Talk:Common Era/Archive 6

message: A lot of recent edits to this document appear to represent the editors' own arguments about the CE/BCE issue. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please provide references for all claims and arguments. I will delete any further unreferenced additions.
In the near future I will add [citation needed] flags to unsupported material, deleting this material if no one comes up with a reference within a reasonable time.--CJGB (Chris) 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please reference sources 

message: Has an offical verdict been rendered on the issue? If so I will change BCE and CE to BC and AD whenever I see it. 
--Jorbian 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It matters not how much support AD/BC has, no matter how many votes CE/BCE looses, reason and common sense will not prevail.  If you try to improve wikipedia by removing these novelties all you will get is an irrational edit war. Its not worth the effort. ClemMcGann 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you exercise reason, reflect on what happened before.  There was an attempt to impose a ban on AD/BC Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Common sense pervailed.  The attempt failed.  Then the proposer of the failed proposal took issue with an editor doing as you suggest. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.  It's just not worth it. ClemMcGann 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Near the beginning of the article we find the phrase "the period of measured time beginning with the year 1, the traditional birthyear of Jesus". However, as discussed in Anno Domini#History of Anno Domini, the person who first proposed the Anno Domini epoch, Dionysius Exiguus, left the birth year of Jesus unclear:
*He may have considered the Incarnation to be the conception of Jesus, also known as the Annunciation.
*He may have considered the Incarnation to be the Nativity of Jesus.
*He may have intended the Incarnation to occur in what today we would label 2 BC, 1 BC, or 1 AD. (The year 2 BC is a possibility because one of the year start-dates Dionysius used was the beginning of Emperor Diocletian's reign, 29 August.)
This article is not the place for an extended discussion of when the nominal Incarnation occured in the AD system, but the article should not contain a statement that many scholars do not agree with. Can anyone come up with a concise rewrite that reflects the uncertainty about the exact date of the AD epoch?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 
*Perhaps an acceptable rewrite would be along the lines of "the period of measured time beginning with the traditional birthdate of Jesus", since we know that the AD system is based on Jesus' birth, but do not know if Exiguus intended 1 BC or 1 CE as the actual year.— OLP 1999 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't read Latin, but in the translations I've read (see reference sections of Dionysius Exiguus or Anno Domini), Dionysius refers to the Incarnation, not the Nativity. He may or may not have considered them to be the same. So "traditional birthdate" may not be correct. We could say "traditional Incarnation", but that would be misleading because the modern meaning of Incarnation is conception. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, upon review of the Common Era article it appears as though someone has removed any reference to Jesus altogether. I suppose this could work but if you want to incorporate Jesus into the opening paragraph then it could be a confusing dilemma for word choice.— OLP 1999 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 AD =? birthyear

message: This section contains the item:
 The Neo-Pagan Calendars include that used by many pagan religions today, often called the Wheel of the Year.
There is no such thing as a "Neo-Pagan calendar."  Different Neo-Pagan faiths may use different calendars, but few if any use dating systems that do not match CE; the Wheel of the Year relates to the seasons and dates of a given year.  I'm going to yank this item if no one objects strenuously.
Septegram 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Calendar Eras 

message: Joe Kress changed the first sentence to read "The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 of the Julian or Gregorian calendars." JimWae then edited the ending of the sentence to read "year 1 on the Gregorian calendar." and stated his reason in the edit summary: "to whatever degree Julian calendar includes year numbers, it was not year 1 on Julian calendar."
The problem with this reasoning is that the Gregorian calender did not exist in 1 CE either. Whenever 1 CE or AD 1 is written, it indicates a relatively modern person is extrapolating our current year numbering system back several hundred years. In come cases, the person doing the extrapolation is not being precise enough to care about the difference between the two calendars, but when precision is needed, the extrapolator might use either calender, depending on his purpose. So I am restoring the version with the reference the Julian calendar. --Gerry Ashton 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian versus Julian 

message: A discussion is on progress on Talk:Anno Domini. Since Common era#Chronology and notation lists "Anno Domini as the main article, I believe the question should be decided on the Anno Domini talk page, and once resolved, any necessary edits to this article be made. --Gerry Ashton 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Epoch is nativity or conception? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Epoch is nativity or conception?

message: I contest the current state of this section for the following reasons.  The format for the section, of pro and con, is unencyclopedic and argumentative.  The points seem to be foils for one another: it has been widely accepted, it has not been widely accepted; it is confusing, it is not confusing, &c.  This section only uses two sources, both internet sites, one of which (a BBC how to guide) is referenced nine times.  It is the sole support for 9 points.  The second website is only referenced concerning one point, and the site itself uses the first as one of its sources.  A further two points are unsourced.  Thus of the total points 75% come from one internet site source, and of the sourced points 90% come from this site.   Some of the arguments in the opposition section sound more like a straw-man than a fair summary of the view.  Ultimately, the section itself seems a bit too argumentative, and thus at least to appearance employs foils and straw-men.  Lastly it employs weasel words like "some argue" without actually expressing who does the arguing, with a source directly to that arguer.  Lostcaesar 09:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I suppose one of the pros should be that the dating system is a constant reminder of Jesus and tends to spread awareness of him into areas that use this calender but are non-Christian? --Gerry Ashton 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Below are two presentations of the article, the section in bold having been removed, the explination being that it "has no bearing":
:The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used, both dividing time according to the traditonal year of the incarnation, and neither including a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E. 
:The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used, and neither including a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E. 
Now I must ask how it can be said that the information provide has "no bearing" on their equivalence.  That expressly is the equivalence.  I cannot see how this information can be seen as anything other than beneficial information which helps clarify the matter at hand, briefly.  I am really just curious, and perhaps a little perplexed, as to why this should be excluded from the introduction.  It is a relevant fact that gives the reader important information.  Why remove it? Lostcaesar 11:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel "dividing time" is not the best phrase to use. While not incorrect, some people might try to think of dividing time into equal sized periods, as in the mathematical meaning of division. These people would eventually figure out what is meant, but there would be an unnecessary mental hesitation about the meaning. Also, phrases such as "year of the Incarnation" are not ideal, because although this usually refers to the AD system, it can also refer to an Alexandrian system that has an origin about 8 years later. I consider the current introduction satisfactory. --Gerry Ashton 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JW, I almost removed the phrase about the Gregorian Calendar because it seems wrong to me.  BCE / CE & BC / AD can be applied to any solar calendar - all it requires is that a group of solar years is divided into two calculations.  Russia used AD without the Gregorian calendar for quite a while.  Hence, the Gregorian calendar is really irrelevant here.  Maybe we should remove the Gregorian part and keep this phrase, if as its own sentence if you like.  Gerry, what phrase would you prefer?Lostcaesar 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article makes it clear that CE/BCE is just an alternate notation for AD/BC. I think it is clear to readers that if they want more information about the epoch of the system, they should read the Anno Domini article. Also, the "Chronology and notation" section gives an adequate description of the epoch for a person who does not want to take the trouble to read the "Anno Domini" article. When I first saw the introduction of Gregorian into the article, I didn't think it was right, but I was pursuaded that Gregorian is always associated with AD unless otherwise stated. --Gerry Ashton 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal, on what grounds?

message: These paragraphs were added to the "Origins" section:
The terms CE and BCE appear to originate in Israel after the establishment of the modern state and modern Israeli culture.  This probably arose from the natural reluctance of Jewish people to use the terms AD and BC while recognising the importance of the system itself for scholarly and cultural purposes.  From there it appears to have been adopted in the US in the universities, and spread from there.
The term is only used in the UK in certain university contexts. It is mandated for use in humanities textbooks by Oxford University Press, for instance. But in the UK it is not otherwise in common use.
I have moved the paragraphs to the talk page until someone can provide a source for this information. --Gerry Ashton 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask why? All the information in this section would fail this objection. Roger Pearse 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph contains several citations. Although the paragraph about "Vulgar" does not cite sources, it could easily be verified in a good dictionary. The paragraph about the gravestone inscription is not well-sourced, in that it does not say exactly where the gravestone in Plymouth, England is. It has been marked as "citation needed" for a while now, and should probably be removed too. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first blockquote is obviously false because "Common Era" is documented in the article itself as being used in the early twentieth century, well before the modern state of Israel was formed, and centuries earlier via "Vulgar Era". — Joe Kress 05:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced info in Origins section

message: The following paragraph was just added:
Its usage is not particularly recent; Edward Gibbon, a critic of Christianity, begins his epic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, first published in 1776, with the words "In the second century of the Christian Era".
The section was about using the abbreviations CE and BCE instead of AD and BC. I don't think the new paragraph is relevant unless Gibbon used the abbreviation CE as well as the words Christian Era. --Gerry Ashton 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He uses AD.  That same opening paragraph contains a sentence that starts with: "During a happy period (AD 98-180) of more than fourscore years, ..." -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New paragraph about Christian Era

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

message: The following statement was added to the Opposition section:
*The culture of The West is essentially Christian. By erasing its imprints The West essentially destroys its cultural essence
I have moved it to the talk page until a source for the statement is provided. --Gerry Ashton 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Destruction of western culture

message: To employ a Christian system, ad, is, also, a political correctness, theocorrectness, much as is ce.  To prominently label one {the latter} thusly, & not do the same regarding the other {former}, seems completely pov.  But, most of this website is pov, procapitalist, proChristian, protheist, handicappist, et al.
Further, some of these sentences could be clearer, if broken, from one, into two, possibly into three.  More chronological might, as well, help.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that English is probably not your native language, but I think you have a dire misunderstanding of what "political correctness" is. Political correctness is when one changes, or alters, a commonly used word or phrase so as not to "offend" or "exclude" the reader/listener. Since the "common era" designation was created simply as an alternative to anno Domini, with no actual changes from the AD system otherwise, it can be seen as being politically correct. The AD system is in no WAY politically correct, because it professes that "Jesus Christ is the Lord", although that connotation has been somewhat dissociated from AD and BC over the years. For example, if one was to call Wednesday "Third Day" instead, that would be a PC attempt to not "offend non-Norse pagans". — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (my Xmas) 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Political correctness is not necessarily about altering words or phrases.  To quote from the wikilink you cited: The contemporary use of the term political correctness is said to derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line.  The term was transformed and used jokingly within the Left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier. In this context, the phrase was applied to either an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or to a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance.  As you point out, BC/BCE is PC, because it is the alteration of a commonly used term so as to avoid giving offence.  It was not "created simply as an alternative to anno Domini"; this was done with a rhetorical purpose.  The BC/AD terminology at this point is simply an historical artifact; obviously some consider its use to be politically incorrect. MarkBrooks 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three potential improvements: 

message: I haven't got it pieced together, but I'm almost sure there is a lot more to this topic than there is in the article. 
There are really two separate questions: a) What are the origins, meaning, usage and connotations of the term "Common era," and b) What are the  origins, meaning, usage and connotations of the abbreviations BCE and CE. I'm interested in question "a", the term, not the abbreviation.
What I've found so far is only what I've gathered from context, looking at the way the term is used, particularly in literature of the late 1800s. (In other words, I found out most of this by searching in Google Books for "Common era" and choosing "full view books only," and also in a few other places (the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica online, the Project Gutenberg corpus of texts online, etc.
There are many, many, many uses of the phrase "common era" in the 1800s. It's always in lower case, by the way.
The interesting part is that it does not always mean the Christian era. It is clear that it is a generic term, meaning a common era, of which there are several.
Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307 Here's another mention of "the common era of the Jews."
And "the common era of the Mahometans."
And "the common era of the foundation of Rome."
Similarly, phrases like "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord"  and "there is no doubt that the common era of the birth of our Saviour is wrong by four years show, by the fact that they specify which common era is referred to, that the writers thought there were other common eras.
So, "common era" is not a disguise or euphemism (or, if you like, dysphemism) for "Christian era." 
When "common era" is used without qualification, it does seem to mean Christian era:
"puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."
"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"
"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men.
There are quite a few examples of long passages in which the phrases "common era" and "Christian era" are both used without any apparent distinction, as if the writer simply liked to vary the phrase.
Now, here's what I think is probably going on.
In Memorial Hall at Harvard, there is some inscription which refers an event as occurring in the year "Anno Domini" and in a certain year "Annum Collegium Harvardinum" or something of the sort. I've seen inscriptions in Boston that date things twice: Anno Domini and in the year relative to the founding of Boston (like the Roman "ab urbe condita"). 
Oh, and in the 1950s, the World Almanac used to have a little table giving the year AD, the Jewish year, the Muslim year, and so forth, and it always included a line like "year 11 of the Atomic Age," as if they thought people were going to date things from the year of the Trinity test.
I've read that in the middle ages, there were no national systems of weights and measures, but every city would have its own miles and hogsheads and ounces and so forth.
So: I suspect that there was a long period of time in which people ordinarily and customarily counted years from some important local event, and gradually there was also widespread adoption of "common" epochs. In order to retain sanity, any official record, or learned history, or anything of the sort, would typically mention two dates, the local one ("year VII of Trajan") and the year of the "common era," which might be the common era of the Christians (i.e. the "Christian era") or the common era of the Jews or some other common era. For that matter, an ancient historian, trying to relate historical events occurring in different locations, would have had to reduce them to some, well, common epoch. 
If I can pin any of this down better, I will. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage and meaning of the term "Common  era"