Talk:Common Era/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Does CE/BCE Still Cause Confusion?

I'm just wondering if this discussion from 1993 is still a representative criticism, relative to this footnote:

Wilson, Kenneth G. (1993). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English – A.D., B.C., (A.)C.E., B.C.E. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-06989-2. Retrieved 2011-05-18. A.D. appears either before or after the number of the year... although conservative use has long preferred before only; B.C. always follows the number of the year.... Common era (C.E.) itself needs a good deal of further justification, in view of its clearly Christian numbering. Most conservatives still prefer A.D. and B.C. Best advice: don't use B.C.E., C.E., or A.C.E. to replace B.C. and A.D. without translating the new terms for the very large number of readers who will not understand them. Note too that if we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis.

My google searches seem to indicate that except in very limited circles this kind of confusion has not been present for some time. Is my assessment incorrect and confusion lingers and critics still raise this as an objection? If so, is there a more current reference? If not, should this part be removed as no longer relevant? Franseth (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, remove. I don't have access to the latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary but the 2005 edition said":

However, the determination of the year now known as ad 1 as the first full year of Jesus’s life has turned out to be incorrect, and most scholars now accept that his birth probably occurred somewhat earlier. The traditional system has remained nonetheless.

As American society becomes increasingly diverse and awareness and respect for cultural and religious differences grows, many have felt the need for a new system that respects the beliefs of atheists and members of religious groups other than Christians. A growing number of writers now use another system of epoch names that contain no direct reference to Christianity. The current epoch is designated ce. standing for common era, while the epoch formerly designated bc is now designated bce, standing for before the common era. Both ce and bce follow the year.

This world history textbook by William J. Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel has a note to students that says:

Some historians now prefer to use the abbreviations B.C.E. ("before the common era") and c.i. (“common era") instead of b.c. and a.d. This is especially true of world historians who prefer to use symbols that are not so Western or Christian oriented. The dates, of course, remain the same. Thus, 1950 b.c.e. and 1950 b.c. would be the same year, as would a.d. 40 and 40 c.E. In keeping with the current usage by many world historians, this book will use the terms b.c.e . and c.e."

Doug Weller talk 10:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is written for a world-wide audience, most of whom are not Christian. So cultural changes in the US are interesting and valid but cannot determine the content of this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Time

Physicists have expertise in defining things like energy, mass, gravity, etc. But do physicists have a uniform time reference to picosecond accuracy? Can time truly be measured over great distances in this day/age?2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not the place to discuss it. Please see Time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Common Era - Christian Era - unsourced interpretation of abbreviations

The article does not show sources for the (older) meaning of the abbreviation CE. Older literature seems to use regularly "Christian Era" with the abbreviations B.C., less often A.C. If and where CE/BCE means "Christian Era", "Common Era", "Current Era" (equivalently used in 1917 Cath. Enc.) remains to be shown. Obviously we have a bit of OR in this article (see footnote 46 which is classical OR (stating "VE is likely an abbreviation for Vulgar Era" - conclusion of Wikipedia contributor), 47 uses a not very scholarly source (Houston Chronicler), which however states "for more than a century Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era" - which is not reflected in the article text.

As we have no real sources for an original meaning of the abbreviation the article should rather be quiet than claiming as in the opening that CE/BCE came as an alternative to the BC/AD "system". As a system it is clearly not alternative but a relabeling. For large parts of the (recent) past (and present - cf Keene, Xian Experience, ISBN9780748721886, Cover note explains CE as "Common or Christian era", same Carol Stratton, Buddhist sculpture (2004), p. 85 ) the use of the abbreviation looks to me (after going thru the named sources) as a more open expression which can/could be understood towards both sides (Christian Era - Common /Current Era). If the Houston Chronicler is right, the CE usage by Jewish authors would mean a less religious way to name the Christian Era (sounds more factual than the confession of Faith "Year of the Lord"). The ambiguity remains also after explaining CE as Common Era, because this "common era" is a (not THE) "Christian era" (same as the common Iranian era is a Muslim era) Kipala (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kipala: Keene's book is a GCSE book, sort of US high school textbook. He's got a BS in Theology and Religious Studies. Stratton writes about Buddhist art. Neither qualify as sources here. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Nicely answered. Just examples for present day usage of the Term (that is why I use it here on talk, not in the article). Still no answer to my point that the use and origin of the abbreviation is without source and that the article contains a bit of OR. right? Kipala (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the usage 'Christian Era' is a backronym. Common Era came first and is cited; CE derived from it as initialism, which will be time-consuming to cite. But I can't see how you can claim OR since for certain CE and Common Era are used widely outside wikipedia. It may well be open to challenge but OR is the wrong challenge. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have stricken my previous reply because it is irrelevant. This article is about "Common Era", not about "CE" and therefore not about alternative meanings for that abbreviation. It is just an abbreviation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

For the purpose of parallel sentence structure, the following sentence in the second paragraph of the article:

by not explicitly referencing Jesus as "Christ" and Dominus ("Lord") through use of the abbreviation[c] "AD".:

could be modified to:

by not explicitly referencing Jesus as "Christ" through use of the abbreviation[c] "BC", and Dominus ("Lord") through use of the abbreviation[c] "AD".:

SquashEngineer (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Political correctness

An IP editor removed category:political correctness but Jc3s5h reverted, asserting [in words to that effect] that it is an appropriate category to use for this article.

In my view, it is a wholly pejorative category in any case but here it is making an unambiguously subjective judgement that the values of those who use CE have no reasonable validity. I might say equally that AD is 'politically correct' in giving obeisance to the world-view of one religious persuasion, but I would not do so as I would consider it POV, rude and disrespectful of the honest if delusional beliefs of a large proportion of our readership. The same respect should be accorded to those who do not share that world view. Is there any NPOV argument for retaining the category in this article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I have nominated that category for deletion (it was deleted in 2005 but has crawled back out of the cesspit). See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 31. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Stories from The Guardian and The Times support the idea that switching from anno Domini to CE is often though of as being motivated by political correctness. That does not necessarily mean that John Maynard Friedman's definition of political correctness agrees with The Times or The Guardian.

My view is that a certain wording change can be made by large numbers of authors for reasons of political correctness, and therefore relevant articles could be placed in the political correctness category, even if there are valid reasons for making the change that are other than political correctness. It isn't about the inherent correctness of a term, it's about the reason authors are shifting towards, or away from, a term. Jc3s5h (talk)

I don't have a subscription to The Times but The Guardian article specifically refers to the Daily Mail [regarded by Wikipedia as an unreliable source] using the term in a clearly pejorative manner, The DM's thesis is that that BBC is being disrespectful to Christians when it uses religiously neutral notation – what we in Wikipedia would call NPOV. Thus the Guardian citation does not support application of the category in this case. Would you summarise The Times piece, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if we ignore the portion of The Guardian's article based on the Mail, there are still accusations from the Telegraph and Christian Today that the BBC was practicing political correctness by replacing anno Domini with CE. Even if the accusations are exaggerated, it's clearly the case that there are plenty of authors who impute the motive of political correctness to any publication that converts from AD to CE, which justify the category. I'll deal with The Times in a different post. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not have a Times subscription either, but the head line and the 3 paragraphs in the abbreviated article available to non-subscribers is enough to see that when an institution adopts a policy of using CE instead of AD, that's sufficient for The Times to aim the headline "National Trust’s date with political correctness" in the institution's direction. Again, it doesn't matter why the institution making a change did what they did; "Common Era" belongs in the political correctness category because anybody who uses it will be accused of political correctness.

Oh by the way, avoiding unnecessary offence to people isn't always a bad thing, so political correctness isn't always a bad thing. But, in my opinion, overdoing it robs a language of its heritage. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In the cases you cite, the implication is that those who assert their right to apply the equivalent of wp:ERA in other contexts are only doing so either to insult Christians or because they want to be holier than thou. AKA 'Snowflakes'. That merits only contempt.

There is a good suggestion at the CfD discussion to change the category name to Category:Inclusive language controversies, which would satisfy me.

Avoiding unnecessary offence (outside of comedy, Jim Davidson excepted) is otherwise known as being civilised. As far as impoverishing the language goes, we are a very long way from 1984's newspeak! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There are many eras all over the world, and people are free to choose and use; this era was started and used by Christians since many centuries; it was known as the Christian Era; if any non- Christian is sensitive to its use, they are free to use any other era of their choice. Renaming it is not a proper solution. This will be a cultural appropriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:73:79F8:D8C1:9CBD:BF84:4DE8 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Then feel free to continue to use AD/CE, no-one is stopping you. Conversely, you have no right to object to other people using CE/BCE just because it happens to use the same epoch as your preference. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No proof presented that "CE" is used to abbreviate "Christian Era"

I reverted the following addition by John Maynard Friedman:

The usage Christian Era for CE is also observed.

The cited Collins Dictionary merely establishes that "Christian Era" corresponds numerically to AD/CE and BC/BCE dates. It does not establish that when one encounters the abbreviation "CE" the author was thinking to him/herself "this is an abbreviation for Christian Era". It does not establish that any author ever consciously chose "CE" as an abbreviation for "Christian Era". Jc3s5h (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I am content with that. I was trying perhaps too hard to intercept the anon editor who was POV pushing, with a small concession. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

British Museums and BC/BCE

True of the BM, but not Cornish museums[1] os the Science Museum Group[2] or the Royal Museums at Greenwich[3] or University College London's Museums[4] etc. A lot still use BC/AD but I've no idea what the proportion is --Doug Weller talk 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing BC straight away on that Cornish link?! The UCM link is Greenwich repeated, but the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, part of UCM, most certainly still use BC. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Observing web pages that use one or other (or even both) systems and drawing a conclusion is wp:SYN. If the proposed sentence about the BM is to stand, we need at least a statement from the BM saying that this is their policy (which I doubt, given that they also have Jewish artefacts). The second claim that "most other museums do so" is a major assertion that would need an equally major citation to support it – for example a peer-reviewed journal article where the researchers can show that they have surveyed the large majority of museums in the UK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is such a statement somewhere on their site, but being the BM, it is unfindable. Don't worry, they'd use it for Jewish objects, except these don't seem to be "Jewish" as far as the BM is concerned until the 1st century, but "Hebrew", as here or "Judaean", both of course with BC. I've added re the National Trust, English Heritage have a useful, somwhat defiant glossary note I'll add. The old text "In 2002, England and Wales introduced the BCE/CE notation system into the official school curriculum." was a ridiculous overstatement - an advisory panel on religious education had recommended introducing it, which 15 years later only some LEAs had done, per the ref I've added. It was this discussion that led me here. I must say I have the impression that the tide of CE is ebbing somewhat - even in the US the MMA, Cleveland Museum of Art, Getty, LACMA all still use BC. If you don't have those by now you've pretty much lost the battle. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. I don't have a "battle" to establish anything: my aim is an article that is soundly based on reliable sources. Material in the article should report organisations' policy statements. It is not permissible for editors to look at a web page or even 100 web pages and decide that, in their judgement alone, that it means X or Y. It was for this reason that I reverted your addition of the BM: the cite you gave was not for a policy statement that would support the assertion you made but only an example of usage.

It may not be your intention but you are giving the appearance of POV pushing and wp:nothere. Please stop until you have secured consensus for these controversial edits, per wp:brd. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Not YOU, those in the US waging what has been a battle in the culture wars for a couple of decades. A remarkable misreading! Best of luck trying to accuse me of POV pushing and wp:nothere. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Calm down.I agree that we need independent sources, not our own research into what musueums, etc do or don't do. I tried to post this 2 days ago but probably didn't notice I'd hit an edit conflict. (unsigned by user:Doug Weller).

This part of the article is now so sourced, but of course much of the rest remains refed to random web examples of usage. Perhaps you should tackle those. The article still falls some way short of neutrality imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the same test applies so, for those that you have spotted, please at least tag as not in citation given (as per discussion above, an example of use is not evidence of organisation policy). Any that can't be repaired in a reasonable time should be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed one completely unrefed and dubious bit, but otherwise I'll leave that you and Doug since you are so bothered about it. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Common Era

You reverted my edit on Common Era. I quote from two well-known dictionaries. There is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. If you want to remove it, you need to seek consensus, not me. If you do not agree with those dictionaries, please contact the editors. I didn't write those dictionaries, I just quote. I can’t change Cambridge and Merriam-Webster, I am sorry. However I leave it to you, you seem to be very religious (no problem for me), but I don't want to waste my time about religious issues, good luck to you, Leopard (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

[The foregoing was moved from my talk page because this is the proper place to discuss it. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]

Jc3s5h was correct to revert it. This article is about the topic, Common Era. It is not about the abbreviation "CE". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, John, the article is about the topic "Common Era" and not about the abbreviation "CE", but I did not say anything about "CE", I only added a third synonymous explanation of the abbreviation "BCE" and two sources, well known and reliable as far as I know, (Jc3s5h, thanks for moving my comments from your talk page) Leopard (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If this article is not about the term "Christian era", then we could shift the issue to the "Anno Domini" article by replacing

{{redirect|BCE}}

at the beginning of the "Common Era" article with

{{Redirect|BCE|before the Christian era|Anno Domini|other uses|BCE (disambiguation)}}

Then, if consensus can be achieved, a statement could be added to "Anno Domini" that Cambridge & Merriam-Webster assert that BCE can be an abbreviation for "before the Christian era". It seems a pity we're not in a position to describe how frequent this usage is, whether it's common, occasional, or rare. I have an opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Defined Epoch

Is there a definition, outside of religion? E.g.: 1970 gregorian years before January 1, 1970 00:00 UTC (a unix based one), or other well defined epoch, or is it just ephemeral vs actual scientific dating using before the present moment? Lycurgus (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Purely an unsourced opinion but I can't see it being anything but ephemeral. "It is what is because that is what it is". Even the AD reckoning lacks a credible epoch because it doesn't match the claimed event. A fairly precise scientific epoch could be derived from the triple conjunction ("the star in the east") but [a] that was almost certainly a retrofit and [b] didn't happen today minus 2020 years, 5 months, 25 days and 9 hours ago. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The basic idea behind "Common Era" is to refer to the same epoch as anno Domini/year of the Lord/Christian Era, but to call it something else. Trying to invent a precise definition would make it a different meaning, and would prevent "Common Era" from being numerically equivalent to anno Domini.

Also, Coordinated Universal Time wasn't established until 1963, and cannot be extended backward much before that. As an example, the Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 relies on records of International Atomic Time to proved ΔT (which is needed to calculate UTC) as far back as 1956, but shifts to modeling before that. So UTC is meaningless before the mid-20th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn think so, ty for your responses. As far as the matter of extending backward arbitrarily far, this simply requires the acceptance of uniform time in some inertial frame. I suppose the unix epoch, or one like it, may, de facto be the only defined one(s). Lycurgus (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't use uniform time to extend backward if you expect to agree with history. The Earth's rotation is non-uniform, and people relied on astronomical observations that were dependent on the Earth's rotation to control clocks and calendars until about 1955. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, natural periodicities upon which prescientific peoples kept time are obviously irrelevant to something pretending to be a common system for all cultures down to the present or across them. At least you don't seem to be contesting the notion of uniform time itself. In the case of studies of particular cultures some standard defined mapping from the uniform common one can be expected for each, assuming its epoch can be given from the common one, just as is done with natural periodicities such as the orbit or rotation of the earth, i.e. the last or next vernal/autumnal equinox in a given hemisphere. Lycurgus (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I was getting at. As far as we know, all people have used days as their key basic unit of time, and there would be no significant disagreement among neighboring cultures about how many days had passed, although the names given to those days would differ, and small isolated communities might make a blunder in the day count. But the days themselves are not of uniform length, even when the best methods of averaging available to modern science are used. The difference between time kept by truly uniform time, such as that kept by atomic clocks and nuclear decay, versus counting rotations of the earth, amounts to almost 5 hours between 500 BC and now (see ''ΔT''). We could expect that at the time the earliest written records were made, the difference between uniform time and and a count of days was more than half a day, which when rounded, becomes a whole day. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have conflated the errors that might have been made by various primitive cultures, the non uniformity of their timekeeping systems, and various kinds of loss of data, with the impossibility of mapping those systems to uniform time or accounting for variation and error in the source data. Again, this is irrelevant. What is relevant is a standard of uniform time, to which historical events can be mapped, subject to such variation. Have to call time on this here, won't respond further. ty. FWIW, this site generally ignores such issues and blythely projects back to the 2nd millenia BCE for events of the current gregorian day. I commented on it many years ago with no effect.Lycurgus (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As a general principle, Wikipedia follows the sources, we don't aim to set a new standard. Meanwhile your idea counts as wp:original research and you could hardly expect it to be taken further. In any case, events in human history were determined by the rotation of the planet: atomic time is really only relevant in history for events at galactic scale. In fact it is has only become significant in the past 50 years or so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, i haven't seen any substantially negative CE anniversaries in recent times. Lycurgus (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if you find one of these in an old cellar, do be careful how you set the valves, as Planet Earth may not have arrived yet to where/when your atomic clock says it should have done. :-) Otherwise it isn't really obvious what underlies your concern? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Today they have the coup of the 400, in 411 BCE in On this day. I'm not sure how they even map to a day that isn't even Julian, or ftm in the pre-julian roman calendar. In principle though, my original point, such mappings are possible if there is a well defined epoch for "CE", the vagaries of various ancient dating systems notwithstanding as long as they have some minimal coherence. Lycurgus (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

See Proleptic Gregorian Calendar and Proleptic Julian Calendar. The precision you are arguing for is not needed unless you have a time machine. That date of 400BCE may be taken as 400±50. The epoch of AD/CE is an arbitrary date in the past, even Christian scholars accept that it misses the birth or incarnation of their saviour by five to ten years. We are where we are in the real world, it is not going to change without an apocalyptic event to completely replace it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Separate pages for CE & BCE ?

Shouldn't there be separate pages for CE (Common Era) & BCE (Before Common Era) ? Tizen03 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Short description

Looks like we even need a consensus version of the short description! I thought that duplicating the consensus opening sentence would suffice but evidently not. Meanwhile I agree that wp:STATUSQUO should operate given today's ill-advised interventions.

• "Alternative name of [...] Anno Domini": no, it is not. It is one of two names for the current calendar era, without reference to Christian nomenclature (even though that is how this era came to dominate). Maybe alternative to AD?
• "Traditional": whose tradition? It is not traditional in North Africa and in very little of Asia, probably the majority of the world's population.
• Religiously neutral: yes, I agree.

Comment? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The current version of the article has this short description:

Alternative (and religiously neutral) naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini

I interpret "calendar era" as the point in time where the counting of a certain calendar begins. For the notation that is usually used with the Gregorian and Julian calendars in recent centuries, that is near 1 January AD 1. There are several names for this era, including the Christian Era, Anno Domini, Common Era, and Current Era.

I agree that "traditional calendar era" has problems. First, it's saying that it's the name "Anno Domini", not the point in time, that is the era. Second, there are several calendar eras that are actively used by various governments and cultures, such as the Hijri era.

I don't agree that "Common Era" is religiously neutral. For one thing, the numbering are inherently religious and changing the name can't overcome that. Also, an active campaign to avoid mention of Christianity is not religiously neutral. There isn't any corresponding campaign to change the names of "January" or "Thursday". Jc3s5h (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought that "the point in time where the counting of a certain calendar begins" is called the epoch?

It is extensively documented that AUC 754 (1 CE) does not match the historical records for either "the fifteenth year in the reign of Tiberious Caesar" or the triple conjunction. The numbering is the same as that of the dominant calendar, no more: it is just a number.

No, the numbering is not inherently religious, it is just a number. Christians attach a particular significance to it, other people don't. No-one is campaigning to stop you using AD if you want, just don't insist that I must do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The relevant definition from Lexico is

1.1 A system of chronology dating from a particular noteworthy event.

The same dictionary does not provide a definition that would clearly apply to AD, CE, etc., but has this to say in the origin section of the entry:

Origin

Early 17th century (in the Latin form epocha; originally in the general sense of a date from which succeeding years are numbered...)

I believe these support my contention that it is the date (even if it is approximate) from which years are numbered, and the system that is followed (a simple number) that constitute an era AD, CE, etc. are just names for the system.

As for your statement that the numbers are not inherently religious, I flatly reject it. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

So an era is a system of chronology dating from an epoch. I agree. I also agree that the epoch for the current era is the (incorrect but not significantly so) date of the birth of Jesus. This makes the AD era and year numbers inherently religious to Christians. People of other faiths and none accept the reality of our current year numbering system: we just would prefer that it doesn't have to have the historic religious ownership tag.

Anyway, we are straying into wp:notforum territory so best we leave it there and agree to disagree. I understand your perspective, I believe that you understand mine and neither if us is going to change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Conservapedia example

@Dtbrady: I still feel like the Conservapedia example is tangential. I removed it and you reverted that, so hopefully we can discuss here. It was likely included because of its relation to Wikipedia, but it really is just an intriguing hook. The opposition section should be focused on secular and religious arguments against using BCE/CE, not Mr. Schlalfy creating Conservapedia as a reaction to BCE/CE. I don't have much animus towards Conservapedia, but it's weird to put it alongside scholars and religious organizations. Ovinus (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Ovinus's logic convinces me. A better place for it would be "See also" with a note saying why it is relevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The deletion in question does not mention any Wikipedia article other than "Common Era" so if this passage is to go anywhere, it wouldn't be in the "See also" section, which is for linking to other Wikipedia articles. Personally, as Conservapedia slips further and further into obscurity, I think there is less reason to mention it now than when the passage was originally put in this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Agreed! The information is definitely appropriate in the Conservapedia article. I guess this is just my personal opinion, but I doubt Schlalfy really came up with Conservapedia in reaction to a single student's usage of CE.... Ovinus (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree too. Just to clarify, I meant that we might put * Conservapedia, reputedly founded in reaction to a student's use of CE instead of AD in an essay into 'See also ' not the deleted text. ['in an essay' is just my place-holder for whatever it was.] My suggestion is intended as a compromise solution. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Never seen that before... hopefully Dtbrady can explain their thoughts. Otherwise I think we should remove the passage, or at least the first sentence of it. Ovinus (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated my change. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Rock Album?

Can you really use a rock album as a scientific reference? Surely there must be something better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.232.9 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you point out the reference you mean? (unless you mean the disambiguation line "Era Vulgaris" redirects here. For the Queens of the Stone Age album, see Era Vulgaris (album).? That is not a reference, it is just to inform fans who search using the term Era Vulgaria that this is not the article they want (but they might learn something while they are here).) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Length argument against

My primary complaint about this notation is that it is unattractive, as the BCE dates are one letter longer than the CE dates. This makes tables wider and without straight columns. Is there any kind of consensus on this problem or is it just me? Personally I don't see why they are not called CE and BC (for Before Common (era)).Spitzak (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Another complaint is that they can be confused, considering they both end in "CE". I usually need to see both being used before I am certain which is which.Spitzak (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

To channel John McEnroe, you can not be serious!. I have come across many WP:IDONTLIKEIT complaints before but this is a new one. WP:RS etc. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Opposition section wording

User:Kent Dominic made an edit. While the edit itself is acceptable, the edit summary contained incorrect information. Since the editor is making many edits to the article, I am concerned the misunderstanding may lead to incorrect edits in the near future. The edit summary stated

Partial reversion due to misconstruction whether re there's a definite (i.e., "the") traditional year of Jesus's birth versus an indefinite (i.e., "a") disputed traditional year, as argued among those who purport a 4 BC to 0 AD approximation.

This article mainly focuses on the merits of AD notation versus CE notation. The details of the AD system are mostly contained in that article and I will be referring to it and the sources cited in that article.

The edit summary conflates two different sources of uncertainty. The first kind of confusion is what year the inventor of the system, Dionysius Exiguus, believed Jesus was born. Bonnie J. Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens argue that the surviving documents can be interpreted to mean that Dionysius Exxigus believed the birth year was 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1.

The actual birth year is a separate source of uncertainty; a wide variety of scholarly arguments exist. Dunn claims most scholars believe the date is between 6 BC and 4 BC. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I question whether the actual historical date of birth is relevant. The epoch of the era is the date it is: whether Jesus of Nazareth was actually conceived or born at that epochal moment is now incidental. I could assert that the epoch of CE is 753 AUC but then that may raise the question of whether Rome was actually founded on 1 AUC. Again, it doesn't matter. I suggest the debate is somewhat pointless. The Common Era is the era we all live in at present, the base date is essentially arbitrary. However, I can't see how I can say that the religious fundamentalists indulging in sophistry without falling foul of WP:OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the actual birth date is relevant to the article in its present form. But I recall that the article used to contain the inaccuracy in the birth date as a reason given by some to oppose the AD notation. I think it is best if editors are aware of the distinction so that any effort to reintroduce descriptions of such opposition can be properly understood.

The distinction is also relevant when choosing language to describe the epoch. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.

I wonder if we can resolve the issue by saying that the epoch of AD is the event that Dyonysius believed to be the date of Jesus's conception/birth? That removes any requirement to prove actual historicity. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct that someone somewhere has made the silly argument that Dionysius got it wrong but I suggest it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it (and kinder to the person who made that argument and would probably now rather it be forgotten because it so fatuous). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the whole topic related to "the epoch of AD is the event that Dyonysius believed to be the date of Jesus's conception/birth" is sufficiently addressed in Anno Domini and we need not address it in this article. If we were going to address it, I wouldn't care for that wording. The birth of Jesus is the event and the epoch is the commemoration.

As for whether Dionysius intended to commemorate the conception or the birth, Blackburn and Holford-Strevens indicate on pages 778–779 that he intended to commemorate the birth, but he may have considered the birth to be synonymous with the Incarnation. Modern Christians celebrate the Incarnation on March 25 and Christmas on December 25. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My only concern is the phrasing of "the traditional year of the conception or birth of Jesus" (which strikes me as a false flag, as if there's only one tradition) versus "a traditional year". Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The current phrasing was inserted in an edit by Doug Weller (talk · contribs) on 1 September 2010. You might examine the talk page archives around that date to see if the reasoning is explained.

It seems to me "the traditional year" was serving as shorthand for an immensely complicated situation. According to Blackburn and Holford-Strevens p. 778 "Yet the general opinion in the West was, and long remained even among authors who used [Dionysius's] era, that Christ had been born in AM Eus. 1599 = 2035 Abraham = 42 Augustus = 2 BC". All the dates that Dionysius used in connection with his Easter Table were in March or April, making it hard to determine which date he was treating as beginning of the year: a date in September associated with the Diocletian Era that was used in the Easter table he was replacing, the first day of Advent which is sometimes considered the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, or January 1. There is also doubt whether he counted exclusively, where we would say January 1 to January 3 is two days, or inclusively, the way the Romans did, where it would be three days. So It seems likely that Dionysius may very well have had a traditional year in mind, but we can't be sure what that year was. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that "the" is just fine. There may be disagreement about which year, but I suspect everybody agrees there was only one year that Jesus was born in, not several. So "the" is perfectly correct.Spitzak (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"The" would be fine in isolation, but here it was "the traditional year..." as if there's only one tradition, which isn't the case, since the year of Jesus's birth can be rendered in at least four traditions that I know of. Contextually speaking, "the prototypical year" would be more precise re AD but changing "the" to "a" seemed simpler. By way of analogy, I'd quibble with a statement like, "classical music is the traditional form of Western music". Nope. There are several traditions of Western music. Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if Kent Dominic would spell out the years in the four traditions he is thinking of, because I'm not sure I understand. We are interested in the year that is the epoch of the AD/BC notation, and that year, in that notation, could be 2 BC, 1 BC, or 1 AD, because the surviving sources are open to interpretation. If Kent Dominic is thinking of other notations, then it isn't a different year, just a different way of writing it. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar, Coptic Orthodox calendar, Ethiopian Orthodox calendar, and Chinese calendar have their own traditions of rendering years. None can be rightly said to entail "the traditional year" of anything. Using AD or CE as "the" quintessential tradition regarding a particular year smells of systemic bias. If the intent is to limit the pertinent year to the AD/BC tradition, the sentence needs to be phrased a la, "Because the BC/AD notation is based on a its own traditional year of the conception or birth of Jesus..." Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree, it should not read "the traditional year" or "a traditional year", but instead read "the year". Spitzak (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spitzak: That's even better than how I worded the article's most recent edit. Why don't you change it accordingly? Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Changed my mind after seeing the edit in context. Sorry, but Jc3s5h was right to change it, though it's still not copacetic. Here goes another try...--Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just "the year" constitutes a statement in Wikipedia's voice that Jesus was born or conceived in some year very close to 1 CE, say 2 BCE, 1 BCE, or 1 CE. But there is no consensus among scholars for that. A more likely range is 6 BCE to 4 BCE. I have reverted the change. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Becoming a WP:FORK of Anno Domini

I'm concerned that the discussion above is losing sight of the big picture. Yes, the precise validity of the date of the epoch of the AD era is appropriate to the AD article. No, it is not appropriate for Common Era. The epoch of the CE era is (as I write today), 2022 years and 77 days ago (E&OE due to dubious historic counting, leap years, etc). There is no reliable evidence of any significant event having occurred on that date and so it is essentially irrelevant: we are where we are. So getting bogged down in the date of conception, birth, circumcision, whatever, of Jesus of Nazareth comes across as an attempt to appropriate the CE notation for Christianity. Anything more than a brief context-setting reference to antecedence is WP:UNDUE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with John Maynard Friedman re WP:FORK. I'd be pleased to see the article pared along that line, but I'm not going to touch it myself. Additionally, much of this thread transgresses WP:NOTAFORUM about the year of something. To reiterate: My initial edit of the article relates solely to a definite versus indefinite characterization of an item, not a substantive claim about when any item occurred. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In all the countries I'm somewhat familiar with, today, the epoch is treated at some time of day (not always midnight) at some arbitrary location, 1 January 1 CE. But in some places where the notation could be applied to historical dates, the year begins some other date, such as 25 March. Knowing the full background is necessary so that no one gets away with putting false statements in the article, as it would be if someone were to insert "the epoch of the CE era is midnight at the beginning of 1 January 1 CE". If you refuse to talk about the full background even on the talk page, you will end up putting falsehoods in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I will add that it is simply wrong to expect that the event that an epoch commemorates must have occurred on the day of the epoch, or even that there be a single day that constitutes the epoch. For example, Ab urbe condita commemorates the founding of the City of Rome, even though no one is sure when the city was founded, or even what it means to found the city. Similarly, the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar dates do not agree, so 1 January 1 CE Gregorian is a different day from 1 January 1 CE Julian. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That is certainly true but in this case the emphasis on the epoch of the Christian AD era reads as a it is POV pushing attempt to delegitimise the religiously neutral style. I recognise that the earliest use of the term "common" meant "of the ordinary people" and was just alias for AD. But that was then, this is now and it is WP:UNDUE to give it so much detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a subsection of the thread #Opposition section wording. I do not believe the "Opposition" section contains excessive detail about "the precise validity of the date of the epoch of the AD era". Some of the other sections of the article do contain quite a bit of detail about just what the epoch is; if you think that detail is excessive, I suggest discussing it in a new top-level section. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. This subsection about a fork has itself grown to become another fork! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing opposition points based on religious reasons

The first thing noted about opposition is that that there are points based on explicitly religious reasons, the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution on the matter being a good example, but also a primary source and therefore merely an example. One such religious point stated is christians being offended by the removal of references to Christ (again the SBC source is a good example of that), but the source actually being used to support this is not that good of a fit, and in the example being explored there the offended christian seems to be more offended by the attempt at political correctness than the religious side of it: "Still she is bothered by what B.C.E. and C.E. imply -- that Jesus is the starting point but we mustn't say so. She's bothered also because the National Geographic company sells Christmas cards. She says, "It's like they are playing both sides."". So while the source is an good for backing of offense at the removal of christian references I'm not sure it's that good at backing religious offense at the removal of christian references in particular.
I guess one could move it to a separate point, but then the point about religious reasons would only be backed by the SBC's say on the matter. There have to be better sources on this. 213.94.20.237 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that some religious opposition is explicit (as in the SBC) and some implicit (hiding behind an allegation of "political correctness"). The first is easy to cite, the second takes a lot more work to find reliable sources that make that link. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"CE and BCE have become popular in academic and scientific publications, because of the inaccuracy of BC and AD" : WP:BRD discussion

On 5 August last, Donbodo changed the sentence

• Since the later 20th century, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications as religiously neutral terms.

so that it reads

• Since the later 20th century, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications, because of the inaccuracy of BC and AD (they are based on a mistaken date for the birth of Jesus), or because BCE and CE are religiously neutral terms. (my emphasis)

I (and others) reverted that insertion. I gave as my reasons to do so as "mistaken date of birth for Jesus of Nazareth" is WP:UNDUE in the lead and highly dubious as being the reason for anyone preferring CE. Deleted. Maybe a place can be found for it in the body but it is very off-topic. There have been multiple reinstatements and deletions since then and we are in danger of drifting into WP:EDITWAR. So let's see if we can resolve it here. I may be wrong but I suspect that the difference is just one of emphasis or simple misunderstanding, but without access to the paywalled magazine article, it is hard to tell.

First, I don't believe that there is any credible support for the view that the epoch of AD/BC (and thus CE/BCE) is not in fact the most likely date for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth: I certainly don't believe it. Is this the cause of our dispute? Because it makes no sense that to believe that academic and scientific publications are the least bothered that Dionysius Exiguus got it a little bit wrong. It is of no significance. Even more to the point, CE by definition has the same epoch as AD so "academics and scientists" would gain no additional accuracy whatever by changing the name. I really cannot believe that History Today would make such a crazy assertion and the snippet they allow us to see for free certainly does not do so.

Does that explain my reversion more clearly? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The "inaccuracy" reason for preferring CE over AD is one I've never heard before. The History Today article presents it as a "final argument" in the 60-word last paragraph. Moreover it is presented as a argument from the author, not as a reason that matters to anyone else. So the source does not support the text. Zero^talk 02:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, right to remove it. JMF's last point is especially telling. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it’s a ridiculous argument. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

References

In a statement explaining why scholars prefer CE/BCE, the question of whether they are correct or not is irrelevant, is it not? It is not a statement about what is correct. It is a statement about scholars' opinions. So your first objection, namely that you do not believe there is any credible support for the view that AD/BC is not based on the most likely date for the birth of Jesus is moot. What matters is whether a significant number of scholars use BCE/CE because they believe the date is incorrect. Also irrelevant is whether you or anyone else personally believes CE/BCE is more accurate. What matters is only whether a significant number of scholars do. An article was cited that clearly states that there are scholars with this opinion. You may find it hard to believe that they do, but they do. I myself am a scholar with this opinion, and I know others who hold it. I request that you stop using a Wikipedia article to teach others what you believe is true. --Don Bodo (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep trying to change the argument. Whether the date is correct for the birth of Jesus is irrelevant, I would agree that almost any scholar who cares believes the dates are incorrect. However this is not the reason for choosing BCE over BC. The reason for choosing BCE over BC is because it is religiously neutral. Your edits are attempting to hide this by making up some other bogus reason, using more words to describe it and putting it first, in an attempt to obscure the real reason.Spitzak (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR to claim that CE and BCE have become popular in academic and scientific publications "because of the inaccuracy of BC and AD", fullstop. Only one editor is insisting on it, using one article in which he is misrepresenting what the article says (even if he wasn't—one article isn't enough to substantiate this claim). Unless the terms change, this debate needs to come to an end.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It already had come to an end, at the end of last month, with the assertion being dismissed with derisory laughter. The discussion is closed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I was expecting more of a professional response from someone, anyone. Instead I get unsupported assertions and a false accusation of misrepresentation. I can see this article has been commandeered by invested parties. Don Bodo (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)