![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
Also note the politically correct tendency is to use the abbreviation "C.E." (Common Era) and "B.C.E" (Before Common Era). These abbreviations are an attempt to avoid the religious connotations of the Latin abbreviation. In spite of the name change, B.C.E. and C.E. still divide history according to the life of Christ. [1]
some readers may be surprised that I have retained the essentially Christian system of dates "B.C." and "A.D." instead of the increasingly popular "Common Era" or "C.E." and "B.C.E." This is because the "Common Era" is common to Jews and Christians but still excludes Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. It is therefore is a very misleading term. For this reason I prefer the traditional Western usage to a modern innovation which does not even have the saving grace that it developed in a homogeneous society. [2]
Anyway, there's a lot of overlap between the CE and Common Era articles. I think we should merge them. -- Ed Poor
With all due respect, Ed, this is, in my view, a classic example of the way the term "politically correct" is misused, and in my view it is a smear against people who happen to think that CE is better than AD. I would point out that, from a religious perspective, AD is not common to Jews and Christians, since Jews couldn't give a rat's ass about the birth of Christ. It is "common" not in the religious sense, but in the sense that just about everyone in the West, regardless of whether they are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists, use this calendar, and furthermore I believe that it has become fairly commonly used throughout the world, not just in the West; and in any case it really has nothing to do with the birth of Christ in reality since nobody knows when he was born and it probably wasn't in year 1. Thus, far from being misleading, it is both a much more respectful and accurate term, since it isn't actually the "year of the Lord"--certainly not for Jews, who use it but don't consider Jesus their "Lord", nor for Christians, since it doesn't actually represent the date that their "Lord" was born. soulpatch
Perhaps you misunderstand, soulpatch. I only prefer AD and BC because it's what I've seen most often in my life. As you say, so what if the original purpose was Christian?
I don't think we should change usage, merely because some scholars (as the article said, even before I started tinkering with it) FEEL that it forces people or excludes people. Anyway, it's not such a big issue. There are very few contexts where we have to distinguish dates with the symbols in question. Nearly all our articles simply omit the AD (or omit the CE, if that will make you happy!) when speaking of years since, say, the Enlightenment.
We can always go back on the mailing list and kick it around some more... -- Ed Poor
Ed, the issue in this article is not whether we should change usage or not. I know that some people are unfamiliar with CE and BCE, and are used to using AD and BC. But you know, there are also some people who do not understand quantum mechanics and who do not know about the life of FDR or the history of the Vietnam War -- and they come to an encyclopedia in order to learn about these things. SImilarly, many scholars and many non-scholars already use BCE and CE in place of BC and AD. The encyclopedia article should not argue whether this is a good or bad thing, it should simply explain the practice for people who are unfamiliar with it or do not understand it. Isn't this what an article is about?
Now, there is the other issue of what wikipedia usage should be -- I do not think this is the place to argue it, I am sure there are more appropriate places. For what it is worth, as a Jew I am offended by any one using AD or BC in a non-Christian context, and like it or not many Jews feel the same way (of course not all Jews, but then again there are some Jews who have Christmas trees too; no communicty is homgeneous and there are always exceptions -- and in this case I think it is those Jews who are not offended by AD who are the exceptions). As Soulpatch suggests, the reason the Gregorian calendar is dominant is a reflection of European domination of the world capitalist economy, and Western domination of global culture. I think it is this state of affairs, precisely, that CE is referring to, and I would expect many Muslims and Hindus to agree -- the quote from the professor at Calgary, above, is in my opinion wrong and just plain silly. Slrubenstein
Is that really true that "CE" is used to abbreviate "century"? If not, I suggest to remove this entry because it is misleading. E.g, I found an article in which the term "12th century CE" was used, and when I tried to look up CE on wikipedia, "century" was the first suggested meaning, but what really was meant is "Common Era". I found that quite confusing and would therefore suggest to remove the "century" entry here to avoid the ambiguation. Or, perhaps, at least move it to the lower section for "ce" instead of "CE"? Tempel 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Wikipedia works :) Tempel 10:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure... and I don't speak english very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.2.255.244 ( talk • contribs) .
Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.2.255.244 ( talk • contribs) .
how come this article is not named as CE (disambiguation) when it is a disambiguation page. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 00:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
CE → CE (disambiguation) – By far the most common use in wikilinking to " CE" is an intended reference to " Common Era", which makes intuitive sense. I think it would be best to move the current content to " CE (disambiguation)" (retaining the two-letter capitalization as per WP:DPAGE), then make " CE" itself a redirect to " Common Era", and place a {{Redirect|CE}} at the top of " Common Era". (" CE (disambiguation)" itself has only a two-line edit history.) There are a small number of redirects to CE that would need to be adjusted. Probably all of the two-letter capitalized ones should just redirect to " Common Era". oh my yes ( talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.JMF ( talk · contribs) added this line:
I changed it to * "Christian Era", also known as Anno Domini.
As far as I can tell, the phrases "Christian Era" and "Anno Domini" are equally well understood. It's possible that "CE" is not as well understood as "AD". Another problem is that when one encounters "CE" there is a seldom a statement in the work about whether the author thinks of it as an abbreviation for "Christian Era" or "Common Era". This makes it hard to assess how many writers expect readers to know that "CE" could stand for "Christian Era". Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
Also note the politically correct tendency is to use the abbreviation "C.E." (Common Era) and "B.C.E" (Before Common Era). These abbreviations are an attempt to avoid the religious connotations of the Latin abbreviation. In spite of the name change, B.C.E. and C.E. still divide history according to the life of Christ. [1]
some readers may be surprised that I have retained the essentially Christian system of dates "B.C." and "A.D." instead of the increasingly popular "Common Era" or "C.E." and "B.C.E." This is because the "Common Era" is common to Jews and Christians but still excludes Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. It is therefore is a very misleading term. For this reason I prefer the traditional Western usage to a modern innovation which does not even have the saving grace that it developed in a homogeneous society. [2]
Anyway, there's a lot of overlap between the CE and Common Era articles. I think we should merge them. -- Ed Poor
With all due respect, Ed, this is, in my view, a classic example of the way the term "politically correct" is misused, and in my view it is a smear against people who happen to think that CE is better than AD. I would point out that, from a religious perspective, AD is not common to Jews and Christians, since Jews couldn't give a rat's ass about the birth of Christ. It is "common" not in the religious sense, but in the sense that just about everyone in the West, regardless of whether they are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists, use this calendar, and furthermore I believe that it has become fairly commonly used throughout the world, not just in the West; and in any case it really has nothing to do with the birth of Christ in reality since nobody knows when he was born and it probably wasn't in year 1. Thus, far from being misleading, it is both a much more respectful and accurate term, since it isn't actually the "year of the Lord"--certainly not for Jews, who use it but don't consider Jesus their "Lord", nor for Christians, since it doesn't actually represent the date that their "Lord" was born. soulpatch
Perhaps you misunderstand, soulpatch. I only prefer AD and BC because it's what I've seen most often in my life. As you say, so what if the original purpose was Christian?
I don't think we should change usage, merely because some scholars (as the article said, even before I started tinkering with it) FEEL that it forces people or excludes people. Anyway, it's not such a big issue. There are very few contexts where we have to distinguish dates with the symbols in question. Nearly all our articles simply omit the AD (or omit the CE, if that will make you happy!) when speaking of years since, say, the Enlightenment.
We can always go back on the mailing list and kick it around some more... -- Ed Poor
Ed, the issue in this article is not whether we should change usage or not. I know that some people are unfamiliar with CE and BCE, and are used to using AD and BC. But you know, there are also some people who do not understand quantum mechanics and who do not know about the life of FDR or the history of the Vietnam War -- and they come to an encyclopedia in order to learn about these things. SImilarly, many scholars and many non-scholars already use BCE and CE in place of BC and AD. The encyclopedia article should not argue whether this is a good or bad thing, it should simply explain the practice for people who are unfamiliar with it or do not understand it. Isn't this what an article is about?
Now, there is the other issue of what wikipedia usage should be -- I do not think this is the place to argue it, I am sure there are more appropriate places. For what it is worth, as a Jew I am offended by any one using AD or BC in a non-Christian context, and like it or not many Jews feel the same way (of course not all Jews, but then again there are some Jews who have Christmas trees too; no communicty is homgeneous and there are always exceptions -- and in this case I think it is those Jews who are not offended by AD who are the exceptions). As Soulpatch suggests, the reason the Gregorian calendar is dominant is a reflection of European domination of the world capitalist economy, and Western domination of global culture. I think it is this state of affairs, precisely, that CE is referring to, and I would expect many Muslims and Hindus to agree -- the quote from the professor at Calgary, above, is in my opinion wrong and just plain silly. Slrubenstein
Is that really true that "CE" is used to abbreviate "century"? If not, I suggest to remove this entry because it is misleading. E.g, I found an article in which the term "12th century CE" was used, and when I tried to look up CE on wikipedia, "century" was the first suggested meaning, but what really was meant is "Common Era". I found that quite confusing and would therefore suggest to remove the "century" entry here to avoid the ambiguation. Or, perhaps, at least move it to the lower section for "ce" instead of "CE"? Tempel 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Wikipedia works :) Tempel 10:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure... and I don't speak english very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.2.255.244 ( talk • contribs) .
Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.2.255.244 ( talk • contribs) .
how come this article is not named as CE (disambiguation) when it is a disambiguation page. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 00:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
CE → CE (disambiguation) – By far the most common use in wikilinking to " CE" is an intended reference to " Common Era", which makes intuitive sense. I think it would be best to move the current content to " CE (disambiguation)" (retaining the two-letter capitalization as per WP:DPAGE), then make " CE" itself a redirect to " Common Era", and place a {{Redirect|CE}} at the top of " Common Era". (" CE (disambiguation)" itself has only a two-line edit history.) There are a small number of redirects to CE that would need to be adjusted. Probably all of the two-letter capitalized ones should just redirect to " Common Era". oh my yes ( talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.JMF ( talk · contribs) added this line:
I changed it to * "Christian Era", also known as Anno Domini.
As far as I can tell, the phrases "Christian Era" and "Anno Domini" are equally well understood. It's possible that "CE" is not as well understood as "AD". Another problem is that when one encounters "CE" there is a seldom a statement in the work about whether the author thinks of it as an abbreviation for "Christian Era" or "Common Era". This makes it hard to assess how many writers expect readers to know that "CE" could stand for "Christian Era". Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)