Talk:Common Era/Archive 2

message: I have added some material about the use of these abbreviations in British schools to the article.
Entries for BCE and BC are found in all British dictionaries which I could find including the The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. In both recent editions of Fowler's Modern English Usage, the abbreviations are rather hidden, but they are referenced under AD and BC. However the Oxford Guide to Style includes them in 7.11.2, stating:Some authors prefer to described it as the Common Era, designating CE instead of AD and BCE instead of BC; the choice is theirs.That final clause is instruction that editors should not change such usage. The abbreviations also appear in the following table of similar indicated with attached explanations. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage gives them their own articles.
Some examples of British books by British authors that use CE and BCE rather than AD and BC:  
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, 
, 
, 
.
The expressions appear in the titles of courses offered by the University of Oxford  and by Cambridge in their discussion of Hebrew and Aramaic courses. I could not find names of courses offered by Cambridge on that site. Courses with BCE in the title are also offered by the University of Edinburgh . The Edinburg Dictionary of Continental Philosophy Style guide recognizes both AD/BE and CE/BCE. I stopped searching universities at that point. See also the history category divisions at the bottom of a page from Oxford University Press.
The abbreviations are used casually by British bookstore sites , , .
If the abbreviations are used less in Britain than in North America, they are obviously widely used.
Jallan 05:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I still can't see what you're referring to in Fowler's. The entries I'm reading for BC and AD don't give any mention of CE/BCE or "Common Era". I hadn't realised what the mad liberals in the Department of Education had been up to here - they've completely transformed the UK education system so that pupils work harder than ever, but come out of school less qualified for professional life than ever before. However, you note the opposition to it - and clearly if the terms have only been referred to in schools in the last 2-3 years, that suggests that most people in the UK don't actually understand the terms BCE/CE (as indicated by the newspaper reports you quote). Either way, we can see that BC/AD are used universally by the main media (newspapers, TV and radio (well, "hear" rather than "see" for radio)). The evidence you cite suggests currency in purely academic fields alongside BC/AD, but none outside of academic fields. I think the article now reflects that. jguk 10:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid it appears that it's you (Slrubenstein) who's missing the point. The statement from the reverend is absolutely the case. If you don't like the christian calendar and its BC/AD notation then use another calendar; don't try and modify it.Arcturus 17:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: So it would be alright to start using the Islamic calendar but object to the AH/H notation - or even suggest it be changed to some other letters (and try and promote this idea), simply because one doesn't believe that Muhammad was anyone special? I think most, if not all, muslims would find that offensive. As for BC/AD being POV - what!! These terms have been used for centuries and all of a sudden someone comes along and says they are 'Point of View', and by implication 'CE/BCE' isn't. No, if POV relates to this argument - and I don't actually believe it does - then the new idea which is trying to replace the established custom is surely POV. In any event, as I understand POV as applied in Wikipedia it's about putting a balanced argument - points for, and points against, within an article when discussing controversial issues.Arcturus 21:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Numerous occurrences of BCE/CE in the UK

message: Given the spate of controversy in this article of late, I'm going to tread lightly and not revert the last edits, yet. But here's a kickoff of discussion on why they're wrong or at best unnecessary (with the exception of pointing links to Jesus, not Jesus Christ which is a redirect).
*It has/has not entered into general use — There's a long discussion on how widely used Common Era dating is on this page. It seems that the consensus (if any) is that CE is not in general use outside academia and particular writers' preferences.
*("in the year of our Lord") — Repetitious. Occurs both in the linked article and further on in the present one.
*Dropped half a paragraph in Opposition — As before. Common Era dating isn't widely accepted and used.
*Jesus (Christ) — Fair enough as a link target, but the longer form is appropriate when the context is "majority-Christian societies".
*It is an example of political correctness. — I can't even guess why this was removed. Even if you don't agree, this is a reason why other people oppose Common Era dating, and hence it should be a point in the Opposition section of the Common Era article.
-- Perey 08:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted these as the assertions do not appear to be supported by the evidence we have on this talk page or in the article to date. Neutrality, if you have evidence to support the claims, please quote it here.  jguk 10:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]'s edits