the "support" section. Currently there are seven bullet points. I'll look at these in turn:

  • The first one is supported by a link to h2g2. However, this website is nothing more than the BBC's competitor product to Wikipedia. Another encyclopaedia, and in particular another public-created one, should not be used as a source. The argument that CE is "religiously and culturally neutral" is often spouted about here on WP (though many, of course, disagree with it). But the number of claims about this suggest there ought to be a proper reliable source citing this as a reason for using CE. Does anyone have such a reference?
  • The second one is supported by a Wikipedia mirror that has an old version of this page on it. It's self-evident that this does not constitute a reference. If someone has a reference for the statement, please provide it, otherwise it will be removed.
  • The third bullet point appears to be a restatement of the first bullet point - so I suppose it's no surprise that it claims to be supported by exactly the same h2g2 article as the first bullet point. The same comments on the lack of suitability of h2g2 as a source apply. Does anyone have a source for the argument in the first bullet point also being phrased in this way? If so, please provide it, if not, it will be removed.
  • The fourth to seventh bullet points are unsupported. Again, does anyone have references to support these assertions? If so, please add them; if not the claims will be removed.

This is just one section of the article. I shan't look at the others immediately, but will return to them once this section has been sorted out, jguk 23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. Jguk, will not abide the inclusion of either the h2g2 or Religious Tolerance links, so he has set up a Straw man argument to get rid of them. The idea that everything stated must have a reference is not supported in Wikipedia policy. References, where plausible and suitable are desireable, but to maintain that everything that is written must have a reference would result in a loss of over half of the content of Wikipedia. Sunray 00:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
How can we preserve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia when people refuse to provide sources for citable material? Jguk's position on sources here is consistent with common sense, which always trumps policy. ... But in this case we don't even need to use common sense, because WP:NOR reminds us that it isn't acceptable to insert personal conjecture. If someone contests material, and the opposing side refuses to provide a citation how can we be sure that it is anything except original research? Personally, I think Jguk is horribly misguided on his quest... but the pressure to produce sources is not inappropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of personal opinions. --Gmaxwell 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
And since you seem to insist on follow policy before comon sense, please note that WP:V is consistent with Jguk's position above. If you're going to be a policy monger, at least get it right. --Gmaxwell 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that you may have misunderstood something I've said. Please lose the ad hominem remarks and stick to working constructively on the encyclopedia. Sunray 20:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, you're right that I think some of the claimed "arguments" are wrong (in that no-one of much repute in the relevant fields publicly argues them) - and that others can be better worded by reference to proper sources. If I am wrong, references will be found to support the assertions I think are dubious - and those assertions will stay (though would probably be reworded in line with the source) and the source will be quoted. If references can't be found, then the material should be removed.

Somewhere along the line my comment on Jimwae's recent addition to the "support" section (the final bullet point) has inadvertently gotten removed. I dispute this addition too, as in my experience it is increasingly common to see "AD" as a suffix. Again, if I can be shown to be wrong and someone with repute in the relevant field is publicly arguing that, then I'll have no objection to the material staying (or being reworded to fit more accurately with the source). If no source is found, I will remove the assertion. Ultimately this is about whether what is written in the article can be verified (not whether I or anyone else likes any argument proffered!), jguk 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the point of the 'AD is a prefix' argument is that 'In the Year of Our Lord 2005' is more correct than '2005 in the Year of Our Lord'. Therefore, insisting on AD 2005 over 2005 AD is respecting the original (religiously loaded) meaning of the letters AD. However, this is as likely to be the triumph of pedanticism as it is the triumph of religion. (Unless I'm not the only Christian pedant running around. ;-) -- Perey 07:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue, and I have made it more explicit. The justification is given in full form in several style manuals--JimWae 07:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that style manuals explain why AD prefixes a date is somewhat different from saying that people relevant to this field are arguing along the lines of your addition? We need a source for the argument (not necessarily a source that some style manuals state what you say they say - although one of those would be nice too). Can you show where people have been making that argument? jguk 13:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are style guides (other than wikipedia) that state AD comes first - though they disagree on periods and capitalizations

These only mention its meaning

Here are style guides that cite the reason explicitly

Not every style guide gives the reason for AD first, but some do - and usually there is SOME reason, so unless & until some other reason is presented, I think it is pretty settled THIS is THE reason.

Not a style guide, but citing the same reason

Of interest:

Here is a link to a site with what claims to be inside information on next Chicago Manual of Style
Here is one with CE preferred

On references: yes, they should be there - but NONE of the arguments on either side cite scholarly references - with only newspaper articles & political arguments appearing so far. And I would agree that citing mirror sites is silly. I notice now that 2 of the support arguments are presented in the Tennessee alumni site [12] - that's closer to "scholarly" than anything so far, I think --JimWae 20:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"presumed birth year" of Jesus

I'm reverting this sentence:

The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the presumed birth year of Jesus as a starting point.

back to:

The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point.

(differences bolded) The reason I'm changing it back is that the beginning of the AD calendar is not "presumed" by anyone to be the year of birth of Jesus. It's a traditional date for his birth, that is not currently accepted by any scholar. Any identification of the beginning of the Common Era with the birth of Jesus should be qualified in some way, so as not to indicate that Jesus was actually born within a year of January 1, AD 1. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of CE on British Television

Things have taken a turn for the worse in the UK. On 29 December 2005 the celebrity edition of Mastermind on the BBC posed a question about Muhammad. John Humphrys, the questioner, stated a date using CE notation. Despite this, the question was correctly answered by Monty Don, but I bet it confused the hell out of the audience. I also think Humphrys would not be best pleased about his scripted question either. Still, what do you expect from the increasingly PC BBC. Arcturus 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankfully the worst of political correctness doesn't come to these shores. Of course, I'm not sure whether to marvel at the use of politically correct terms on the BBC or to marvel at the designation of Monty Don as a celebrity. WTF is he? jguk 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Arcturus: Use of the term "political correctness" in this way is akin to trolling: it is a loaded term. I have asked Jguk to try to avoid using the term before and I will repeat my request. Would you folks be able to avoid using terms like "political correctness" on talk pages? There is nothing to be gained by it in promoting civil discussion. Sunray 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hahahahaha! Now they're even trying to be politically correct about using the term "Politically correct"! LMFAO! CrazyInSane 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Sunray: Usage of the term political correctness in this discussion is a very long way from "trolling". It is a excellent description of the phenomenon alluded to, and in my experience many people who are described as being "politically correct" do not take offence. I will continue using the term because; it is not offensive, it is not uncivil and it is a mainstream phrase. Talk pages are for relevant discussion and debate. You should not attempt to direct discussions in this manner. Arcturus 23:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read the article on Political correctness. The term is now generally used pejoratively. I wouldn't presume to "direct discussions" but do hope that you will be cognizant of how your words may be read by others. Sunray 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember Sunray asking me to avoid using the term, but I tend to avoid it anyway. Is the term "political correctness" now pejorative? Golly, it's hard to keep up with it all. Far better just to call a spade a spade, Arcturus, and thank our lucky stars it is nowhere near as prevalent and pernicious here in the UK than in the US, jguk 11:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)