This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
What the heck? There is no reason for this maddening debate. Silversmith offered a compromise, lets just use both dates. All this hysteria and theoretical offense is bordering on trolling. Frankly I find the idea that we'd use anything other than A.D. and B.C. on the Jesus page rather offensive.
Sam Spade 14:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I obviously don't think that, indeed if we were to follow NPOV we'd ignore the bizarre "I'm offended by A.D." POV, as being too small a minority view to include here, and discuss it on the Anno Domini article instead... Unfortunately NPOV is ignored early and often in favor of egocentrism on the wiki, much to our collective shame. If you want to see more of what I think, click here. Sam Spade 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think your views are irrational, I think they are bizarre (extremely abnormal and shocking). NPOV is NPOV. Our opinions as editors are not encyclopedic. Cite someone being offended already! Sam Spade 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
For the record, Wesley, I do not remember what position I took on this but I certainly do not now object to this. I mildly prefer "Jesus of Nazareth." I do have qualms about "Jesus Christ" because many people, like Jews and Muslims, accept the existence of Jesus, and understand that Christians think he is Christ, but do not themselves think Jesus as Christ. Nevertheless, I think at the time I argued in your favor (I think my argument was, if we have an article on Queen Elizabeth, it doesn't mean we all consider her our sovereign). So I sympathize with you on the Christ as Title issue. I am, however, still strongly opposed to BC/AD. Sam asks me to cite someone offended. Here goes:
Sam, please keep in mind that many — over twenty – voted for BCE/CE above, and that I have written hundreds of words explaining my position, You don't need to read everything I wrote, but if you pick any big chunk of text you will get the idea. In the meantime, see [1] for this:
See [2] for this:
See [3] for this:
See [4] for
See [5] for:
See [6] for
See [7] for
See [8] for
I think these passages reveal three important things: first, there is no problem using BC and AD when addressing a Christian audience. Second, Jews are offended by BC and AD and use BCE and CE as a "non-denominationl" way to use the Gregorian calendar. Third, many Christians respect this. I want to remind you that BCE/CE is used by Jews but is not a Jewish dating system. The Jewish "POV" is that this is the year 5765. Most Jews are offended by saying this is the year AD 2005. But most Jews are content with saying it is 2005 CE as a compromise. As one of the sources above explains, "The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Jguk has still not responded to my recent comments to him, above. Now he writes "Also you seem to ignore that the very act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is the expression of a POV." This is absurd. BCE/CE are neutral in that they take the view of no particular religion. You are saying "NPOV" is a "POV" and thus violates "NPOV." This is absurd on its face. NPOV is not a POV, it is a policy about not elevating any POV to dominance. This is exactly what BCE/CE does. It does not privilege the Christian point of view, because it avoides BC and AD. It does not privilege the Jewish point of view, because it does not accompany 5765. It is obvious to me why Jews are offended by using BC and AD in a non Christian context. You have yet to explain why BCE and CE offends you. So far, all your arguments amount to this: if it is different from what I am accustomed to, it is wrong. Jguk, I repeated my critique of your views above, and asked you for a second time to respond to them — and you barely responded. I expressed my reasons again (in the paragraph starting "Jguk, your hysterics do not help." and you haven't (cannot?) respond to that either. Instead, you just continue to protest that your point of view is the true point of view. Jguk, you must have a very small mind if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is faking it. What kind of world do you live in, where everyone has to agree with you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
As I think has been stated - the use of BCE is limited to certain circles and it should be used in articles related to those circles. The change itself here experesses a POV. The term is not defined by its historical derivation but rather by its use which is to demark years in a certain "era". The proposal to limit the use of the terms BC/AD as little as possible seems rejected - and the compromise solution to use both is in place despite having not reached concensus - that is troubling.
Do you know what the use of BC/BCE tells informed readers - that on Wikipedia - even on the article about Jesus - there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history. Trödel| talk 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I am somewhat torn here. I do not doubt that Slrubenstein and other non-Christians take genuine offense at BC/AD. I also do not doubt that some on the other side of the argument take genuine offense at BCE/CE. But, in my opinion, the mere fact that someone takes offense at a term is not sufficient to qualify the term as POV. If it were, there are many other terms used on Wikipedia that must by that standard be banned from use as POV, since one can find just about anyone who is willing and ready to take offense at just about anything.
It seems to me that Slrubenstein reads "500 AD" as the equivalent of "500 CE (Jesus is my Lord)". And others read "500 CE" as "500 AD (Jesus is not my Lord)". I view neither as a predicate; "500 AD" and "500 CE" make no statement of fact whatsoever in the English vernacular, which is the language of Wikipedia. Thus, to my mind, they are equally NPOV. I believe, without any evidence other than my own perception of general English usage, that most people regard both styles as neutral. I believe the fact that Slrubenstein is quite willing to type "BC" and "AD" when making his arguments shows that those terms can be used without implying that the person using them holds Christian beliefs. I likewise believe that those who use "BCE" and "CE" in arguing against them do so without expressing a non-Christian POV solely by virtue of that use. To me, these patterns of usage demonstrate that the use of the terms does not express a POV except in a forced, deliberate, unnatural interpretation of the text.
If one accepted the premise that BC/AD and BCE/CE were equally NPOV, then the choice would be purely a matter of style and readability. It is from this perspective that I argue for BC/AD, and from no desire to force a religious viewpoint upon anyone or to protect the traditions of Christianity from the atheist hordes.
If a compromise can be found that preserves readability and style sufficiently, I am in favor of it. The proposal to add the 'AD' or 'CE' (or 'AD/CE' or 'CE/AD', if you prefer) suffix to dates only to avoid ambiguity has considerable appeal to me. The 'BC' vs. 'BCE' problem is stickier, since a suffix is necessary in all cases to disambiguate the date from the AD/CE date. I'm not convinced that there's an easy way to achieve this without rendering such dates unreadable with a conglomeration of abbreviations following each one. Perhaps the best idea is that the date marker be user-configurable so that Slrubenstein sees BCE/CE and jguk sees BC/AD. This is the most difficult solution to implement though, since it cannot be achieved through convention alone.
I know this horse is in a terminal condition now, so I'll try to refrain from chiming in with any further restatement of my argument, unless someone asks for clarification on a particular point. Alanyst 19:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Graft.
I was about 10 years old when I figured out that AD was POV. That's when I found out what it stood for. My first thought was along the lines of, then if you aren't Christian you can't use that, can you? (I happened to live in a multi-religious society). "Anno Domini" - in the year of our Lord. Says it plainly enough. It took me a lot longer to figure out that BC was POV, because it isn't "before Jesus", it's "Before the Messiah". Jesus's being the Messiah is an opinion that is not universally recognised. So to say that something happened 4 years before the birth of the Messiah is POV. Choosing to abbreviate things doesn't change the meaning of the word. If I refer to the Queen as "Her Majesty" I am endorsing a POV. I might do it out of politeness were I ever in a position where it mattered. Similarly, I refuse to refer to the PM of my home country as "The Honourable" because I do not believe that he is. Sure, it's convention, but mouthing the words amounts to expressing a POV. I mumbled the Lords Prayer in school as a child long before I had any idea what it was about. Does that mean that as long as you don't know what you're saying it has no religious significance? Did prayers in Latin have no religious significance if the reader didn't speak Latin? Does the words of the Qu'ran be divorced from their religious connection if the reader doesn't speak Arabic, or reading from the Gita have no religious connection of the reader doesn't understand Sanskrit? Words have meaning even if you don't embrace the meaning as you speak them. The intent of the writer is immaterial - it's the way the reader interprets the words. BC/AD have a specific meaning. BCE/CE lack that meaning, they only have chronological significance. Guettarda 21:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you singling out me for some reason, or are you addressing yourself to the twenty-seven other people who have openly disagreed with you? As for your questions, I answered them long ago. You ignored them, as you sim to ignore or have disdain for anyone who is not your clone. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I thing that the whole "compromise" looks quite ugly and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I would much rather one convention is used (my preference is BCE/CE), but would rather see BC/AD rather than BCE/BE / CE/AD. srs 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The policy is not refering to conflicts between POV and NPOV. Also, you can believe whatever you want, I was simply stating that my own POV is that this year is 5765 and thus 5765 is POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are a great many people in this world with a vested interest in ignorance. For example, they either were ignorant of or choose to ignore that "Christ" means "Messiah", and that "Anno Domini" means "Year of the/our Lord (Jesus Christ)". They then contend that their readers are similarly ignorant, and that thus wikipedia should simply pander to this continued ignorance. -- JimWae 01:58, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Read the introduction, Gene: -- "not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." This is why all articles that deal with Jesus have a potential POV issue. It likely is an issue with all articles on religious figures (excepting perhaps those numerous & repetitive ones that have "...perspective" or "... view" in title). -- JimWae 03:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Have you noticed that I am ignoring you?-- JimWae 03:30, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
JimWae, Gene Nygaard is just a troll trying to waste your time. He is suggesting that the NPOV policy should state something specifically about AD — as if the NPOV should state something specifically about fascism, Hitler, Holocaust, Genocide, Feminism, and countless other objects of NPOV disputes. That is absurd and he either really means this, which means he has no clue as to what "policies" are, or he is just trying to waste your time. No one here has suggested that we should say that Jesus was born in 3,760, so that is just a red-herring he is making up in order to waste your time. But to ask, after kilobytes of explanation, why saying this is the year of "our" Lord is not a POV, is simply trollish behavior. Ignore it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "C.E." and "B.C.E." came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.
However, I believe that “CE” has earlier antecedents. In a 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux, we find, “The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation.” In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote “The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.” In its article on "Chronology", the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."
This 1908 example from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the first use of “Common Era” I can find, and I believe it was used synonymously with, or to replace “Vulgar Era.” “Vulgar” comes from the Latin word vulgāaris (from vulgus, “the common people”), meant “of or belonging to the common people, everyday,” and I believe it was used by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries to mean “common.” Why they used this, in addition to AD, I can only guess – I suspect it was to acknowledge that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was Lord.
The first Jewish use of this practice of which I know is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England:
This inscription, like most, uses the Jewish calendar (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the “VE” means “Vulgar Era,” and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications.
It is true that scholars today – including Christian and secular scholars – often use “C.E.” and “B.C.E” because of its neutrality. It is true that most Jews use these abbreviations as well, for the same reason. I do think it is interesting, though, that the alternative to A.D. was first introduced by Protestant and Catholic clerics. I believe this shows that there was a time when Christians understood and respected the fact that many people do not share their faith. I know many Christians who today share this understanding and respect. I just think it is both puzzling and a shame that others so resist the idea, that there are people out there who have other beliefs. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, it seems to me that CE began with Christian religious scholars -- the Catholic Encyclopedia. I am afraid I do not know much about the Jehovah's Witnesses; I gather they do not think of themselves as Christian, but they certainly are not Jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Your argument is so screwed up I wonder if it is worth taking you seriously any more. When the word "vulgar" took on an offensive meaning, people switched to "common." "Common" has no such offensive meaning, so why abandon it? Conversely, AD was never rejected because it was vulgar, it was rejected because it was not inclusive. It is still not inclusive. Apology accepted, but you say "very few people think of the etymological history" and you are still mistaken. "Before Christ" is not the etymology of BC, it is what BC stands for. And although many people do not care, many do. You think that because many people do not care then there is no NPOV problem. But this has never been relevant to NPOV decisions, nor is it now. That many people do not care only means that that is one POV. It does not mean it is the only or best POV. It is a POV. That is enough to require us to find an NPOV alternative. 200 years ago, people, including Christians, thought VE was an NPOV alternative. By the late 1800s, people &mdah; including Christians – replaced VE with CE as an NPOV alternative. I see no reason to reject it now. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, you are even more confused than I thought. People switched from VE to CE, not from VE to AD. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this discussion is still going on in the year 2005. Most historians and archeologists switched to BCE and CE years ago. And not because they were Jewish, but because everyone isn't Christian. BC – Before Christ – contains an assumption that Jesus was the Christ, the messiah. That's a theological belief. And AD – anno domini means "year of God" – which asserts that Jesus was in fact God incarnate, a belief that even some Christians do not subscribe to. Any assertion that one religious belief is the correct one is POV, no matter what it is or what article it is in.
If you will not accept the compromise, then you must accept the vote, which was something like 28 to 18 in favor of BCE and CE. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
As an aside...it says something about the power, significance, and influence of Jesus that 2000 years after he walked the earth, he still is one of the most controversial figures we know (throughout the culture; this page is simply an example of that). Kinda neat. At any rate, good luck sorting all this out. KHM03 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It's difficult to see that this article is so PoV that it warrants the PoV template. That the article is unbalanced because it's too balanced isn't an absurd view in itself, but it's not clear to me that it's true here. That Jesus is most important to Christianity is probably true, but that most of what Christianity teaches is relevant to Jesus is much more debatable. Relatively little Christian teaching is derived from Christ's reprted words and actions, being, for example, derived from ancient Greek philosophers via the work of mediæval writes like Aquinas. Moreover, in causal terms at least, Islam is as influenced by Jesus as is Christianity, Islam being in large part a reaction to Christianity. As for Judaism:
As a newbie, let me see if I understand how to make the arguement : "It is my POV that your POV is POV; whereas it is my POV that my POV is NPOV." is that it? Nobs 19:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
<Sincere applause>. Lucid and sound; if lucidity and soundness could overcome... well everything that they have to overcome, then there's be no more argument. Actually, my PoV is that it's the year 49 — I can't bring myself to believe all that tosh about anything existing before I did, but I go along with the Common Era system because I have to: the bank won't accept cheques with the real date. (That's a point; has anyone tried to write cheques using the Jewish, or Muslim, or other non-C.E. calendar? If so, what happens?) Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Mel, and Slim. But what can we do? Trodel and Jguk, and perhaps a couple of others, will not listen to reason. People have written the equivalent of pages and pages and pages of explanation for why BCE/CE is NPOV and makes sense, but Trodel and Jguk will never listen to reason and never obey our NPOV policy. So what should we do? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Slim, a vast majority of people voted for BCE/CE. It is just Trodel and Jguk and Gene who now refuse to accept the majority and our NPOV policy. A couple of people proposed using both BCE and BC as a compromise. I have stated that I am perfectly willing to accept this as a compromise, but Jguk stated that he refuses to accept this compromise (then, he accused me of being uncompromising). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
What the heck? There is no reason for this maddening debate. Silversmith offered a compromise, lets just use both dates. All this hysteria and theoretical offense is bordering on trolling. Frankly I find the idea that we'd use anything other than A.D. and B.C. on the Jesus page rather offensive.
Sam Spade 14:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I obviously don't think that, indeed if we were to follow NPOV we'd ignore the bizarre "I'm offended by A.D." POV, as being too small a minority view to include here, and discuss it on the Anno Domini article instead... Unfortunately NPOV is ignored early and often in favor of egocentrism on the wiki, much to our collective shame. If you want to see more of what I think, click here. Sam Spade 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think your views are irrational, I think they are bizarre (extremely abnormal and shocking). NPOV is NPOV. Our opinions as editors are not encyclopedic. Cite someone being offended already! Sam Spade 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
For the record, Wesley, I do not remember what position I took on this but I certainly do not now object to this. I mildly prefer "Jesus of Nazareth." I do have qualms about "Jesus Christ" because many people, like Jews and Muslims, accept the existence of Jesus, and understand that Christians think he is Christ, but do not themselves think Jesus as Christ. Nevertheless, I think at the time I argued in your favor (I think my argument was, if we have an article on Queen Elizabeth, it doesn't mean we all consider her our sovereign). So I sympathize with you on the Christ as Title issue. I am, however, still strongly opposed to BC/AD. Sam asks me to cite someone offended. Here goes:
Sam, please keep in mind that many — over twenty – voted for BCE/CE above, and that I have written hundreds of words explaining my position, You don't need to read everything I wrote, but if you pick any big chunk of text you will get the idea. In the meantime, see [1] for this:
See [2] for this:
See [3] for this:
See [4] for
See [5] for:
See [6] for
See [7] for
See [8] for
I think these passages reveal three important things: first, there is no problem using BC and AD when addressing a Christian audience. Second, Jews are offended by BC and AD and use BCE and CE as a "non-denominationl" way to use the Gregorian calendar. Third, many Christians respect this. I want to remind you that BCE/CE is used by Jews but is not a Jewish dating system. The Jewish "POV" is that this is the year 5765. Most Jews are offended by saying this is the year AD 2005. But most Jews are content with saying it is 2005 CE as a compromise. As one of the sources above explains, "The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Jguk has still not responded to my recent comments to him, above. Now he writes "Also you seem to ignore that the very act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is the expression of a POV." This is absurd. BCE/CE are neutral in that they take the view of no particular religion. You are saying "NPOV" is a "POV" and thus violates "NPOV." This is absurd on its face. NPOV is not a POV, it is a policy about not elevating any POV to dominance. This is exactly what BCE/CE does. It does not privilege the Christian point of view, because it avoides BC and AD. It does not privilege the Jewish point of view, because it does not accompany 5765. It is obvious to me why Jews are offended by using BC and AD in a non Christian context. You have yet to explain why BCE and CE offends you. So far, all your arguments amount to this: if it is different from what I am accustomed to, it is wrong. Jguk, I repeated my critique of your views above, and asked you for a second time to respond to them — and you barely responded. I expressed my reasons again (in the paragraph starting "Jguk, your hysterics do not help." and you haven't (cannot?) respond to that either. Instead, you just continue to protest that your point of view is the true point of view. Jguk, you must have a very small mind if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is faking it. What kind of world do you live in, where everyone has to agree with you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
As I think has been stated - the use of BCE is limited to certain circles and it should be used in articles related to those circles. The change itself here experesses a POV. The term is not defined by its historical derivation but rather by its use which is to demark years in a certain "era". The proposal to limit the use of the terms BC/AD as little as possible seems rejected - and the compromise solution to use both is in place despite having not reached concensus - that is troubling.
Do you know what the use of BC/BCE tells informed readers - that on Wikipedia - even on the article about Jesus - there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history. Trödel| talk 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I am somewhat torn here. I do not doubt that Slrubenstein and other non-Christians take genuine offense at BC/AD. I also do not doubt that some on the other side of the argument take genuine offense at BCE/CE. But, in my opinion, the mere fact that someone takes offense at a term is not sufficient to qualify the term as POV. If it were, there are many other terms used on Wikipedia that must by that standard be banned from use as POV, since one can find just about anyone who is willing and ready to take offense at just about anything.
It seems to me that Slrubenstein reads "500 AD" as the equivalent of "500 CE (Jesus is my Lord)". And others read "500 CE" as "500 AD (Jesus is not my Lord)". I view neither as a predicate; "500 AD" and "500 CE" make no statement of fact whatsoever in the English vernacular, which is the language of Wikipedia. Thus, to my mind, they are equally NPOV. I believe, without any evidence other than my own perception of general English usage, that most people regard both styles as neutral. I believe the fact that Slrubenstein is quite willing to type "BC" and "AD" when making his arguments shows that those terms can be used without implying that the person using them holds Christian beliefs. I likewise believe that those who use "BCE" and "CE" in arguing against them do so without expressing a non-Christian POV solely by virtue of that use. To me, these patterns of usage demonstrate that the use of the terms does not express a POV except in a forced, deliberate, unnatural interpretation of the text.
If one accepted the premise that BC/AD and BCE/CE were equally NPOV, then the choice would be purely a matter of style and readability. It is from this perspective that I argue for BC/AD, and from no desire to force a religious viewpoint upon anyone or to protect the traditions of Christianity from the atheist hordes.
If a compromise can be found that preserves readability and style sufficiently, I am in favor of it. The proposal to add the 'AD' or 'CE' (or 'AD/CE' or 'CE/AD', if you prefer) suffix to dates only to avoid ambiguity has considerable appeal to me. The 'BC' vs. 'BCE' problem is stickier, since a suffix is necessary in all cases to disambiguate the date from the AD/CE date. I'm not convinced that there's an easy way to achieve this without rendering such dates unreadable with a conglomeration of abbreviations following each one. Perhaps the best idea is that the date marker be user-configurable so that Slrubenstein sees BCE/CE and jguk sees BC/AD. This is the most difficult solution to implement though, since it cannot be achieved through convention alone.
I know this horse is in a terminal condition now, so I'll try to refrain from chiming in with any further restatement of my argument, unless someone asks for clarification on a particular point. Alanyst 19:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Graft.
I was about 10 years old when I figured out that AD was POV. That's when I found out what it stood for. My first thought was along the lines of, then if you aren't Christian you can't use that, can you? (I happened to live in a multi-religious society). "Anno Domini" - in the year of our Lord. Says it plainly enough. It took me a lot longer to figure out that BC was POV, because it isn't "before Jesus", it's "Before the Messiah". Jesus's being the Messiah is an opinion that is not universally recognised. So to say that something happened 4 years before the birth of the Messiah is POV. Choosing to abbreviate things doesn't change the meaning of the word. If I refer to the Queen as "Her Majesty" I am endorsing a POV. I might do it out of politeness were I ever in a position where it mattered. Similarly, I refuse to refer to the PM of my home country as "The Honourable" because I do not believe that he is. Sure, it's convention, but mouthing the words amounts to expressing a POV. I mumbled the Lords Prayer in school as a child long before I had any idea what it was about. Does that mean that as long as you don't know what you're saying it has no religious significance? Did prayers in Latin have no religious significance if the reader didn't speak Latin? Does the words of the Qu'ran be divorced from their religious connection if the reader doesn't speak Arabic, or reading from the Gita have no religious connection of the reader doesn't understand Sanskrit? Words have meaning even if you don't embrace the meaning as you speak them. The intent of the writer is immaterial - it's the way the reader interprets the words. BC/AD have a specific meaning. BCE/CE lack that meaning, they only have chronological significance. Guettarda 21:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you singling out me for some reason, or are you addressing yourself to the twenty-seven other people who have openly disagreed with you? As for your questions, I answered them long ago. You ignored them, as you sim to ignore or have disdain for anyone who is not your clone. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I thing that the whole "compromise" looks quite ugly and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I would much rather one convention is used (my preference is BCE/CE), but would rather see BC/AD rather than BCE/BE / CE/AD. srs 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The policy is not refering to conflicts between POV and NPOV. Also, you can believe whatever you want, I was simply stating that my own POV is that this year is 5765 and thus 5765 is POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are a great many people in this world with a vested interest in ignorance. For example, they either were ignorant of or choose to ignore that "Christ" means "Messiah", and that "Anno Domini" means "Year of the/our Lord (Jesus Christ)". They then contend that their readers are similarly ignorant, and that thus wikipedia should simply pander to this continued ignorance. -- JimWae 01:58, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Read the introduction, Gene: -- "not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." This is why all articles that deal with Jesus have a potential POV issue. It likely is an issue with all articles on religious figures (excepting perhaps those numerous & repetitive ones that have "...perspective" or "... view" in title). -- JimWae 03:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Have you noticed that I am ignoring you?-- JimWae 03:30, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
JimWae, Gene Nygaard is just a troll trying to waste your time. He is suggesting that the NPOV policy should state something specifically about AD — as if the NPOV should state something specifically about fascism, Hitler, Holocaust, Genocide, Feminism, and countless other objects of NPOV disputes. That is absurd and he either really means this, which means he has no clue as to what "policies" are, or he is just trying to waste your time. No one here has suggested that we should say that Jesus was born in 3,760, so that is just a red-herring he is making up in order to waste your time. But to ask, after kilobytes of explanation, why saying this is the year of "our" Lord is not a POV, is simply trollish behavior. Ignore it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "C.E." and "B.C.E." came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.
However, I believe that “CE” has earlier antecedents. In a 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux, we find, “The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation.” In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote “The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.” In its article on "Chronology", the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."
This 1908 example from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the first use of “Common Era” I can find, and I believe it was used synonymously with, or to replace “Vulgar Era.” “Vulgar” comes from the Latin word vulgāaris (from vulgus, “the common people”), meant “of or belonging to the common people, everyday,” and I believe it was used by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries to mean “common.” Why they used this, in addition to AD, I can only guess – I suspect it was to acknowledge that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was Lord.
The first Jewish use of this practice of which I know is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England:
This inscription, like most, uses the Jewish calendar (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the “VE” means “Vulgar Era,” and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications.
It is true that scholars today – including Christian and secular scholars – often use “C.E.” and “B.C.E” because of its neutrality. It is true that most Jews use these abbreviations as well, for the same reason. I do think it is interesting, though, that the alternative to A.D. was first introduced by Protestant and Catholic clerics. I believe this shows that there was a time when Christians understood and respected the fact that many people do not share their faith. I know many Christians who today share this understanding and respect. I just think it is both puzzling and a shame that others so resist the idea, that there are people out there who have other beliefs. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, it seems to me that CE began with Christian religious scholars -- the Catholic Encyclopedia. I am afraid I do not know much about the Jehovah's Witnesses; I gather they do not think of themselves as Christian, but they certainly are not Jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Your argument is so screwed up I wonder if it is worth taking you seriously any more. When the word "vulgar" took on an offensive meaning, people switched to "common." "Common" has no such offensive meaning, so why abandon it? Conversely, AD was never rejected because it was vulgar, it was rejected because it was not inclusive. It is still not inclusive. Apology accepted, but you say "very few people think of the etymological history" and you are still mistaken. "Before Christ" is not the etymology of BC, it is what BC stands for. And although many people do not care, many do. You think that because many people do not care then there is no NPOV problem. But this has never been relevant to NPOV decisions, nor is it now. That many people do not care only means that that is one POV. It does not mean it is the only or best POV. It is a POV. That is enough to require us to find an NPOV alternative. 200 years ago, people, including Christians, thought VE was an NPOV alternative. By the late 1800s, people &mdah; including Christians – replaced VE with CE as an NPOV alternative. I see no reason to reject it now. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, you are even more confused than I thought. People switched from VE to CE, not from VE to AD. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this discussion is still going on in the year 2005. Most historians and archeologists switched to BCE and CE years ago. And not because they were Jewish, but because everyone isn't Christian. BC – Before Christ – contains an assumption that Jesus was the Christ, the messiah. That's a theological belief. And AD – anno domini means "year of God" – which asserts that Jesus was in fact God incarnate, a belief that even some Christians do not subscribe to. Any assertion that one religious belief is the correct one is POV, no matter what it is or what article it is in.
If you will not accept the compromise, then you must accept the vote, which was something like 28 to 18 in favor of BCE and CE. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
As an aside...it says something about the power, significance, and influence of Jesus that 2000 years after he walked the earth, he still is one of the most controversial figures we know (throughout the culture; this page is simply an example of that). Kinda neat. At any rate, good luck sorting all this out. KHM03 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It's difficult to see that this article is so PoV that it warrants the PoV template. That the article is unbalanced because it's too balanced isn't an absurd view in itself, but it's not clear to me that it's true here. That Jesus is most important to Christianity is probably true, but that most of what Christianity teaches is relevant to Jesus is much more debatable. Relatively little Christian teaching is derived from Christ's reprted words and actions, being, for example, derived from ancient Greek philosophers via the work of mediæval writes like Aquinas. Moreover, in causal terms at least, Islam is as influenced by Jesus as is Christianity, Islam being in large part a reaction to Christianity. As for Judaism:
As a newbie, let me see if I understand how to make the arguement : "It is my POV that your POV is POV; whereas it is my POV that my POV is NPOV." is that it? Nobs 19:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
<Sincere applause>. Lucid and sound; if lucidity and soundness could overcome... well everything that they have to overcome, then there's be no more argument. Actually, my PoV is that it's the year 49 — I can't bring myself to believe all that tosh about anything existing before I did, but I go along with the Common Era system because I have to: the bank won't accept cheques with the real date. (That's a point; has anyone tried to write cheques using the Jewish, or Muslim, or other non-C.E. calendar? If so, what happens?) Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Mel, and Slim. But what can we do? Trodel and Jguk, and perhaps a couple of others, will not listen to reason. People have written the equivalent of pages and pages and pages of explanation for why BCE/CE is NPOV and makes sense, but Trodel and Jguk will never listen to reason and never obey our NPOV policy. So what should we do? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Slim, a vast majority of people voted for BCE/CE. It is just Trodel and Jguk and Gene who now refuse to accept the majority and our NPOV policy. A couple of people proposed using both BCE and BC as a compromise. I have stated that I am perfectly willing to accept this as a compromise, but Jguk stated that he refuses to accept this compromise (then, he accused me of being uncompromising). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)