Talk:Common Era/Archive 6

Please reference sources

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

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

Opposition argument

From the article:

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

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

In the UK, CBE/CE are not really all that much used, BC/AD is practically standard. I would say most people here, if they know what CBE/CE means would think of them as Americanisms. LDHan 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:64.252.16.248, I assume you're from the US, as you say you "doubt" that CE/BCE are unfamiliar outside of that country. As per LDHan, the terms are definitely unfamiliar in the UK, and if at all familiar they are associated with the USA. This is the same in all other countries, and because (I assume) you are an US American, you are inherently of USA's POV. (By the way, I use "United States of American" not "American" because there are alot of other countries in "America")— OLP 1999 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am from the UK - and I am familiar with CE/BCE from teaching in a multi-cultural environment in the UK. In recent years, these terms have been and now are as familiar as BC/AD was a generation ago. If you are making accusations of POV, it is important to ensure your own POV is not discounted. Ian Cairns 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They are certainly *not* as familiar. Most people - those who know better - stick to the old system. 70.53.109.126 14:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

CE/BCE is not in common usage in the UK David n m bond 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• We have two people from the UK here contradicting each other. Icairns says CE/BCE is as popular as AD/BC, and LDHan says it is considered an "Americanism" and that AD/BC are the standard there. The fact remains that the general non-USA public, aside from those in the History field and those with higher IQs, know about CE/BCE. I have inserted the "worldwide views" template and think it should remain—many, including Encyclopedia Brittanica (as cited in the article), simply view CE/BCE as "Christian Era" and nothing more— OLP 1999 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a slight clarification: I said that BCE/CE was as _familiar_ as BC/AD, not necessarily as _popular_. I will concede that many older, more conservative, Christian folk would find BC/AD more popular, but, in the modern multi-cultural environment in many parts of the UK, most sensitive souls in my experience would tend to avoid terms which could possibly be taken as religiously-slanted Ian Cairns 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You're really trying hard, I'll give you that. I'm not religious, so I don't give a shit about using a system that dates from the supposed birth of Jesus. It's just that BCE/CE is the exact same system! Get that through your head. It's not getting rid of religion. Were I a non-Christian I would be offended by the use of BCE/CE. Until someone comes up with a new, better system that is actually different from one already in use, we should stick to the old one. 70.53.109.126 14:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm Irish living in England, and I can assure you that no-one has ever heard of this where I come from. The one individual who says its familiar is really either living in some little academic pc hothouse or telling porkies. All this stuff about religion is a purely USA obsession and has no relevance to anyone outside your country. You really need to get some perspective. I don't give a fish's fart about religion, most people who live in the UK don't, but there is no need to change commonly accepted notations because a few US academics have a bee in their bonnet. this nonsense needs to be stamped out. Who are these people and why are they so arrogant. Unless this site is to degenerate into backwater for the perpetually offended then this needs to be stopped. No one uses this anywhere in the world outside the US. Get a grip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs).

I'm from the US and not an idiot. I read a lot of non-fiction including a lot of academic work and I ended up on this talk page because I just encountered BCE/CE for the first time. While I immediately understood that it was replacing BC/AD and the context of the events told me which was which I had no idea what BCE and CE stood for. I agree that changing them while continuing to use the Gregorian calendar solves nothing, yes it may be a compromise but it is still using Jesus as a turning point. I have no problem with using something other than BC/AD. However I do object to BCE/CE because of the added letter. I like the negative and positive idea a lot but would also be content with something like 2007D 2007E or the like. I'd rather shorten than lengthen the abbreviations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.189.1 (talk • contribs).

As with the previous writer, I am born and raised in the US and have been a systems analyst for many years (also not an idiot). I reached this page due to my having encountered BCE for the first time today, interestingly enough in another Wikipedia Article. While I do not object to the term in any way, the assertion that it is common knowledge in the USA is untrue as well. Peace to you all. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Added 2 anti points from the Canadian website (which is mostly pro). The first relates to the inconsistency of removing one religious reference from our way of reckoning time but ignoring others. The second is purely functional mentioning the fact it is more ambiguous (and harder to read-give us dyslexics a break!) if we change "WX" vs "YZ" to "XYZ" vs "YZ". 12.150.254.211 03:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the terms "CE" and "BCE" to be stilted and arrogant? I think the only reason one would use these abbreviations is to pose as being morally superior to those who would rather use the traditional terms. Many people who encounter CE and BCE think that those terms mean "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era" so the meaning of these new terms is lost on most people. I believe that people who use them are trying, in their own impotent little way, to be confrontational. Unfortunately, it comes across as being comically pretentious. --Rodak1 21 July 2007

No you are not alone in this view. It has been debated ad nauseam on the talk pages of Wikipedia:Eras and WP:MOSDATE. This page, as the box at the top notes, is for discussion of the article. Sunray 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Offical Verdict

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

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

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

Before you exercise reason, reflect on what happened before. There was an attempt to impose a ban on AD/BC Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Common sense pervailed. The attempt failed. Then the proposer of the failed proposal took issue with an editor doing as you suggest. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. It's just not worth it. ClemMcGann 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What's reasonable about making arbitrary changes to things that make little difference one way or the other and will generate a revert war? It's only stirring up trouble.--Prosfilaes 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Let look at this from a logical stand point. whether we like it or not the entire system of dating things in the world runs off jesus's birth. things before his birth are called BC because there before christ's birth . why say bce before common era if the measuring point is not the common era, the measuring point is still christ's birth.

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try with the conveniently selective quote. What wikipedia says at WP:NPOV is actually:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

• Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

The use of BCE is widely accepted in academia--it is not an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" viewpoint. Outside of academia, use of BCE/CE or BC/AD is pretty limited, but BCE/CE is the neutral term. Languages change and evolve. By your own admission, you indicate that "[t]he origin of names, words and phrases do not matter", so why do you care? If they do not matter, then the neutral term (as in NPOV, which you seem to support) should be preferable. Freshacconci 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not widely accepted in acedemia, its widely accepted in American academia, and nowhere else. Its another stupid fad by the terminally pc and it will be forgotten when the next fad comes along when someone gets pointlessly offended by some other rubbish and then tries to unilaterally impose it on everyone else. Its time that that small cliques with loud voices in the US started to realise that the world does not revolve around the ludicrous preoccupations of small groups in American politics. Try to get your head around this - No one anywhere in the world is ever going to use this because it only exists as an issue in your head.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs).

Please be sure to read WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF before you edit the encyclopedia again, lest you get yourself in trouble. Please consider this an official warning.

Atlant 14:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is inappropriate. The above unsigned remarks would hardly constitute a personal attack and what has "good faith" got to do with it? Please don't issue pompous warnings such as this again. Thanks. 86.31.67.157 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removal

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

Fact template

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

1 AD =? birthyear

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

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

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

• Perhaps an acceptable rewrite would be along the lines of "the period of measured time beginning with the traditional birthdate of Jesus", since we know that the AD system is based on Jesus' birth, but do not know if Exiguus intended 1 BC or 1 CE as the actual year.— OLP 1999 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't read Latin, but in the translations I've read (see reference sections of Dionysius Exiguus or Anno Domini), Dionysius refers to the Incarnation, not the Nativity. He may or may not have considered them to be the same. So "traditional birthdate" may not be correct. We could say "traditional Incarnation", but that would be misleading because the modern meaning of Incarnation is conception. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon review of the Common Era article it appears as though someone has removed any reference to Jesus altogether. I suppose this could work but if you want to incorporate Jesus into the opening paragraph then it could be a confusing dilemma for word choice.— OLP 1999 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian

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

Yes, you're right. I suppose a better wording of that section could thus be "the period of measured time beginning with the traditional time–frame of Jesus' birth", but I'd also like to hear your take on what should be done.— OLP 1999 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I left an invitation on JimWae's talk page to discuss this here; in the second paragraph of the introduction the article says "Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not remedy the pivotal year 1 still centering on the supposed year of Jesus' birth" so I suppose we could concentrate on a better word or phrase for Gregorian in the first paragraph, and leave the birth vs. Incarnation issue for the second paragraph. I don't like something as vague as "time-frame" because there are other estimates in the same time-frame by authors other than Dionysius. --Gerry Ashton 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do not think the article states that AD implied Gregorian, does it? Perhaps that Gregorian implies AD & BC, but that is not the issue & who has a problem with that?
• I do not think my edit says CE necessarily means Gregorian either. 800 CE would not imply Gregorian. After adoption of Gregorian, the connection is a contingent connection, rather than a necessary one. The term "year 1 on Gregorian Calendar" does not mean the Gregorian Calendar was in use in year 1
• Chronologically equivalent does not mean semantically equivalent. Were the 2 terminologies semantically equivalent, then necessary implication could become a concern.
• The CE article now says

  The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1, on the Gregorian calendar.

• The Gregorian calendar article says:

  Its years are numbered based on the traditional birth year of Jesus Christ, which is labeled the "anno Domini" era

• There appears also to be the same "problem" raised re "birth year" on the Gregorian calendar article - well maybe not, since it is just "based on"
• I am aware that under the Julian calendar it was not the year 1 at all. The Gregorian calendar article says it "includes year numbering". If that is determined (somehow) to be incorrect, I think the wording I have offered is still completely unambiguous - and it would still not be inaccurate to say "year 1 on the Gregorian calendar". Absent a "better" wording, I see no problem in leaving it as is - --JimWae 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the more clear-cut problem is the statement "the Common Era system of notation is completely chronologically equivalent with dates on the Gregorian calendar." This says outright that all Common Era dates are on the Gregorian calendar, which is not the case.

The first sentence in the article, which you quoted above, is OK in the sense that the year AD 1 Gregorian mostly overlapped with the year AD 1 Julian; 1 January AD 1 Gregorian is 3 January AD 1 Julian; it may just confuse someone who wonders why the word Gregorian would be applied to a year that occured about 1500 years before the Gregorian calendar was invented. --Gerry Ashton 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I saw that just a few minutes ago and changed it. --JimWae 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

• The first is matter of indirectness. The first sentence reads "The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1, on the Gregorian calendar." Understanding this sentence requires several steps; the Gregorian calendar uses the same year count as the Julian calender as it was practiced in Christianity in 1582 CE. That year count in turn is based on a year 1 adopted by Dionysius Exiguus. Dionysius chose that year on the basis of his estimate of the incarnation of Jesus. A statement that links the system more directly to what the system is based on would be better.

• The second matter is the sentence "Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not remedy the pivotal year 1 still centering on the supposed year of Jesus' birth." The translations I've read (see the reference list for Dionysius Exiguus or Anno Domini indicate that Dionysius counted time from the incarnation of Jesus, not necessarily the birth of Jesus. While in modern times, incarnation is considered synonymous with conception, some ancient writers (including Bede) consider incarnation and birth synonymous.

Other Calendar Eras

This section contains the item:

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

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

Gregorian versus Julian

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

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

• It does not matter that the Gregorian calendar did not exist then. The Gregorian calendar (at least according to our article on it) DID include a numbering system for years - and so did include a year 1. The Julian calendar did not necessarily include year numbers & if it did, would have noted something about Rome - not taking note of any event in the life of Jesus as year 1. "Year 1 on Gregorian calendar" is unambiguous. "Year 1 on Julian calendar" is not. Your revert is misplaced --JimWae 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I did not think of your point about the Gregorian calender having always been associated with the common era, but the Julian calendar being associated with many eras. I have undon my revert, and added a paragraph about the Julian and Gregorian calendars. --Gerry Ashton 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Epoch is nativity or conception?

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

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

Contest Section, pro con CE

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

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

So I suppose one of the pros should be that the dating system is a constant reminder of Jesus and tends to spread awareness of him into areas that use this calender but are non-Christian? --Gerry Ashton 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To define western as "never used east of the Aegean" would be incredibly limiting. It was defined west of the Aegean, it was established west of the Aegean, and spread east of the Aegean by western societies. --Prosfilaes 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal, on what grounds?

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

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

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

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

• Adding that to that sentence overly complicates a sentence that needs to CLEARLY state that there is no difference in the numbering of the years. CE could use that year as the year 0 - using the same year does not make them chronologically equivalent. If you feel this must be included in the article, put it in a sentence of its own - however, it is already covered in the introduction twice - and I do not see why it needs to be in the introduction three times
  1. measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar
  2. a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year 1 still centering on the life of Jesus
• Using "year 1 on Gregorian calendar" sidesteps the lack of certainty of whether the incarnation or the birth is the central event. There is no need to bring in the statement that the year in either system is reckoned by incarnation rather than birth - since ACN clearly uses birth, it is not so clear. CE is indifferent about which inaccurately calculated event AD uses to "divide time". CE does not use the incarnation & it does not use the birth, and does not attempt to correct their being wrongly calculated - all it does it follow the existing numbering of the Gregorian calendar --JimWae 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel "dividing time" is not the best phrase to use. While not incorrect, some people might try to think of dividing time into equal sized periods, as in the mathematical meaning of division. These people would eventually figure out what is meant, but there would be an unnecessary mental hesitation about the meaning. Also, phrases such as "year of the Incarnation" are not ideal, because although this usually refers to the AD system, it can also refer to an Alexandrian system that has an origin about 8 years later. I consider the current introduction satisfactory. --Gerry Ashton 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

JW, I almost removed the phrase about the Gregorian Calendar because it seems wrong to me. BCE / CE & BC / AD can be applied to any solar calendar - all it requires is that a group of solar years is divided into two calculations. Russia used AD without the Gregorian calendar for quite a while. Hence, the Gregorian calendar is really irrelevant here. Maybe we should remove the Gregorian part and keep this phrase, if as its own sentence if you like. Gerry, what phrase would you prefer?Lostcaesar 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's an argument against a reversal of concept inclusion. While AD does not require the Gregorian calendar, the Gregorian calendar did include the year numbering also and does require a specific year be used as the start of the era - so saying "year 1 on Gregorian calendar" is unambiguous as to which year is being referred to. See #Gregorian versus Julian and #Gregorian above also --JimWae 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article makes it clear that CE/BCE is just an alternate notation for AD/BC. I think it is clear to readers that if they want more information about the epoch of the system, they should read the Anno Domini article. Also, the "Chronology and notation" section gives an adequate description of the epoch for a person who does not want to take the trouble to read the "Anno Domini" article. When I first saw the introduction of Gregorian into the article, I didn't think it was right, but I was pursuaded that Gregorian is always associated with AD unless otherwise stated. --Gerry Ashton 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced info in Origins section

These paragraphs were added to the "Origins" section:

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

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

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

May I ask why? All the information in this section would fail this objection. Roger Pearse 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph contains several citations. Although the paragraph about "Vulgar" does not cite sources, it could easily be verified in a good dictionary. The paragraph about the gravestone inscription is not well-sourced, in that it does not say exactly where the gravestone in Plymouth, England is. It has been marked as "citation needed" for a while now, and should probably be removed too. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The first blockquote is obviously false because "Common Era" is documented in the article itself as being used in the early twentieth century, well before the modern state of Israel was formed, and centuries earlier via "Vulgar Era". — Joe Kress 05:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New paragraph about Christian Era

The following paragraph was just added:

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

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

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

Julian day number

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

Destruction of western culture

The following statement was added to the Opposition section:

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

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

Three potential improvements:

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

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

Thank You.

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

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

Political correctness is not necessarily about altering words or phrases. To quote from the wikilink you cited:

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

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

Usage and meaning of the term "Common era"

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

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

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

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

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

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

And "the common era of the Mahometans."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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