![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Using BCE and CE are definitely not NPOV as they promote the viewpoints of the minority who wish to secularize Christianity at the expense of the one third of the planet who take offense at the terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.138.206 ( talk • contribs) 02:04, September 3, 2006 (UTC).
Although I understand that some think BC and AD should be used all of the time, it remains a fact that the only major religion that advocates it (at least, to the extent of my knowledge) is Christianity. So I would like to suggest, to maintain political correctness, that pages use B.C.E. and C.E. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be free for anyone. So I think it's reasonable that BCE and CE should be used.
Zork 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Zork: The Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says that either form of dating is acceptable provided that there is consistency within an article. Other guidlines govern how editors of a particular page decide on what goes into an article. Consensus is important. In practice, articles for several non-Christian topics use BCE/CE (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism). Sunray 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
FOOL! Why didn't i think to read the style guide instead of reading this whole discussion to find out if BCE/CE were common usage around here... WookMuff 21:13pm (AEST) 31 January 2006
I believe that 'Wednesday' should be renamed 'Third Day', 'Thursday' be renamed 'Third Day', and etcetera due to their religious background. Wednesday was named after the German god, Woden, therefore implies that those using the term 'Wednesday' worship the god Woden! I refuse to go around saying 'Wednesday' because I don't believe in Woden folks! Woden is not real!. PatrickA 04:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC).
I have twice been told today that AD is NPOV. I disagree - it is POV and it is offensive. It might be opening old wounds but I think all dates (using the Western calendar) should be changed from AD to CE on Wiki. Robsteadman 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it's right. AD is POV. Thank YOU. Robsteadman 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
AD is offensive and POV. It's really that simple. Some want to mainatin AD for tradition, some to give articles a "christian" slant. There are NO good argements to defend it. It is clear cut. Encyclopedias shoud be neutral and one of the basic principles of Wikipedai is NPOV. AD is POV. Robsteadman 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
so do you advocate using a new calendar? otherwise it makes no difference as they both mean the same thing. Joeyramoney 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The birth of Jesus Christ was important whether he was the son of God or not. People against using CE are usually intolerant to Christianity. Who cares what BC and AD stands for anyway? They have been used for years and people are used to them. - Hesselius
No, AD and BC are the current convention and are status quo. Therefore, they are the most NPOV versus other designations. There seems to be this argument that anti-Christian dates designations such as BCE/CE are NPOV simply because they espouse the idea of no religious affiliation. Remember, BCE and CE are a Point-Of-View: they are anit-Christian and secular. HarwoodRH 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
———MERGE REQUEST CANCELLED DUE TO APPARENT CONCENSUS———
– I still think this article needs to be toned down a bit because there is alot of original research and prolonged...well, B.S. frankly.
In my opinion, the "Common Era" term is viewed as a weak euphemism for Anno Domini. It is not acknowledged or placed as seperate/independent from Anno Domini by virtually any sources, except Wikipedia. It is often associated as a sub-division of the Christian / anno Domini era, not a stand-alone era. The following are popular examples I have gathered; they also indicate (with sources) that the AD/BC system is the only system used in either of the examples' websites.
I can get more examples. I just don't think "Common Era" is of any sufficiant significance or independence to have its own article, it should be part of Anno Domini.
For redirecting problems, the Common Era site can simply have a redirect to Anno Domini (i.e. #REDIRECT [[Anno Domini]]), and I'll fix all those problems if the agreement is to merge. Darwiner111 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
The support/opposition section of this article is becoming a nightmare, because it is too inviting to simply list one's personal objection or support there and run off; this page seems destined to become an indirect form of internet debate that way.
I think those two sections should be rewritten as one, merging all similar arguments and pairing them off to a single counter-argument, so that the list becomes coherent. Arguments should not appeal to authority. Your dictionary may be great, but it's still just your dictionary. If no counter-argument exists or can be found, the argument should be removed for being pointless or stating the obvious. Compare falsifiability.
A good reason for having opposition and support paired up is that it (hopefully) deters people from adding their personal convictions, as the article would implicitly pressure people who add new points to also add a dissenting view, which is not something most POV-pushers will be very willing to do. The usual Wikipedia editwarringcooperation should keep both sides in balance.
I have put together a very rough example that only pairs off the arguments of the current revision at Talk: Common Era/Rewrite. This immediately shows the stylistic discrepancies, and that (surprisingly) there are only a small number of categories. I hope some clear-headed editors think this is a good idea and are willing to help out, because otherwise this wouldn't stand a hope in hell of succeeding. squell 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is reasonable to demand that every minor statement be sourced, as it only creates a jungle [6] of references [7] nobody cares [8] to check, and encourages " X says so" reasoning. Right now a lot of references go to h2g2, for example. It might be more realistic to judge the arguments on their merits; that if you accept the premise, at least the logic is verifiable. We have tried simple sourcing on Anno Domini, the result: people started attacking the references: Talk:Anno Domini.
But right now, I am thinking style over content. Having a fixed style creates a discipline for editing this article that is currently lacking. At the very least, it is something which will help with reducing the amount of statements that need to be verified. squell 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, and if I had more time I would help. I really hope this idea is a success. -- Berserk798 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course GTBacchus is right that unsourced sentiment should ultimately go. It's no use dragging the pagan origins of the weekdays into this debate if the only place which brings it up is this article. However, the problem with authoritative (the word itself a give-away) sources is that most will be representive for a single point of view. We have to keep our own distance.
Are there any comments on the choice of arguments made on Talk:Common Era/Rewrite? — squell 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that together, Squell. It really helps to see the arguments separated by content, and you really start to see that... it's a damned complicated argument. I think that everything under Irrelevant, and the correctness section, should be taken out and shot, with haste. That leaves mostly serious arguments... which sort of follow a train of thought:
I left a space for #4 because it seemed like a long way from 3 to 5, in terms of significance. That's my two cents, anyway. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a new system whereby history is divided into PCE (Politically Correct Era) and BPC (Before Political Correctness) the current 2000 CE would be 0 PCE. Then everyone will be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.180.3 ( talk • contribs)
First of all I'd like to mention that we used CE notation at school and I'd never even heard anyone refer to it as 'the Christian Era'. We were taught 'Common Era' and I think that's increasingly the case so whether or not google searches come up with Christian Era more is beside the point (apart from the obvious, that internet usage is highest in the West and particularly the USA and the USA is notably religiously Christian)... but that wasn't my point. It's this - when does anyone write either AD or CE these days?! When I write the date I write 2006, and when I'm talking about the 1980's I'm talking about the 1980's. Why do we need any suffix or prefix? Joziboy 14 March 2006, 21:27 (UTC)
Please note that a merger tag has been placed on the Before Christ article. The same group is attempting what they tried here at Common Era. I have voted not to merge the BC and AD articles. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
Whoever added this doesn't seem to have researched the matter very thoroughly. Britannica may not have a listing for "common era", but I don't see that it has a listing for "anno domini" either [10]. Further, it doesn't make sense to find an article that uses AD/BC and use it to claim that AD/BC is used in all its articles. A simple search for "BCE turns up hundreds of entries. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Recently and unintentionaly I steppeded into this mucky argument. I'll add my thoughts here and let it rest. I find that those involoved seem largely to be arguing from religious and historical paradigms and when I brought in a brief anthropological argument, I was surprised to see it removed. Rather than fight over labels I'll present the arguments I made to those who choose to disagree.
Questions about the term “Common Era” often arise among anthropologist working in colonial contexts with non western peoples (i.e. most of us). Some anthropologist and archaeologist have come to prefer the fairly neutral “Current Era” whereas others prefer the traditional AD/BC system for sake of clarity. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention strikes me as a particualraly egregious example. I find the use of “Common Era” deeply troubling. I'm no christian (perish the thought), but I have no moral problem using an age old dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting in my view, but if people feel that change is necessary, they should be at least as sensitive to what they are changing it to as they were to what they were changing it from. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. It tacitly assumes that Europeans, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter and there is nothing wrong with claiming an era is "Common" history/culture to everyone who now uses the dating system. I assure you that many people in developing non western nations who use the Gregorian calendar would not think of themselves and their history as having anything in common with Europe or to be participants for the past 2006 years in a commonality with Europeans except perhaps as colonial subjects. Therefore, using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term have every considered it from this point of view. DHBoggs 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Appealing to the semantic ambiguity of the term only decreases its supposed objectivity. Further, while its fair to say that much of the world (with very sizeable and important exceptions) uses the Gregorian or Julian calendars, it is not remotely fair to imply that has been the case for the past 2006 years. In 1006, for example, the system was not "Common"ly used or understood except of course, by Europeans, yet does not calling it 1006 of the "Common Era" make that very claim? At least implicitly, it certainly does. Perhaps some aren't concerned with how we characterize the past, but I would argue that misrepresenting the past is no less important than misrepresenting the present. DHBoggs 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; non offensive or presumptive terminology would be ideal and this is a main reason for those pushing for the use of "Current Era" instead of "Common Era" in that it seemingly makes no claims other than being an ongoing period of worldwide change. DHBoggs 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Originally, perhaps, the use of "Common Era" came from the earlier use of "Vulgar Era" as a substitute when vulgar no longer was considered synonymous with "common". In this sense, common means somethng shared for everyday popular use (as the Vulgate was written in everyday Latin rather than formal Latin).
I see here that more than a few people are saying/suggesting that international adoptions imply that its adoptees share an observance of the event around which the Era is centered. I want to point out here that such is not necessarily what Common Era means.
As a substitute some are proposing Current Era. While personally I have no objection to this, I note 4 points:
No, we do do not have to accept it as fact, we just have to say (by the meaning of the words one is using) it is a fact every time we use it. It is unlikely there will be a new era anytime soon, and CE is less objectionable than AD - and NO system could ever be COMPLETELY neutral - but CE is MORE neutral -- JimWae 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
After endless arguments about "AD/BC" being POV because "Anno Domini" endorses the indoctrination that Jesus is "our Lord" and "Before Christ" is asserting Jesus as " the Christ", I've come to realize something quite simple that technically assures that "AD/BC" is NPOV and "CE/BCE" is unneccesary. If I were to write "JC exists beyond a doubt" at random, this is NPOV because it could be interpreted as " Jimmy Carter exists beyond a doubt", " James Cameron exists beyond a doubt", or anything else. Nowhere in that sentence to I acknowledge that I am reffering to Jesus Christ. Thus the only way that "AD/BC" could be POV is if they were presented in such a context as "Bob was born (in) 100 (years) Before Christ and then he died (in) Anno Domini 2"— saying "Bob was born 100 BC and he then died in AD 2" is literally in no way POV because I could simply interperet it as " British Columbia" and " Andy Dick". For a broader example, writing something like "JCIOLAS" isn't POV until you write it out as "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior". I think this cripples all presented evidence of a POV stance that accusingly exists with "AD/BC". The POV is only with "Anno Domini" and "Before Christ", not "AD and BC". CrazyInSane 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- and pbuh also is NPOV? -- JimWae 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- no thanks - I'd rather not be the source of all your knowledge -- JimWae 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I really think this talk page could do with a notice that it is for discussions about the article, not for discussions about the merits of the subject matter itself. squell 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that "Common era" has a capitalized "era" affixed? I propose that we move this article from Common Era to "Common era". Any objections? CrazyInSane 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The following is given in this article as to why AD is "inferior" to CE. Since CE is based on, and is exactly eqivalent to, the AD notation (it's just another name for the same thing, like Myanmar is the same as Burma) it would seem that the point applies to CE also. So really it should not be used as an example.
The label Anno Domini is almost certainly inaccurate — the birth of Jesus of Nazareth probably occurred no later than 4 BC, the year of Herod the Great's death. Arcturus 15:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not participate in the proposed rewrite instead of removing arguments you dislike? squell 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The link to the Jesus article should instead link to Historical Jesus - we are dealing with historical evidence, rather than theoretical ideas. I did a test redirect, but CrazyInSane appeared to not like the proposition, seeing as he/she removed the edit without explanation (apparently not the first time).
If anyone has any objections, please discuss below. Sfacets 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought the mere fact that I was redirecting Jesus to Historical Jesus was self-explanatory, but I had also noted the reasons for the edit in the edit summary.
I agree that the article Historical Jesus deals majorly with comparing the historical and spiritual figure, which is not great, however there needs to be a clear understanding shown that the calendar is based on Jesus as a factual historical figure, rather than one which may be distorted/enhanced or otherwise portrayed in a manner which to all purposes conveys a religious POV.
Perhaps the Jesus document should have a clearly defined section (currently lacking]] defining what is meant by Historical Jesus. Sfacets 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
CrazyInSane's addition of " Ante Christum Natum" to Bede is indeed misinformed. Bede used 'before Christ' only once. In book I, Chapter 2 of Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum we find "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus anno LXmo", which is loosely translated as "but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord" in the Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. I say loosely because "vero" is translated as "but" instead of "indeed", and the Latin does not have "nostrum" (our). Basically, Bede used "ante incarnationis dominicae" or "before the incarnation of the Lord". This differs from "ante Christum natum", "before Christ's birth", in two fundamental ways: incarnation instead of birth, and Lord instead of Christ. I have consulted many Latin books and I have never seen "ante Christum natum"! I would need several citations to support its entry in Wikipedia. — Joe Kress 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It says in the article that Jehovah's witnesses view C.E.(for Christian era) as more accurate than B.C. It looks like it should be "C.E. is more accurate than A.D.". But it's unclear whether this was an error made by the Jehovah's witness source or an error made by the person paraphrasing the Jehovah's witness source. Someone who knows, please fix. Zargulon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can say that it is true that all official publications of Jehovah's Witnesses use CE/BCE instead of AD/BC, and have for decades. I don't know offhand of what date that practice began. I also don't have a good citation handy, but I will post one when I get around to it. (The reference work Insight on the Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., would be a good place to look -- I'm pretty sure it has an article under Common Era that would contain a good quote, but I don't have a copy with me right now.) The justification I've always heard is that this is based on the understanding that AD is inaccurate in indicating a link to the birth of Jesus, since all the historical evidence shows that Jesus was not born in the year 1 AD (as noted in the article). Therefore Jehovah's Witnesses use CE to indicate that this is the common, although not in our view strictly accurate, usage. Hopefully that clarifies what the "strange comment" was supposed to mean. The "CE is more accurate than BC" (instead of "CE is more accurate than AD") is a typographical error on the part of the editor who inserted that statement. -- Daniel Pryden, 2006-06-05.
"There are various ways of dating. To the Chinese this is the year 4663, and to the Jews this the year 5725 A.M. (Anno mundi, or in the year of the world). To many others this is A.D. (Anno Domini, or in the year of our Lord) 1965. What does that mean? The 1965th year since the birth of Jesus Christ. But is it? There is considerable difference of opinion as to the exact year, but there is general agreement that it was some years B.C. that Jesus was born. Thus the present system, as set up in the sixth century by the monk Dionysius Exiguus, is in error. Moreover, Jesus did not become the Messiah or the Christ, which means Anointed One, until he was anointed with God's spirit at the time of his baptism in the Jordan River. (Matt. 3:13-17; Acts 10:38) So the Christian era, strictly speaking, did not begin until quite a few years after Jesus' birth. Since the use of A.D. and B.C. is really chronologically inaccurate, it is more accurate to say that this is 1965 C.E. or the 1965th year of the Common Era. Likewise, B.C.E. would mean Before the Common Era. Why "common"? Because it is the method of dating that is used in common by a large part of earth's inhabitants. Man has long had problems with his calendars, and he still does." — "The Common Era" (June 22, 1965) Awake!, p. 11
I've added this section as there has been only one mention of Google on this talk page -- with zero related discussion -- and yet some have tried to refer to that one reference as somehow airing out the issue.
Let's start at the implicit beginning, Internet usage, to avoid getting into the weeds of unfounded assertion (e.g., "most Internet users are in the U.S.") right off the bat.
Internet usage is described by the CIA factbook. As can be seen by this reference, the U.S. is ever more-so a smaller component of overall Internet usage, and by no means predominant.
Thus use of Google for determining relative usage of BC and BCE is not the unfounded exercise that champions of the BCE/CE labels might wish it to be. Google is a credible tool in this case, and unless a factual argument can be made otherwise, it should be quite useful over time to determine whether or not this somewhat trivial exercise in relabeling the reference for years (but not days of the week, et cetera) has any legs to it. -- 66.69.219.9 12:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If any argument is built upon Google it should go into the 'opposition' section. But anyway, the entire support/opposition section needs to be seriously rewritten, because people keep fighting over silly little sentences like this. It is bordering on the polemic as it is and it will only degenerate further if nothing is done about it. squell 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The same results (more supportive of BC, actually) can be found by looking at literally very "new" postings on the Internet via a search of 'Google news'. As might rather be expected, this will of course vary substantially from day to day and moment to moment, but, at this moment today, the preference for BC to BCE is more of a 23-to-1 preference. Interestingly, if we were to all live in China (the world's most populous country whose government is formally atheist), which embraced "Common Era" when the communists took over in 1949, we might not be able to access that fact. -- 66.69.219.9 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the objection to using Google to determine the general incidence of the 2 notations. I've read the archives (thanks, Prosfilaes); my reaction is that certainly *incompetent* Google searches are of little use. But searches on strings like '"55 BC" Caesar' or '"330 CE" Constantinople' should produce valid data about usage in Google-space. 'Original research' is a stronger objection, but I'm not sure it's decisive. First, the WP ban on original research was imposed by the need to stop cranks from publishing their alternatives to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and so on. Googling usages is far from that. I would suggest that it's compilation rather than research. Consider these parallels:
I'd say all these cases involve compilation of facts from existing sources, not original research in either the academic or Wikipedia senses. Now, Google is nothing more than a catalog of web content, with an interface similar to the interfaces on most electronic library catalogs. Ergo, Google searches are compilation, and therefore Wikipediable.
Bacchus, I think your objections to Google results are overstated. Yes, they are imperfect, but even a dirty window lets you know whether it's day or night. If counting Google hits overwhelming supports one option, that's convincing that that option is majority usage among typical users, all quibbling aside. You may well be right that a search of academic publish would produce different (i.e., pro-CE) results, but that's irrelevant. WP is written for a general audience, not an academic one. -- Chris 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We have been using B.C. for centuries, not BCE. The issue is not about Christianity, it is about using a historical event as a reference point for the purposes of timekeeping and recording events of history. Jesus was a real person -this is documented- and the events are significant. If you really want to take references to God out of everything, we should all say we are living in the year 4,500,006,006, which would approximate to the beginning of the Earth, plus human civilization (assuming a beginning around 4,000 B.C., but not 4,000 BCE).
That has nothing to do with it. I just wanted to present an alternative point of view, which is secularization caused by the whole B/CE thing. It's like pooling knowledge, but I thought if I did it on the discussion page, and not the main article, it would be ok, since I am discussing B/CE. But I apologize for any trouble this caused. Stovetopcookies 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: This is not a page for discussing CE/BCE—it's a page for discussion about Wikipedia's NPOV article on it, so discussions about whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea are not on-topic. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss this elsewhere. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
the article should probably note that alot of text books that use CE instead of AD often actuall use both. Example -- "Germany was invaded by Norway in 143 CE (AD)" just a thought -- T-rex 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Using BCE and CE are definitely not NPOV as they promote the viewpoints of the minority who wish to secularize Christianity at the expense of the one third of the planet who take offense at the terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.138.206 ( talk • contribs) 02:04, September 3, 2006 (UTC).
Although I understand that some think BC and AD should be used all of the time, it remains a fact that the only major religion that advocates it (at least, to the extent of my knowledge) is Christianity. So I would like to suggest, to maintain political correctness, that pages use B.C.E. and C.E. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be free for anyone. So I think it's reasonable that BCE and CE should be used.
Zork 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Zork: The Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says that either form of dating is acceptable provided that there is consistency within an article. Other guidlines govern how editors of a particular page decide on what goes into an article. Consensus is important. In practice, articles for several non-Christian topics use BCE/CE (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism). Sunray 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
FOOL! Why didn't i think to read the style guide instead of reading this whole discussion to find out if BCE/CE were common usage around here... WookMuff 21:13pm (AEST) 31 January 2006
I believe that 'Wednesday' should be renamed 'Third Day', 'Thursday' be renamed 'Third Day', and etcetera due to their religious background. Wednesday was named after the German god, Woden, therefore implies that those using the term 'Wednesday' worship the god Woden! I refuse to go around saying 'Wednesday' because I don't believe in Woden folks! Woden is not real!. PatrickA 04:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC).
I have twice been told today that AD is NPOV. I disagree - it is POV and it is offensive. It might be opening old wounds but I think all dates (using the Western calendar) should be changed from AD to CE on Wiki. Robsteadman 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it's right. AD is POV. Thank YOU. Robsteadman 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
AD is offensive and POV. It's really that simple. Some want to mainatin AD for tradition, some to give articles a "christian" slant. There are NO good argements to defend it. It is clear cut. Encyclopedias shoud be neutral and one of the basic principles of Wikipedai is NPOV. AD is POV. Robsteadman 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
so do you advocate using a new calendar? otherwise it makes no difference as they both mean the same thing. Joeyramoney 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The birth of Jesus Christ was important whether he was the son of God or not. People against using CE are usually intolerant to Christianity. Who cares what BC and AD stands for anyway? They have been used for years and people are used to them. - Hesselius
No, AD and BC are the current convention and are status quo. Therefore, they are the most NPOV versus other designations. There seems to be this argument that anti-Christian dates designations such as BCE/CE are NPOV simply because they espouse the idea of no religious affiliation. Remember, BCE and CE are a Point-Of-View: they are anit-Christian and secular. HarwoodRH 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
———MERGE REQUEST CANCELLED DUE TO APPARENT CONCENSUS———
– I still think this article needs to be toned down a bit because there is alot of original research and prolonged...well, B.S. frankly.
In my opinion, the "Common Era" term is viewed as a weak euphemism for Anno Domini. It is not acknowledged or placed as seperate/independent from Anno Domini by virtually any sources, except Wikipedia. It is often associated as a sub-division of the Christian / anno Domini era, not a stand-alone era. The following are popular examples I have gathered; they also indicate (with sources) that the AD/BC system is the only system used in either of the examples' websites.
I can get more examples. I just don't think "Common Era" is of any sufficiant significance or independence to have its own article, it should be part of Anno Domini.
For redirecting problems, the Common Era site can simply have a redirect to Anno Domini (i.e. #REDIRECT [[Anno Domini]]), and I'll fix all those problems if the agreement is to merge. Darwiner111 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
The support/opposition section of this article is becoming a nightmare, because it is too inviting to simply list one's personal objection or support there and run off; this page seems destined to become an indirect form of internet debate that way.
I think those two sections should be rewritten as one, merging all similar arguments and pairing them off to a single counter-argument, so that the list becomes coherent. Arguments should not appeal to authority. Your dictionary may be great, but it's still just your dictionary. If no counter-argument exists or can be found, the argument should be removed for being pointless or stating the obvious. Compare falsifiability.
A good reason for having opposition and support paired up is that it (hopefully) deters people from adding their personal convictions, as the article would implicitly pressure people who add new points to also add a dissenting view, which is not something most POV-pushers will be very willing to do. The usual Wikipedia editwarringcooperation should keep both sides in balance.
I have put together a very rough example that only pairs off the arguments of the current revision at Talk: Common Era/Rewrite. This immediately shows the stylistic discrepancies, and that (surprisingly) there are only a small number of categories. I hope some clear-headed editors think this is a good idea and are willing to help out, because otherwise this wouldn't stand a hope in hell of succeeding. squell 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is reasonable to demand that every minor statement be sourced, as it only creates a jungle [6] of references [7] nobody cares [8] to check, and encourages " X says so" reasoning. Right now a lot of references go to h2g2, for example. It might be more realistic to judge the arguments on their merits; that if you accept the premise, at least the logic is verifiable. We have tried simple sourcing on Anno Domini, the result: people started attacking the references: Talk:Anno Domini.
But right now, I am thinking style over content. Having a fixed style creates a discipline for editing this article that is currently lacking. At the very least, it is something which will help with reducing the amount of statements that need to be verified. squell 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, and if I had more time I would help. I really hope this idea is a success. -- Berserk798 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course GTBacchus is right that unsourced sentiment should ultimately go. It's no use dragging the pagan origins of the weekdays into this debate if the only place which brings it up is this article. However, the problem with authoritative (the word itself a give-away) sources is that most will be representive for a single point of view. We have to keep our own distance.
Are there any comments on the choice of arguments made on Talk:Common Era/Rewrite? — squell 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that together, Squell. It really helps to see the arguments separated by content, and you really start to see that... it's a damned complicated argument. I think that everything under Irrelevant, and the correctness section, should be taken out and shot, with haste. That leaves mostly serious arguments... which sort of follow a train of thought:
I left a space for #4 because it seemed like a long way from 3 to 5, in terms of significance. That's my two cents, anyway. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a new system whereby history is divided into PCE (Politically Correct Era) and BPC (Before Political Correctness) the current 2000 CE would be 0 PCE. Then everyone will be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.180.3 ( talk • contribs)
First of all I'd like to mention that we used CE notation at school and I'd never even heard anyone refer to it as 'the Christian Era'. We were taught 'Common Era' and I think that's increasingly the case so whether or not google searches come up with Christian Era more is beside the point (apart from the obvious, that internet usage is highest in the West and particularly the USA and the USA is notably religiously Christian)... but that wasn't my point. It's this - when does anyone write either AD or CE these days?! When I write the date I write 2006, and when I'm talking about the 1980's I'm talking about the 1980's. Why do we need any suffix or prefix? Joziboy 14 March 2006, 21:27 (UTC)
Please note that a merger tag has been placed on the Before Christ article. The same group is attempting what they tried here at Common Era. I have voted not to merge the BC and AD articles. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
Whoever added this doesn't seem to have researched the matter very thoroughly. Britannica may not have a listing for "common era", but I don't see that it has a listing for "anno domini" either [10]. Further, it doesn't make sense to find an article that uses AD/BC and use it to claim that AD/BC is used in all its articles. A simple search for "BCE turns up hundreds of entries. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Recently and unintentionaly I steppeded into this mucky argument. I'll add my thoughts here and let it rest. I find that those involoved seem largely to be arguing from religious and historical paradigms and when I brought in a brief anthropological argument, I was surprised to see it removed. Rather than fight over labels I'll present the arguments I made to those who choose to disagree.
Questions about the term “Common Era” often arise among anthropologist working in colonial contexts with non western peoples (i.e. most of us). Some anthropologist and archaeologist have come to prefer the fairly neutral “Current Era” whereas others prefer the traditional AD/BC system for sake of clarity. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention strikes me as a particualraly egregious example. I find the use of “Common Era” deeply troubling. I'm no christian (perish the thought), but I have no moral problem using an age old dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting in my view, but if people feel that change is necessary, they should be at least as sensitive to what they are changing it to as they were to what they were changing it from. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. It tacitly assumes that Europeans, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter and there is nothing wrong with claiming an era is "Common" history/culture to everyone who now uses the dating system. I assure you that many people in developing non western nations who use the Gregorian calendar would not think of themselves and their history as having anything in common with Europe or to be participants for the past 2006 years in a commonality with Europeans except perhaps as colonial subjects. Therefore, using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term have every considered it from this point of view. DHBoggs 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Appealing to the semantic ambiguity of the term only decreases its supposed objectivity. Further, while its fair to say that much of the world (with very sizeable and important exceptions) uses the Gregorian or Julian calendars, it is not remotely fair to imply that has been the case for the past 2006 years. In 1006, for example, the system was not "Common"ly used or understood except of course, by Europeans, yet does not calling it 1006 of the "Common Era" make that very claim? At least implicitly, it certainly does. Perhaps some aren't concerned with how we characterize the past, but I would argue that misrepresenting the past is no less important than misrepresenting the present. DHBoggs 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; non offensive or presumptive terminology would be ideal and this is a main reason for those pushing for the use of "Current Era" instead of "Common Era" in that it seemingly makes no claims other than being an ongoing period of worldwide change. DHBoggs 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Originally, perhaps, the use of "Common Era" came from the earlier use of "Vulgar Era" as a substitute when vulgar no longer was considered synonymous with "common". In this sense, common means somethng shared for everyday popular use (as the Vulgate was written in everyday Latin rather than formal Latin).
I see here that more than a few people are saying/suggesting that international adoptions imply that its adoptees share an observance of the event around which the Era is centered. I want to point out here that such is not necessarily what Common Era means.
As a substitute some are proposing Current Era. While personally I have no objection to this, I note 4 points:
No, we do do not have to accept it as fact, we just have to say (by the meaning of the words one is using) it is a fact every time we use it. It is unlikely there will be a new era anytime soon, and CE is less objectionable than AD - and NO system could ever be COMPLETELY neutral - but CE is MORE neutral -- JimWae 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
After endless arguments about "AD/BC" being POV because "Anno Domini" endorses the indoctrination that Jesus is "our Lord" and "Before Christ" is asserting Jesus as " the Christ", I've come to realize something quite simple that technically assures that "AD/BC" is NPOV and "CE/BCE" is unneccesary. If I were to write "JC exists beyond a doubt" at random, this is NPOV because it could be interpreted as " Jimmy Carter exists beyond a doubt", " James Cameron exists beyond a doubt", or anything else. Nowhere in that sentence to I acknowledge that I am reffering to Jesus Christ. Thus the only way that "AD/BC" could be POV is if they were presented in such a context as "Bob was born (in) 100 (years) Before Christ and then he died (in) Anno Domini 2"— saying "Bob was born 100 BC and he then died in AD 2" is literally in no way POV because I could simply interperet it as " British Columbia" and " Andy Dick". For a broader example, writing something like "JCIOLAS" isn't POV until you write it out as "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior". I think this cripples all presented evidence of a POV stance that accusingly exists with "AD/BC". The POV is only with "Anno Domini" and "Before Christ", not "AD and BC". CrazyInSane 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- and pbuh also is NPOV? -- JimWae 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- no thanks - I'd rather not be the source of all your knowledge -- JimWae 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I really think this talk page could do with a notice that it is for discussions about the article, not for discussions about the merits of the subject matter itself. squell 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that "Common era" has a capitalized "era" affixed? I propose that we move this article from Common Era to "Common era". Any objections? CrazyInSane 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The following is given in this article as to why AD is "inferior" to CE. Since CE is based on, and is exactly eqivalent to, the AD notation (it's just another name for the same thing, like Myanmar is the same as Burma) it would seem that the point applies to CE also. So really it should not be used as an example.
The label Anno Domini is almost certainly inaccurate — the birth of Jesus of Nazareth probably occurred no later than 4 BC, the year of Herod the Great's death. Arcturus 15:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not participate in the proposed rewrite instead of removing arguments you dislike? squell 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The link to the Jesus article should instead link to Historical Jesus - we are dealing with historical evidence, rather than theoretical ideas. I did a test redirect, but CrazyInSane appeared to not like the proposition, seeing as he/she removed the edit without explanation (apparently not the first time).
If anyone has any objections, please discuss below. Sfacets 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought the mere fact that I was redirecting Jesus to Historical Jesus was self-explanatory, but I had also noted the reasons for the edit in the edit summary.
I agree that the article Historical Jesus deals majorly with comparing the historical and spiritual figure, which is not great, however there needs to be a clear understanding shown that the calendar is based on Jesus as a factual historical figure, rather than one which may be distorted/enhanced or otherwise portrayed in a manner which to all purposes conveys a religious POV.
Perhaps the Jesus document should have a clearly defined section (currently lacking]] defining what is meant by Historical Jesus. Sfacets 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
CrazyInSane's addition of " Ante Christum Natum" to Bede is indeed misinformed. Bede used 'before Christ' only once. In book I, Chapter 2 of Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum we find "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus anno LXmo", which is loosely translated as "but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord" in the Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. I say loosely because "vero" is translated as "but" instead of "indeed", and the Latin does not have "nostrum" (our). Basically, Bede used "ante incarnationis dominicae" or "before the incarnation of the Lord". This differs from "ante Christum natum", "before Christ's birth", in two fundamental ways: incarnation instead of birth, and Lord instead of Christ. I have consulted many Latin books and I have never seen "ante Christum natum"! I would need several citations to support its entry in Wikipedia. — Joe Kress 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It says in the article that Jehovah's witnesses view C.E.(for Christian era) as more accurate than B.C. It looks like it should be "C.E. is more accurate than A.D.". But it's unclear whether this was an error made by the Jehovah's witness source or an error made by the person paraphrasing the Jehovah's witness source. Someone who knows, please fix. Zargulon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can say that it is true that all official publications of Jehovah's Witnesses use CE/BCE instead of AD/BC, and have for decades. I don't know offhand of what date that practice began. I also don't have a good citation handy, but I will post one when I get around to it. (The reference work Insight on the Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., would be a good place to look -- I'm pretty sure it has an article under Common Era that would contain a good quote, but I don't have a copy with me right now.) The justification I've always heard is that this is based on the understanding that AD is inaccurate in indicating a link to the birth of Jesus, since all the historical evidence shows that Jesus was not born in the year 1 AD (as noted in the article). Therefore Jehovah's Witnesses use CE to indicate that this is the common, although not in our view strictly accurate, usage. Hopefully that clarifies what the "strange comment" was supposed to mean. The "CE is more accurate than BC" (instead of "CE is more accurate than AD") is a typographical error on the part of the editor who inserted that statement. -- Daniel Pryden, 2006-06-05.
"There are various ways of dating. To the Chinese this is the year 4663, and to the Jews this the year 5725 A.M. (Anno mundi, or in the year of the world). To many others this is A.D. (Anno Domini, or in the year of our Lord) 1965. What does that mean? The 1965th year since the birth of Jesus Christ. But is it? There is considerable difference of opinion as to the exact year, but there is general agreement that it was some years B.C. that Jesus was born. Thus the present system, as set up in the sixth century by the monk Dionysius Exiguus, is in error. Moreover, Jesus did not become the Messiah or the Christ, which means Anointed One, until he was anointed with God's spirit at the time of his baptism in the Jordan River. (Matt. 3:13-17; Acts 10:38) So the Christian era, strictly speaking, did not begin until quite a few years after Jesus' birth. Since the use of A.D. and B.C. is really chronologically inaccurate, it is more accurate to say that this is 1965 C.E. or the 1965th year of the Common Era. Likewise, B.C.E. would mean Before the Common Era. Why "common"? Because it is the method of dating that is used in common by a large part of earth's inhabitants. Man has long had problems with his calendars, and he still does." — "The Common Era" (June 22, 1965) Awake!, p. 11
I've added this section as there has been only one mention of Google on this talk page -- with zero related discussion -- and yet some have tried to refer to that one reference as somehow airing out the issue.
Let's start at the implicit beginning, Internet usage, to avoid getting into the weeds of unfounded assertion (e.g., "most Internet users are in the U.S.") right off the bat.
Internet usage is described by the CIA factbook. As can be seen by this reference, the U.S. is ever more-so a smaller component of overall Internet usage, and by no means predominant.
Thus use of Google for determining relative usage of BC and BCE is not the unfounded exercise that champions of the BCE/CE labels might wish it to be. Google is a credible tool in this case, and unless a factual argument can be made otherwise, it should be quite useful over time to determine whether or not this somewhat trivial exercise in relabeling the reference for years (but not days of the week, et cetera) has any legs to it. -- 66.69.219.9 12:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If any argument is built upon Google it should go into the 'opposition' section. But anyway, the entire support/opposition section needs to be seriously rewritten, because people keep fighting over silly little sentences like this. It is bordering on the polemic as it is and it will only degenerate further if nothing is done about it. squell 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The same results (more supportive of BC, actually) can be found by looking at literally very "new" postings on the Internet via a search of 'Google news'. As might rather be expected, this will of course vary substantially from day to day and moment to moment, but, at this moment today, the preference for BC to BCE is more of a 23-to-1 preference. Interestingly, if we were to all live in China (the world's most populous country whose government is formally atheist), which embraced "Common Era" when the communists took over in 1949, we might not be able to access that fact. -- 66.69.219.9 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the objection to using Google to determine the general incidence of the 2 notations. I've read the archives (thanks, Prosfilaes); my reaction is that certainly *incompetent* Google searches are of little use. But searches on strings like '"55 BC" Caesar' or '"330 CE" Constantinople' should produce valid data about usage in Google-space. 'Original research' is a stronger objection, but I'm not sure it's decisive. First, the WP ban on original research was imposed by the need to stop cranks from publishing their alternatives to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and so on. Googling usages is far from that. I would suggest that it's compilation rather than research. Consider these parallels:
I'd say all these cases involve compilation of facts from existing sources, not original research in either the academic or Wikipedia senses. Now, Google is nothing more than a catalog of web content, with an interface similar to the interfaces on most electronic library catalogs. Ergo, Google searches are compilation, and therefore Wikipediable.
Bacchus, I think your objections to Google results are overstated. Yes, they are imperfect, but even a dirty window lets you know whether it's day or night. If counting Google hits overwhelming supports one option, that's convincing that that option is majority usage among typical users, all quibbling aside. You may well be right that a search of academic publish would produce different (i.e., pro-CE) results, but that's irrelevant. WP is written for a general audience, not an academic one. -- Chris 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We have been using B.C. for centuries, not BCE. The issue is not about Christianity, it is about using a historical event as a reference point for the purposes of timekeeping and recording events of history. Jesus was a real person -this is documented- and the events are significant. If you really want to take references to God out of everything, we should all say we are living in the year 4,500,006,006, which would approximate to the beginning of the Earth, plus human civilization (assuming a beginning around 4,000 B.C., but not 4,000 BCE).
That has nothing to do with it. I just wanted to present an alternative point of view, which is secularization caused by the whole B/CE thing. It's like pooling knowledge, but I thought if I did it on the discussion page, and not the main article, it would be ok, since I am discussing B/CE. But I apologize for any trouble this caused. Stovetopcookies 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: This is not a page for discussing CE/BCE—it's a page for discussion about Wikipedia's NPOV article on it, so discussions about whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea are not on-topic. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss this elsewhere. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
the article should probably note that alot of text books that use CE instead of AD often actuall use both. Example -- "Germany was invaded by Norway in 143 CE (AD)" just a thought -- T-rex 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)