Talk:Anno Domini/Archive 2

message: Someone (or maybe a couple of people) keeps tagging "if he existed at all" into this section.
I am only a beginning Biblical scholar, but my impression has been that most actual scholars do believe that there was some person who existed. I don't think the "if he existed it all" disclaimer is accurate. However, I'm willing to discuss other ways to make this section seem less POV. (And, of course, my impression is not worth much as evidence. Can we find some? I'll try to find some references.) Aranel ("Sarah") 19:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it obvious, like by definition, that a Biblical scholar would assume that Jesus existed? The idea that there should be "if he existed at all" in there seems ludicrous. I should think that most historians, even non-religious ones, would agree that there's a strong probability that the historical Jesus existed (even if he wasn't truly the son of God) Sbwoodside 20:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The evidence, however, does seem to indicate that someone existed. Historians today are more interested in what we can ascertain about his life, not in whether or not he ever had one. The gospels are not the only source. There are references by such writers as Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus (source: ).  Does anyone have clear evidence that there are, in fact, a significant number of scholars who don't believe that any such person ever existed? Aranel ("Sarah") 15:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  See bibliography(ies) in rewrite in progress at Historicity of Jesus/. There are many scholars who question the existence of the literal person, but for very few topics is it specifically relevant (iow: if researching the crusades, it doesn't matter if he was, in fact, an allegorical character so long as he served as a motivation for the events studied, so it won't be an element of the research report.) Further, use of the term "scholar" is in question at WikiProject Jesus since it often a way to include a huge population of theologians while simultaneously excluding amateur historians (who, oddly enough, produce a surprisingly large percentage of published peer-reviewed journal articles.) Conclusion: the use of "majority" or "minority" view on this topic is disputed. - Amgine 21:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of dating section 

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision 1) proposes "BC" and "AD" (in contrast with "BCE" and "CE") as standard for Wikipedia, 2) apparently encourages linking of years, and 3) encourages linking of units of measurement, among other changes. It also reverses the style of many of the dates used within the guide (such as "February 12" to "12 February"). See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for discussion. Maurreen 01:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what this has got to do with the article, but Maurreen has not provided an accurate summary of the proposed revision. However, anyone interested in it can go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) to discuss it, jguk 08:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed style change

message: I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal concerning AD and NPOV 

message: I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the  Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cease-fire on eras

message: I was confused by the bold part of this (from Anno Domini#The popularization of Anno Domini:
 A few generations later, the Anglo-Saxon monk Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius, also used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. Bede was different from historians working in more important places in two ways: First, he was in Northumbria, outside the bounds of the later Roman Empire.
Should it be "earlier Roman Empire", or "later Holy Roman Empire"?  Or am I just confused? Chuck 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a right to be confused. I am not sure what the editor who added that paragraph had in mind. He mentions Italy, France, and Spain, which were part of the Western Roman Empire until its dissolution in the fifth century. When Bede wrote his History in 731, they were not part of any empire and they certainly weren't "more important places". The Holy Roman Empire did not begin until 834. The only part of the Roman Empire still in existence in 731 was the Eastern Roman Empire which was the most important place at that time, especially its capital Constantinople. But its historians usually used the Alexandrian Era, which is just as good as any other very long term era. Besides Constantinople, the British Isles, including Northumbria, were indeed the most important places. Continental centers of learning, mainly in monasteries, were established a century later by disciples of Bede himself. The editor seems to be of the opinion that a plethora of regnal dating systems were in use, which simply wasn't the case in my opinion. I'm not sure how to better word that paragraph. — Joe Kress 20:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding use of "Roman Empire" 

message: The article doesn't address something I've occasionally wondered about.
Why was the year of Jesus's birth, rather than the year of his death, used as the epoch? 
I would have thought the year of Jesus's death would be a much more natural starting point to use for both theological and historical reasons.
Theologically, the death and resurrection of Christ are far more important to Christians than his birth. Historically, Jesus was famous at the time of his death and therefore it has more and better historical evidence than the time of his birth.
So, why was the date of his birth chosen as the starting point? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This depends on the luck of history. Many different Christian counts of years have been used over the last two millennia. The dominant Christian count during the first millennium did not even refer to Christ—it was the Anno Mundi (in the year of the world) era counted from Creation (several counts existed), used by almost all Western (originally Latin) Christians for the first five centuries, and by Eastern (originally Greek) Christians until AD 1700 when Russia adopted the AD count, and even by some Eastern Christians privately to this day. Relative to Christ, in AD 457 Victorius bagan his 532-year Easter table in the year we now call AD 28, where Easter is an annual celebration of Christ's Resurrection. During the first three centuries it was an annual remembrance of his Crucifixion. Sometimes both were combined into the Parousia. The errors in Victorius's table caused it to be replaced. Bede's great influence caused the count by Dionysius Exiguus to dominate. The habit of writing brief notices of what happended in a specific year in the margins of Easter tables caused the AD count to be used historically as well, even before Bede by Irish monks. Ironically, Dionysius does not even mention Christ's birth or Nativity, instead he always refers to his Incarnation or conception, which by the time he wrote in AD 525 was firmly fixed on 25 March, nine months before 25 December, which had been fixed as his Nativity in the fourth century. I'm not sure why Dionysius uses the Incarnation of Jesus as opposed to his Resurrection. After all, he only created a new Easter table just like Victorius (which was to replace it), and did not use his count of years for any historical purpose. — Joe Kress 21:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the epoch Jesus' date of birth, rather than death? 

message: Let's try this again. How much mention should this article give to Common Era? Personally I think it's adequate right now. This article should briefly alude to CE, Common Era should host the entire discussion (referring back here for any other details). In particular, this article should not be making any claims that are not already in Common Era. squell 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Common Era should not be mentioned in this article any more than it is already, or even less for all I care. Since this 'Common Era' business is simply a euphemism for the original Anno Domini terminology, it deserves no more than a small mention on this page. Over on the Common Era page, however, the Anno Domini must be overtly referenced due to the fact that it is the original terminology, that in which common era stemmed off. PatrickA 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know man, but I've got an itchy blocking finger :) Adam Bishop 06:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The easiest answer is: Yes, it is just you. The more accurate answer is tedious and not very satisfying, but can be found in triplicate here, here, here, and probably other places, too. squell 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thank you. Although my original question was rhetorical, as it is obvious that I am not the only person in this world who believes so, your answer seems to actually imply that you are sure it is just me. Funny. SprSynJn 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm more implying that the subject isn't really worth bothering about, looking at the volumes of fruitless debate it has already generated. squell 21:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I took the liberty of adding that After Death was an incorrect translation of the abbreviation.  Being constantly flammed on forums when ever I bring up it's true meaning is getting rather old.  Look fine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shiadon (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about AD not meaning After Death is already mentioned in the "Popularization" section, so I have removed it from the introductory paragraph. This should be discussed in the "Address After Death" section of the talk page. It would be great if someone could find a reliable source that says that "After Death" is a widespread error. --Gerry Ashton 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of CE 

message: For this topo, let's share our discussion into "solar vs. lunisolar" and more "accurate vs. less accurate".
==== solar vs. lunisolar ====
We have to remind that – I'll say this less for you than for third readers. I know very well that you, Joe Kress, are a great specialist in (not only) calendar systems – the about twelve new moon per year are entirely a coincidence, without any cause and effect wrt. the "year of seasons", i.e. the tropical year. For this reason, the proceeding of the old Egyptians: to liberate the calendar year from the old, auxiliary new moon counting and to orient towards a trivial day counting was progressive, "modern" and scientific.
Even a Metonic lunisolar calendar with a better synchronisation with regard to the year of seasons, however maintains a false semblance. (Also this better synchronisation can only be accomplished after the cognition of the TY.) Therefore, it has well been the old Egyptians who via their calendar definition found the very first scientific approximation of the tropical year: 365 days exactly one. Later on, because they maintained their calendar year definition unchanged during millennia. So, once more, the old Egyptians found, could calculate, the second scientific approximation of the tropical year in human kind's history: 365.25 days. This value was the recognised calendar-year-value till 1582, October 4.
Quite an other question is the emotional or, as the case may be, religious relatedness to the lunar calendar system. Self-evident I have – I suppose, I hope just like you – no any sympathy for astrology. Also wrt. the moon – which has of course real gravitational influences to earth – I behold all lunar horticultural rules e.g. for unproved superstitions.
Notwithstanding, just like you, I suppose, I like the moon. Highty-tighty! Today it's the waning gibbous moon.  The Gregorian calendar has the advantage, that it connects both, the solar and the lunar calendar. (I studied years ago the conventional Gregorian new moon's dates – listed in not very well-known tables – and compared with the astronomical dates, and I found that even more than 400 years after, these dates are quite good, rather close.)
However, any modern, scientific, civil calendar must be solar.
==== accurate vs. less accurate ====
The study of calendar systems and their respective astronomical accuracy is a section in the science of chronology.  Chronology is well a science. Presently it is universally considered as an auxiliary science of history and astronomy.
If I resume your second and third paragraphs, as well as what Squell said before, you assert in substance:  Science can be false, as long as none remark it!
Aye, perhaps you both are right! Till none remark it, often hidden errors stayed in many sciences during very long times. Till someone perceived it.
This someone was my friend Michael Florencetime, who clearly recognised in 1989, that a correct scientific chronology must first define a common year zero. Quite not for instance a leap year zero. This is a fact. Like Michael is also a poet, etymological: "s.o. who acts", he decided to define this civil, historical and astronomical year zero, 1½ year later with a saw!
This definition, because it is the correct one – the only way to have, at last, an accurate, continuous chronology – will stay in history of humankind.  This, completely independent of the length of interval, the ponderous world will take to recognise it and to understand that the Cassini chronology now is scientifically refuted.  (A religious chronicle can't neither be refuted nor scientifically confirmed. Each one who would enterprise to proof this or that, ipso facto, would disqualify himself as scientist.)
Let's go back to the my "argument that the Gregorian calendar's accuracy contributes to its [present worldwide] acceptance":  You wrote: "That drift was obviously no hindrance to agricultural activity because Muslims not only did not starve during the Middle Ages, but prospered..."  and: "Similarly, the Chinese Empire, which used a mathematical lunisolar calendar, prospered, also becoming a great civilization."
I never would contest that. Indeed the Islamic civilisation "becoming one of the greatest civilizations on Earth" during the European Middle-Ages. Also Arabic astronomers, at these times, were among the most preeminent of their time. Nevertheless, it was completely prohibited for these astronomers to propose any new calendar system since it was the Prophet himself who once explicitly stated in the Coran, that the twelve-moon rule has to be applied without exception. As you know, the Islamic tradition not distinguishes between religion and civil society. So any reform in calendar was excluded, albeit science prospered. Also the Chinese Empire prospered, notwithstanding they used the older lunar calendar system.
After Middle-Ages, during the Renaissance and the Early Modern Time European men turned towards sciences. SI is one of the most famous results of this paradigm shift. It seems me completely excluded that any hypothetical inherited lunisolar calendar would have survived these times up to nowadays to be still recognised internationally!
You wrote: "A solar calendar is not inherently superior to a lunisolar calendar." I don't agree. Scientifically it is! Because the aim of a modern calendar system is last but not least to count the "year of seasons". Scientifically, the moon has no part in the recurrent year of seasons. Absolutely no part! Therefore, if we want to count the "recurrent years of seasons" – in our scientific present – we have to exclude categorically any reference to the moon phases in the length of the year. (Months and weeks as approximated references to the older lunar system are acceptable, since they are less important sub-units.)
But we can speculate and argue as long as we want, one fact remains: The present internationally recognised calendar system is a solar system.  This should be not a coincidence, but a result of common acceptation, because everyone knows that the tropical year and the solar calendar are related.  Lunar calendars, with sometimes thirteen lunar-months years, are auxiliary means to simulate the accuracy with regard to the consistent solar calendar.
All this supports: apparently the fact that the solar Gregorian calendar has been considered to be astronomically correct contributed to its acceptance.
Paul Martin 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''accuracy contributes to its acceptance'' 

message: The study of calendar systems and their respective astronomical accuracy is a section in the science of chronology.  Chronology is well a science. Presently it is universally considered as an auxiliary science of history and astronomy.
If I resume your second and third paragraphs, as well as what Squell said before, you assert in substance:  Science can be false, as long as none remark it!
Aye, perhaps you both are right! Till none remark it, often hidden errors stayed in many sciences during very long times. Till someone perceived it.
This someone was my friend Michael Florencetime, who clearly recognised in 1989, that a correct scientific chronology must first define a common year zero. Quite not for instance a leap year zero. This is a fact. Like Michael is also a poet, etymological: "s.o. who acts", he decided to define this civil, historical and astronomical year zero, 1½ year later with a saw!
This definition, because it is the correct one – the only way to have, at last, an accurate, continuous chronology – will stay in history of humankind.  This, completely independent of the length of interval, the ponderous world will take to recognise it and to understand that the Cassini chronology now is scientifically refuted.  (A religious chronicle can't neither be refuted nor scientifically confirmed. Each one who would enterprise to proof this or that, ipso facto, would disqualify himself as scientist.)
Let's go back to the my "argument that the Gregorian calendar's accuracy contributes to its [present worldwide] acceptance":  You wrote: "That drift was obviously no hindrance to agricultural activity because Muslims not only did not starve during the Middle Ages, but prospered..."  and: "Similarly, the Chinese Empire, which used a mathematical lunisolar calendar, prospered, also becoming a great civilization."
I never would contest that. Indeed the Islamic civilisation "becoming one of the greatest civilizations on Earth" during the European Middle-Ages. Also Arabic astronomers, at these times, were among the most preeminent of their time. Nevertheless, it was completely prohibited for these astronomers to propose any new calendar system since it was the Prophet himself who once explicitly stated in the Coran, that the twelve-moon rule has to be applied without exception. As you know, the Islamic tradition not distinguishes between religion and civil society. So any reform in calendar was excluded, albeit science prospered. Also the Chinese Empire prospered, notwithstanding they used the older lunar calendar system.
After Middle-Ages, during the Renaissance and the Early Modern Time European men turned towards sciences. SI is one of the most famous results of this paradigm shift. It seems me completely excluded that any hypothetical inherited lunisolar calendar would have survived these times up to nowadays to be still recognised internationally!
You wrote: "A solar calendar is not inherently superior to a lunisolar calendar." I don't agree. Scientifically it is! Because the aim of a modern calendar system is last but not least to count the "year of seasons". Scientifically, the moon has no part in the recurrent year of seasons. Absolutely no part! Therefore, if we want to count the "recurrent years of seasons" – in our scientific present – we have to exclude categorically any reference to the moon phases in the length of the year. (Months and weeks as approximated references to the older lunar system are acceptable, since they are less important sub-units.)
But we can speculate and argue as long as we want, one fact remains: The present internationally recognised calendar system is a solar system.  This should be not a coincidence, but a result of common acceptation, because everyone knows that the tropical year and the solar calendar are related.  Lunar calendars, with sometimes thirteen lunar-months years, are auxiliary means to simulate the accuracy with regard to the consistent solar calendar.
All this supports: apparently the fact that the solar Gregorian calendar has been considered to be astronomically correct contributed to its acceptance.
Paul Martin 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''accurate vs. less accurate'' 

message: My comment after reading the discussions, then the article are as follows. Seems like some of the article is off topic or beyond scope. One reason there is so much debate is, I think people are loosing context. There are facts on both sides of almost all the issues, in many cases both side’s facts are correct, that is because the context is the issue, until that is resolved we will not achieve a satisfactory resolution to the discussion or the article. I am not as educated or knowledgeable as most people who have contributed so I will go with a few simple observations.
Is this an article about Anno Domini? Or is it an article about the western history of calendars? If it is about the former and not the latter then the depth could be reduced some. Possibly a separate article on the histories of calendars. Western and Eastern and why not while we’re at it even French. In history “to the victor go the spoils” so with the Roman dominance at a critical time in history, and the rise of the Catholic church in power and as the keepers of knowledge and history in the West it is no surprise that their thumbprint is on many things. I am not meaning to make a judgment on right or wrong, just acknowledging it is how it is.
When someone goes to the Catholic/Christian article, that is not the place to discuss Buddhism or Hinduism and their relative merits. I want to say with much less ferocity than the previous sentence that the synonym part of the article does not seem to belong. Especially the C.E. it is an accepted alternative but this is the Anno Domini article. Mentioning C.E. with a hyperlink seems adequate. That’s my input please think about scope and remember it is about Anno Domini not a debate about the merits of A.D. vs. C.E. Baddog  06:13  02/11/06 CST
:I think you're confusing calendars with dating styles. This article doesn't discuss a calendar, but a year numbering system. In that context it is relevant to discuss its history and the schemes it replaced. What else is there to discuss? Second, replacing the terse summary of CE with a simple "See also", as you seem to be suggesting, would probably not do justice to the gravity of that subject and its relation to AD. squell 15:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hard to argue with that. But it's a pity you don't take the oppertunity to enlighten the others reading this what exactly AD means, since clearly, they too are missing something. squell 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the title of this anyway?

message: What was always a redirect to this article, Before Christ has since been started up as a proper article, but mostly duplicates information in this article.  It has been proposed that it be merged here;  could some other editors please jump into the discussion on Talk:Before Christ?  Thanks! dewet|™ 11:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO MERGER - Before Christ (BC) is the opposite or antipode of Anno Domini (AD) each deserve their own separate article.  This merger request is as unacceptable as requesting a merger between the North Pole and South Pole articles.  The Before Christ article has the potential to expand and that is all that is required.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to merge these articles. The concepts merit separate discussion. Metamagician3000 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Before Christ]] 

message: This article is in need of inline citations. 132.204.227.146 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point us to some sections which need them? squell 12:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: "The real (mean) tropical year is now very close to 365.2421875 days i.e. 27s/year shorter" - Is this right??? Should It not be "The real (mean) tropical year is now very close to 365.2421875 days i.e. 27s shorter", only??? Manuel Anastácio 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: seconds per Year?

message: SparkNotes and WordNet, both North American English sources, say "A.D." has to come before the date. Bayerischermann 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone associated with ancient history, I am aware that it is customary for "AD" to precede the date (i.e. - AD 400), but that "AD" placed after a date is equally acceptable for grammatical reasons, such as being equal to the "BC" counterpart (i.e. - 500 BC - 200 AD). It's not that big of a deal142.176.115.107 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is just "in North American English variant"? It seems like it would be universal. Bayerischermann 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: According to the article, BC stands for Before Christ, but does anyone know what BC stood for before English came around? Did BC only come into usage after the English language was invented? --YankeeDoodle14 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? "BC" is used only in English because it is an English acronym.--Kwame Nkrumah 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Before BC was used for English, "aCn" was used in Latin, which stands for "ante Christum natum" — "before the birth of Christ". — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` [discl.] 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lit. ante Christum natum means: Before Christ was born; Lostcaesar 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? According to the Ante Christum Natum article it's "Before the birth of Christ", maybe you can correct it there if you're sure it's wrong. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` [discl.] 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it, Lostcaesar 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aCn article had a sense translation, not a literal translation, and a genitive form is given in the article. In any event, please be careful about deleting references and not mentioning it in the edit summary. Gimmetrow 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the ref since I changed the content of the sentence which was referenced.  It would be unfair to the reference to change the sense of the passage and yet leave the ref there.  The article does give a genitive alternate rendering, though I suspect this was not actually used since the former (and name of the article) sounds much more like Latin form.  Lostcaesar 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think I agree. I'm glad you edited this, in fact. Google search for the genitive form gave 14 hits, vs. 25000 for the other form. I've also restored your translation as closer to the far more common form. The reference only shows that ACN is used, not sure why you thought the context changed. OK? Gimmetrow 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really I just felt uncomfortable changing the text and leaving the ref, especially since I didn't have the ref handly to check its content, that's all.  The article looks good, thanks for the help; Lostcaesar 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC 

message: I believe this section should be moved to and merged with the Calendars article because a reader is more likely to look for it there. A cross-reference should remain in this article --Gerry Ashton 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other eras in official use

message: Gerry Ashton asked me to explain why I placed  on "Most historians fix Herod's death in the year 4 BC."
I have read a few books and web sites that show evidence for Herod dying around 4 BC. Generally, I agree with the 4 to early 3 BC dates. I think that portion of the article would be better with proper citations. Copying the ref for  and  in Herod the Great would probably be good. --Midnightcomm 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Midnightcomm placed the fact tag, I rewrote the section (which had only had general references to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke) so that it now has specific citations to Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, and also Doggett. I have neither Beyer nor Martin, and I don't live close to a major library, so I will not be able to cite those authors. I note that the reference to Martin is to the entire book; the Herod the Great article would be improved if someone found out what the relevant pages are. In any case, I believe the current passage in Anno Domini is an improvement over what was there before. --Gerry Ashton 18:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herod's death at 4 BC 

message: Which one of those is the accepted English translation?  I've always understood it to mean Year of our Lord, but the article lead says Year of the Lord. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin words Anno Domini do not contain any element meaning "our".  It means literally, IN (the) year of (the) Lord.  Other possible translations would include "In A year of A Lord", but that's obviously not what is meant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the Latin only explicitly includes the words "year" and "Lord".  But I've always seen it rendered into English as "In the year of our Lord".  FWIW, that's how the Catholic Encyclopedia and Encarta define it.  The Britannica is not entirely consistent; it shows "in the year of the Lord" here, for example, but when it actually defines the term, it defines it as "in the year of our Lord".  It doesn't matter to me; I just noticed that it had been changed back and forth in the last few edits a while ago, so I was wondering if there was a clear consensus. (FWIW, I'm not Christian; I have no particular POV to push here.) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read a bit further on in the 2nd paragraph of our article, there is the longer phrase Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").  I actually don't know where this longer formula is used, since I have never seen it elsewhere, but at least the Latin is good:  Nostri here is the word translating "Our".  It is  probably better to stick to the literal translation and not "assume" Nostri when it isn't there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I noticed the longer version in the article lead.  I've been trying to nail down a solid reference here.  I'm not finding A.D. or anno Domini listed at all in several reference books.  The only reference I can find is in Latin for the Illiterati (), which renders "anno Domini" as "in the year of our Lord." -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An online edition of Dionysius' tables is available at http://hermes.ulaval.ca/~sitrau/calgreg/denys.html. The column heading there over the AD years is "ANNI DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI". The same column heading can be found on page 180 of the Journal of the History of Astronomy V. 15 No. 3 (Oct. 1984) which I viewed at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1984JHA....15..177T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf --Gerry Ashton 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've exhausted my (very limited) knowledge, so I'm going to take myself out of this topic now.  I've forwarded WP:3RR reminders to both of the editors who feel strongly about a particular rendering. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, FWIW, I did find one more reference, but it's in a popular book, so it might not be considered authoritative.  Calendar, by David Ewing Duncan, page 74 shows "the year of our Lord". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources already cited elsewhere in the article, Blackburn & Holford-Strevens, has this to say on page 782: "...AD stands for anno Domini, 'in the year of (Our) Lord'." I have revised the article accordingly and added a footnote. --Gerry Ashton 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what to make of this, but I just looked in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.  Under A.D., page 21, it gives a definition of: "in the year of the Lord; since Christ was born.", then below under Usage it repeats "Because ANNO DOMINI means "in the year of the Lord", ...".  Does anyone have access to the O.E.D.? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: STating that Anno Domini translates literally as "Year of Our Lord" is just plain incorrect and bad Latin.  It doesn't matter how many sources you can come up with that propagate this ignorance.  We should do better and use a literal translation.  Including a citation for the ignorant mistranslation is not going to help; as we have seen the correct translation can also be cited just as easily.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the Blackburn & Holford-Strevens translation because anno Domini derives from the words in Dionysius Exiguus' tables "ANNI DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI" through changing to singular form and shortening. When re-expanding the short form, it is reasonable to go back to the expression from which it comes. I wonder if Codex Sinaiticus would translate ANNI DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI as years of the Lord Jesus Christ? Not that it matters, a person writing in a medium such as Wikipedia, where a person's expertise cannot be verified, cannot expect his or her characterization of an Oxford University Press publication as an "ignorant mistranslation" to be taken seriously. --Gerry Ashton 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that argument is kind of a stretch, and would ask what source has ever made such a synthesis to produce and invisible Nostri when there is none.  When Nostri is there, it can be translated. WHen it's not there, it's just an assumption. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Year of '''our''' Lord'' versus ''Year of '''the''' Lord'' 

message: I found this Userbox created by User:Guðsþegn:
<BR><BR><BR><BR>I thought it was an interesting idea, and if anyone wants to add it to their userpage just use the template 
--Grimhelm 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: The anno Domini calendar is based on erroneous calculations by Exiguus who renumbered 754 of the Roman table to A.D. 1, but whose sixth century figures were four years in error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.224.106 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four years in error.