![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
e
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Jesus was almost certainly born in 1st century BC; moving. Vicki Rosenzweig
"foundered by Augustus" should be "founded by Augustus". To found something is to establish it. To founder something is to sink it.-- Friendly Person 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A century begins with the 1, and ends in the next 00. So, the 19th was 1801 through 1900. How it looks now, there are only 99 years in a century. -- JamesR1701E 20:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
HIIIII jojo!!!!!
i love the Jonas Bros —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.221.84.226 (
talk)
20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone wrote at Talk:1 that year articles 50 and under should have A.D. in their article title. Has there been enough discussion as of this moment?? 66.245.106.46 22:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anyone else find it hard to believe that lions became extinct in Western Europe in exactly year 1? The Wikipedia article on lions says only that this extinction happened "around the beginning of the current era". The article should reflect this uncertainty. Ckerr 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree. I'm not going to make this change myself, being too scared of the traditional Wikipedian's view of unknown editors, but still... Lord Akria 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed...if at all lions lived in Europe which I doubt.
Someone put the following text into the article:
"*Various inventions by Hero of Alexandria, including the steam turbine (aeolipile), vending machine, machine gun, water organ, Nintendo Wii and various other water-powered machines.
The Nintendo Wii and machine gun is the real vandalism, obviously, although I wouldn't be surprised if at least some form of machine gun had been invented by that time although, judging by the machine gun article, there wasn't. The machine gun was placed in an edit earlier to the most recent, and thus may be by a different person from this Drew Zimmerman. What's interesting is the edit date: 7th December. One day before the Wii's launch. XD Perhaps he's a Nintendo fan? If he is then he has good taste. I shall delete it, though I felt it was quite funny. Oh well. I still don't get the water-powered part, I hope...
If it's a joke against Nintendo then I suggest that we tear him limb from limb... Lord Akria 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was too late.... Someone else already deleted it... My first chance of protecting against vandalism... Gone... WAAAAAAHHHHHHH! XD Oh well. At least it was done. Lord Akria 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ is not real, so why is his death listed in the events —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.190.86 ( talk • contribs) 0:38, June 4, 2007 (UTC)
He actually lived, the debate is whether he was the Son of God or not. 76.77.225.169 ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is there only a map of the Eastern Hemisphere here? There were people living in the America's as well. It strikes me as a European centered view on the World.
I do not have the means or knowledge to create a better map. But I would want to encourage those who do, to look into this.
(By the way: Me = Born and raised in Europa...) -- Looskuh ( talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steph!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.84.226 ( talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This article lists an inordinate number of Christian events in the timeline. That is unbalanced, and should be repaired. More seriously, the historicity of some of these events is disputed, and I'm pretty sure that the dating of others is in doubt. I think the reliability of the article would benefit if these events were all removed from the timeline. I would remove them, if I didn't think it would set off an edit-war. Therefore, reluctantly, I've introduced the diacritic † for 'historicity disputed' (I didn't check whether there already was a symbol for that, sorry). I've marked the events for which I know the diacritic applies. I invite others to consider whether the symbol needs to be applied elsewhere, too, or whether we need to add a question mark here and there. Zwart ( talk) 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of First Century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ChronosPaul":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have undone an anonymous editor's good-faith attempt to make the dates for Jesus and the Apostle Paul more reflective of the historical evidence, so I felt obliged to make my own effort. Since I don't have better sources at hand, I have used dates and references from the Wikipedia articles Chronology of Jesus and Conversion of Paul the Apostle, which appear reliable to me.
I removed altogether the entry for the beginning of the Christian church, because it's highly debatable what event that even refers to (start of Jesus's ministry? Pentecost? separation of Christian Jews from Jewish synagogues?), and Wikipedia's existing articles don't offer a satisfactory discussion of the issue.
The same IP editor made some other changes, concerning lions in Europe and Caligula's designs on Britain, which were reverted along with the ones concerning Jesus and Paul. I have not restored those, but would not object to their restoration if the sources support it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The three events from c.29 up to and including c.33-36 (concerning Jesus and Paul) contain *all* the references in the entire article.
I'm pretty sure these three events have been placed there by the same author because they all used 'About' instead of 'c.' (which I fixed several edits ago). Because we know that the first two events on Jesus have no independent reliable sources, yet they have many references, and the conversion of Paul has the same kind of references, judging by their titles, I'm a bit suspicious about it all. I'm suspecting that the author just tried to 'legitimate' these events with an avalanche or references.
Because of this, I removed the conversion of Paul as an historical event. However I was wrong to do so, because there are actually independent sources on the life of Paul and to this event.
Now I'm kinda lost on how to proceed, I still doubt all the given sources in these three lines, but you can't judge a book by it's cover and I don't have access to any of these sources. Perhaps somebody with better information or sources could pick this up? Opalraava ( talk) 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? The user Jdcrutch recently reverted my two recent edits, making the edit controversial. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The lead should say 1st century as common in English. The MOS is mistaken in this area. Dimadick ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
These are particularly poor examples as they do not display common use. Try googlebooks where "1st century" gets 329,000 results and "first century" mostly gets results as part of the phrase "Twenty-First Century". Dimadick ( talk) 17:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Really? Most of the results are irrelevant hits about the 21st century, instead of the 1st century. Dimadick ( talk) 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment First or 1st isn't an integer,* which, for linguistic purposes, is the same as a cardinal number. First/1st is an ordinal number. As such, @ Jdcrutch:'s argument from WP:MOS (and various other manuals of style) probably shouldn't be given much weight, and @ Dimadick:'s edits are entirely within bounds here, as far as I can tell. And yes, you wouldn't write "Barack Obama was the 1st black U.S. president", but century stylings are unique; e.g the film studio is not actually called Twenty-first Century Fox, but rather 21st Century Fox. In point of fact, time representations are generally unique: no one blanches at a newspaper writing "2 AM" rather than "two AM" and I'd bet that if you dug deep enough into our own WP:MOS that this kind of thing would have been accounted for by now.
On a more process related note, you might want to try using the Wikipedia:Third opinion (or even the WP:3rd opinion, if you're so inclined) option before filing an WP:RFC over a two person squabble. -- Kendrick7 talk 06:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC) *You can't for example, add two firsts together and get a second.
Collapsed when closing the RfC to improve readability - done by
Tigraan
Click here to contact me
15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
1990s second century B.C. ninth century 10th century 21st century}}
|
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1st millennium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
1st century 2603:6080:7D02:2348:E44C:AC34:E4AD:8B44 ( talk) 02:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
e
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Jesus was almost certainly born in 1st century BC; moving. Vicki Rosenzweig
"foundered by Augustus" should be "founded by Augustus". To found something is to establish it. To founder something is to sink it.-- Friendly Person 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A century begins with the 1, and ends in the next 00. So, the 19th was 1801 through 1900. How it looks now, there are only 99 years in a century. -- JamesR1701E 20:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
HIIIII jojo!!!!!
i love the Jonas Bros —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.221.84.226 (
talk)
20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone wrote at Talk:1 that year articles 50 and under should have A.D. in their article title. Has there been enough discussion as of this moment?? 66.245.106.46 22:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anyone else find it hard to believe that lions became extinct in Western Europe in exactly year 1? The Wikipedia article on lions says only that this extinction happened "around the beginning of the current era". The article should reflect this uncertainty. Ckerr 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree. I'm not going to make this change myself, being too scared of the traditional Wikipedian's view of unknown editors, but still... Lord Akria 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed...if at all lions lived in Europe which I doubt.
Someone put the following text into the article:
"*Various inventions by Hero of Alexandria, including the steam turbine (aeolipile), vending machine, machine gun, water organ, Nintendo Wii and various other water-powered machines.
The Nintendo Wii and machine gun is the real vandalism, obviously, although I wouldn't be surprised if at least some form of machine gun had been invented by that time although, judging by the machine gun article, there wasn't. The machine gun was placed in an edit earlier to the most recent, and thus may be by a different person from this Drew Zimmerman. What's interesting is the edit date: 7th December. One day before the Wii's launch. XD Perhaps he's a Nintendo fan? If he is then he has good taste. I shall delete it, though I felt it was quite funny. Oh well. I still don't get the water-powered part, I hope...
If it's a joke against Nintendo then I suggest that we tear him limb from limb... Lord Akria 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was too late.... Someone else already deleted it... My first chance of protecting against vandalism... Gone... WAAAAAAHHHHHHH! XD Oh well. At least it was done. Lord Akria 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ is not real, so why is his death listed in the events —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.190.86 ( talk • contribs) 0:38, June 4, 2007 (UTC)
He actually lived, the debate is whether he was the Son of God or not. 76.77.225.169 ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is there only a map of the Eastern Hemisphere here? There were people living in the America's as well. It strikes me as a European centered view on the World.
I do not have the means or knowledge to create a better map. But I would want to encourage those who do, to look into this.
(By the way: Me = Born and raised in Europa...) -- Looskuh ( talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steph!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.84.226 ( talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This article lists an inordinate number of Christian events in the timeline. That is unbalanced, and should be repaired. More seriously, the historicity of some of these events is disputed, and I'm pretty sure that the dating of others is in doubt. I think the reliability of the article would benefit if these events were all removed from the timeline. I would remove them, if I didn't think it would set off an edit-war. Therefore, reluctantly, I've introduced the diacritic † for 'historicity disputed' (I didn't check whether there already was a symbol for that, sorry). I've marked the events for which I know the diacritic applies. I invite others to consider whether the symbol needs to be applied elsewhere, too, or whether we need to add a question mark here and there. Zwart ( talk) 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of First Century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ChronosPaul":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have undone an anonymous editor's good-faith attempt to make the dates for Jesus and the Apostle Paul more reflective of the historical evidence, so I felt obliged to make my own effort. Since I don't have better sources at hand, I have used dates and references from the Wikipedia articles Chronology of Jesus and Conversion of Paul the Apostle, which appear reliable to me.
I removed altogether the entry for the beginning of the Christian church, because it's highly debatable what event that even refers to (start of Jesus's ministry? Pentecost? separation of Christian Jews from Jewish synagogues?), and Wikipedia's existing articles don't offer a satisfactory discussion of the issue.
The same IP editor made some other changes, concerning lions in Europe and Caligula's designs on Britain, which were reverted along with the ones concerning Jesus and Paul. I have not restored those, but would not object to their restoration if the sources support it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The three events from c.29 up to and including c.33-36 (concerning Jesus and Paul) contain *all* the references in the entire article.
I'm pretty sure these three events have been placed there by the same author because they all used 'About' instead of 'c.' (which I fixed several edits ago). Because we know that the first two events on Jesus have no independent reliable sources, yet they have many references, and the conversion of Paul has the same kind of references, judging by their titles, I'm a bit suspicious about it all. I'm suspecting that the author just tried to 'legitimate' these events with an avalanche or references.
Because of this, I removed the conversion of Paul as an historical event. However I was wrong to do so, because there are actually independent sources on the life of Paul and to this event.
Now I'm kinda lost on how to proceed, I still doubt all the given sources in these three lines, but you can't judge a book by it's cover and I don't have access to any of these sources. Perhaps somebody with better information or sources could pick this up? Opalraava ( talk) 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? The user Jdcrutch recently reverted my two recent edits, making the edit controversial. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The lead should say 1st century as common in English. The MOS is mistaken in this area. Dimadick ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
These are particularly poor examples as they do not display common use. Try googlebooks where "1st century" gets 329,000 results and "first century" mostly gets results as part of the phrase "Twenty-First Century". Dimadick ( talk) 17:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Really? Most of the results are irrelevant hits about the 21st century, instead of the 1st century. Dimadick ( talk) 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment First or 1st isn't an integer,* which, for linguistic purposes, is the same as a cardinal number. First/1st is an ordinal number. As such, @ Jdcrutch:'s argument from WP:MOS (and various other manuals of style) probably shouldn't be given much weight, and @ Dimadick:'s edits are entirely within bounds here, as far as I can tell. And yes, you wouldn't write "Barack Obama was the 1st black U.S. president", but century stylings are unique; e.g the film studio is not actually called Twenty-first Century Fox, but rather 21st Century Fox. In point of fact, time representations are generally unique: no one blanches at a newspaper writing "2 AM" rather than "two AM" and I'd bet that if you dug deep enough into our own WP:MOS that this kind of thing would have been accounted for by now.
On a more process related note, you might want to try using the Wikipedia:Third opinion (or even the WP:3rd opinion, if you're so inclined) option before filing an WP:RFC over a two person squabble. -- Kendrick7 talk 06:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC) *You can't for example, add two firsts together and get a second.
Collapsed when closing the RfC to improve readability - done by
Tigraan
Click here to contact me
15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
1990s second century B.C. ninth century 10th century 21st century}}
|
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1st millennium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
1st century 2603:6080:7D02:2348:E44C:AC34:E4AD:8B44 ( talk) 02:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)