Talk:Year zero

message: Samuel Butcher, The Ecclesiastical Calendar: Its Theory and Construction, Dublin/London 1877, is one of the more important works ever written on the subject matter.
p. 187: "Hitherto we have considered this Expanded Table [of the Epacts] only in relation to centuries after the reformation of the Calendar [in 1582]. Clavius applies it to the old Calendar also in the following manner:
Butcher then goes on to put forth how Clavius tried to anchor the new system in the remote past. "Here [at the year 550 A.D.] he [Clavius] places what he calls the radix or origin of the Lunar-Equation." 
and in his summary (p.229):  "The Gregorian reformation of the old Church Calendar consisted, as we have seen, of two very distinct parts, which may be called the retrospective and the prospective."
How many miles away was Samuel Butcher from the present-day "discussion"!
Needless to add that Butcher was in favour of "year zero":
p.21: "But historians and chronologers have not adopted this (correct) mode of reckoning [to call 1 B.C. the year which is now called 2 B.C. etc. as proposed by M. Cassini.]" 
Ulrich Voigt (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Butcher (1877) speaking 

message: What does everyone think about removing the "Popular culture year numbering systems" section?  This section is trivial and as such does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Meiskam (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its removal is acceptable to me. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:TRIVIA; Trivia is to be avoided.  Relevant information should be incorporated into the text of the article, where appropriate.  Irrelevant information should be removed.  Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section 

message: An obvious reason the European peoples do not have a year zero in their religiously based epoch is that they were ignorant of the concept. Didn't see this addressed in current text or the archives. Lycurgus (talk) 2 Snow, 4707 公元 Wed 13:37:04 AST
:This is discussed in the fourth paragraph under Historians. European monks did know of the concept of zero before the arrival of the symbol 0 for our modern zero from the Hindu-Arabic numeral system in 1202 and even used it in their table of epacts as the first epact. In 525, Dionysius Exiguus used the Latin word nulla alongside Roman numerals in his table of epacts. Nullae was translated as zero by Faith Wallis in her translation of Bede: The Reckoning of Time (725), and by Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge in their translation of Byrhtferth's Enchiridion (1016). All three of these are cited in the article. About 725, Bede also used a symbol for zero in one version of his epact table. He used the initial of nullae, N. Despite this, Bede did not use zero in his anno Domini years as explained in the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right missed that, and I'm sure it suffices. Obviously the concept of nothing/null/void is much older than an explicit assignment in the counting numbers, and would be present in many languages and cultures if not most. 'Nullae' isn't the same thing as the number 0. Lycurgus (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the number "zero" is pretty pointless unless one uses (as we do) a system of Positional notation, in which the zero does not denote nothing but something according to where it is positioned. Since the traditional Roman system was merely additional, a symbol for zero was not needed. So rather of being an example of European stupidity as is often alleged, it was quite sensible. Of course, it was also sensible to adopt Positional notation in the end. Str1977 (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu-Arabic numbering system 

message: This subsection discusses the fact that the 3rd millennium didn't actually start until 2001/1/1 and that similar reasoning applies for other millennia and centuries (e.g. - 20th century).  However, it then goes on and tries to extend this naming scheme to decades:  "This also applies to decades. Applying the standard for millennia and centuries, the last year of the 1990's was the year 2000, the roaring '20s included the year 1930; and the 40's did not begin in 1940; and the 2010s did not begin in 2010."  This claim fails on multiple fronts.  It is some combination of OR and SYN.  Worse, it makes claims that are in direct conflict with lots of verified sources, many referred to in the decades articles all over wikipedia.  The 1990s, by definition, span the years 1990 through 1999.  Similarly, the 1st decade of my life, which I will name the Strangies for the sake of argument, by definition, spans Aug 1, 1977 up to Aug 1, 1987.  The arbitrary name of a decade defines a mapping to the associated, arbitrary ten year span of time.  His argument might hold water if instead of saying the 1990s he said "the 200th decade AD ended in 2000," etc.  The issue with that is that almost no one (including the author himself!) names or discusses decades in this ordinal manner.  As such, I'm striking his erroneous claims about decades.  I'd also recommend that this subsection be cleaned up, fleshed out and made more generalized (e.g. - not be named "Third Millennium", etc.") if we want to keep a section demonstrating an example of how the ordinal reckoning of millennia and centuries is somewhat different than that of decades and the confusion this often causes (e.g. - 1999 was the end of the 1000s as opposed to the 2nd millenia, etc.). 71.179.4.216 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Millennium

message: should there be something on jesus birth? i hve heard some historians say jesus was born in the year 0
Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed in 4 BC, although that may not be historically accurate, either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently correctly listed in 5 BC.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus (Caesarion) was baptized in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. This is not when he was 28, 29 or 30. Unless years were superimposed, as they were. During the donations of Alexandria ceremony in 34BC, when Caesarion was proclaimed as a status of god and king of kings, along with the virgin goddess Isis, who Cleopatra VII thought to be reincarnation of, already then, by the dates on Egyptian papyrus, they were living the year anno domini, 4CE or NE "new era" as Cleopatra and Caesar had planned. But the fate of history changed a bit when Caesar was murdered but the plan was later fulfilled by Cleopatra, Caesarion, Mark Anthony, Cleopatra Selene II, Alexander Helios and Ptolemy Philadelphus.WillBildUnion (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement now makes a little sense.  Conflating Jesus with Caesarion is wrong but it makes a little sense.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actual factual. Caesarion fled to India and Himalaya, spent some 15-20 years there, before returning to Syria to look for his sister and brothers. He had became highly spiritual during his journey and wanted to conquer back his dad's kingdom, but not weapons and bloodshed, but by creating a new religion (as was planned in the new era plan). Caesarion was thought to be a son of god as his father was declared a god by the Roman senate after he was murdered.He had already years ago taken a new identity Issa (son of Isis) Nezer (Nazar). After returning to Syria/Palestine, Jesus found his sister who took a new identity Mary Magdalene and his brothers Alexander Helios who is known as Thomas Judas Didymus and Ptolemy Philadelphus who is known as James. It is not known, if the crucifixion happened, who of the four siblings were actually hanging on the cross. Anno Domini refers to anointing. Perhaps year 0 or 1 refers to year when John the Baptist baptised Caesarion, so that he could start his public work in Jerusalem. Caesarion had already spent time in the Essene community, teaching them spirituality and they were highly cosmological, a new group evolved which were the Nazorean (branch of son of Isis), who were not that hardcore in their devotion to asceticism as the Esseneans were. Nazoreanism eventually evolved into christianity that we know today, although heavily altered by the Piso family (caretakers of Caesars will) of Rome who edited the later canonized NT gospels and by the emperor Constantine I and the likes like of the Nicea council.WillBildUnion (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting theory, but it makes Jesus, as described in the article, a myth.  Jesus (in the scriptures) was Jewish, and Caesarion was not.  It still doesn't belong in this article.  If you can support it in Caesarion, we could then discuss what other Christianity-related articles it might belong in.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Im going to write into the article about the subject, but not yet. Certainly, not hinting Caesarion was Jesus, but as a historical reference, about the doings of Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony and their children, because they messed with the year 0-1. To the Jesus being a myth, it already is a mythological story from the times of ancient Roman empire. Many of the biblical characters, their historicity, is not backed by any evidence than the bible, which is not a history book. There are though plenty of evidence of people that lived among the times of the biblical characters and has a lot of similarities, not only by their names but their actions. To the Caesarion not being a jewish, well you gotta go very far, as Caesarion had hebrew blood, many of the Egyptian pharaohs had, and the Ptolemies who also had gens claudia had hebrew blood, as Alexander the great, the Macedonians were partly descents of the Tribe Manasseh. The river Danube is named after the tribe of Dan. Though, the 12 lost tribes were actually 12 different land areas in Canaan governed by a governor, area Dan, area Manesseh etc. If it in the bible says "jesus was hebrew/jewish" that does not actually proof that he was. But certainly Caesarion had hebrew blood at least fom his mothers side.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I'll concede potential relevance to Jesus.  However, there is no possible relevance to this article, as (almost all) monarchs restarted year counting at the start of their reign, and some at significant events of their reign, such as capture of a foreign power.  Please stop commenting here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: jesus birth

message: The third paragraph should read as follows-If the Gregorian calendar had begun with zero as its first year, then the year 9 would have been the tenth year of the calendar (completing the first decade) and the year 10 would have been the first year of the second decade. Similarly, the year 1999 would have completed the second century and the year 2000 would have been the first year of the 21st century and the third millennium. 24.242.42.230  (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting intervals without a zero 

message: The "Numerical background" section (at this writing) appears to me to be someone's speculation, and fairly easily refutable speculation at that.  It appears to take the position that not having a year zero is natural, if you consider years to be a discrete variable, taking values that are cardinal numbers or ordinal numbers.
That's a rather odd assertion mathematically.  Zero is both a cardinal number and an ordinal number.
I think the more probable explanation is the well-documented conceptual difficulty in considering zero to be a number at all.  I don't think it has much to do with continuous-vs-discrete.
I'm not sure what to do except remove the section entirely.  Unless someone comes up with a better plan (or can support the claims made) I will remove it soon. --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: No, that doesn't make any sense to me.  Counting should also start with zero; it's a historical accident that it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Numerical background" section 

message: Everyone, please keep in mind that per WP:TALK, talk pages are exclusively for discussions of proposed or actual changes to the article.  The "all counting starts from zero" section is absolutely out of place.
Now, it's a rule that gets bent from time to time, and that's OK with me.  But the section in question isn't bending the rule; it's flagrantly violating it.  I'm going to remove it again. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject matter 

message: I'm curious if there is sourceable discussion of the use of ordinal numbers in describing years. Presently, we use cardinal numbers for years in regular parlance—for instance, "2011 AD" (or simply "2011") as opposed to "The two-thousand-eleventh year of our Lord". I think cardinal years only came into fashion after a long period of ordinal references, possibly coinciding with the creation of the printing press and widespread literacy. A "year 0" would then correspond to "The zeroth year…", which does not make sense to most everyone, and therefore is the reason there is no Gregorian year 0. (Consequently, 1 BC would be "The first year before Christ".) — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 10:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinal versus cardinal numbers 

message: An editor has changed Jesus Christ to Jesus Christ, which seems absurd to me.  It's a single concept, isn't it?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That point is arguable, but it doesn't change the answer.  Adjacent wikilinks are bad.  Sometimes they can't be avoided, but when they can, you should.  Even if Jesus and Christ were separate articles, it would still make sense to link to only one article, and have readers who wanted the other article do one more click. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jesus Christ]] 

message: I placed the following text on this page and it was deleted. 
Mathematics
Whether systems do indeed exist without a zero is a question that can be answered by mathematics. Please note that systems are based on the people adhering to them, such as historians who never use a year zero. This segment on Mathematics does not undermine the calendar as currently used, because its use is not based on mathematics.
When investigating the natural numbers, a pattern can be distinguished among these numbers that leads to the forced use of zero. From this, the conclusion is justified that all numerical systems automatically come with a zero.
Source: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html
The only reasons to delete information is when it is not relevant to the page or when it is incorrect. I believe both are not available as reason for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears not to be a reliable source.  It may be correct, but see WP:V.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It is not language, but mathematics and physics: A YEAR is a PERIOD or STEP on a time scale, in contrast, "zero" is the POINT, where time crosses the zero height on a (here time) scale. Compare the temperature (or any other) scale, where no intelligent scholar would propose a zero STEP. Astronomists seem not to be aware of this difference and their - sorry - ridiculous logic. HJJHolm (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics

message: In the main article, under the section headed "Historians," in the second paragraph, the following information is given:
:Previous Christian histories used anno mundi ... anno Adami ... or anno Abrahami ("in the year of Abraham") beginning 3,412 years after Creation according to the Septuagint, used by Eusebius of Caesarea, all of which assigned "one" to the year beginning at Creation, or the creation of Adam, or the birth of Abraham, respectively.
However in the Wikipedia article on Abraham (linked to in this article), in the section headed Chronology, it says:
:the translated Greek Septuagint putting it  [Abraham's birth]  at 3312 AM.
One of these two must be a transcription error and should be corrected. Mottelg (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anno Abrahami 

message: Hi everyone.
There is a phrase: "I personally think there should be a year zero." just before references, that *cannot* be edited.
Please, Can someone remove it? Thank you.62.14.230.130 (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if it's been taken care of.  Thank you for reporting it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article vandalized 

message: The section was only about dating according to application of year 0, but the article text is incorrect. Dating calculation does not work the way described. If the source described it that way, the source is incorrect. See Derschowitz and Reingold, Calendrical Calculations, 3rd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008, pp 12-14, to see now negative (zero-based) year numbers are generally related to years B.C. The authors are used worldwide for these things, and WP also follows the common practice of using either zero-based negative years or B.C. years, where zero-based is almost always related to application of the proleptic Gregorian calendar, but B.C. years are related to the proleptic Julian calendar (which is used by historians for dating). Evensteven (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing section "Maya historiography" 

message: Of course, there is no "0th year" (CE), since any 0th can not exist at all. Everything starts with the first, so there is the 1st year (ordinal), which is the year 0 (cardinal).
This is, because
the third millennium includes four-digit years with the first number is two: 3rd⇔2
the 21st century includes the years with the first two digits are 20: 21st⇔20
the 202nd decade (2010s) includes the years with the first three digits are 201: 202nd⇔201
...
the third decade (20s) includes the years with the first digits are 2: 3rd⇔2
the second decade (10s) includes the years with the first digits are 1: 2nd⇔1
the first decade⇔0s
...
the third year is the year 2
the second year is the year 1
the first year is the year 0
In addition, the first six months CE is marked as a decimal 0.5, that is zero whole (year) five tenths. (If the first year would be the year 1, the first six months should be marked strange incorrectly "1.5".)
--85.76.164.39 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1st year is ''year 0'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Year zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109025617/http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/chrono/paschata.htm to http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/chrono/paschata.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've cut the In the media section as it was unsourced trivia. The only entry with a "ref tag" was supported by a promotional website. If these are relevant - then provide WP:Reliable sources which indicate relevance and are non-promotional. Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the media 

message: This page states that "However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering ... as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars." and also that "All eras used with Hindu and Buddhist calendars, such as the Saka era or the Kali Yuga, begin with the year 0. All these calendars use elapsed, expired, or complete years, in contrast with most other calendars which use current years.". This is not "the whole truth"; it is true that most Hindu and (South-East Asian) Buddhist calendar systems do count "elapsed years" and therefore, in a sense, begins with "year zero", which starts from their epochal date, with "year one" only beginning one year after their epochal dates. This is true e.g. for the "Shaka era" (epoch in "spring" 78 C.E.), "Vikrama era" (epoch in 58 B.C.E.), "Siamese Buddhist era" (epoch in "spring" 544 B.C.E.), and "Kali era" (epochal date 18 February 3102 B.C.E. pJ), but it is not true that all these calendar systems use "elapsed years". We have e.g. the "Kollam era" (of Kerala), counting "current years" from its epochal date (24 July 825 C.E. J), the (official) Indian "Buddha Nirvana" ("Purnimanta") calendar system, also counting "current years" from its epochal date (12 April 544 B.C.E. pJ), and the "Tamil Kali era", counting from the same epochal date as given above, but counting "current years" instead of "elapsed" ones. The present "year numbers" of these seven examples are 1942, 2077, 2563, and 5121 (all four "elapsed years"), and 1196, 2564, and 5122 (all three "current years"). Therefore, I propose that some phrases on this page should be changed, so that it only should state that most (but not all) Hindu and Buddhist eras begin with the "year zero". /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.202 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Asian calendars​ 

message: No year 1 2600:1702:3A0:1910:4C6A:6C40:66F2:59DB (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 1 

message: 0 was a proleptic astronomic Gregorian year who started on a Saturday, its 1 January, and ended on a Sunday, its 31 December. It was equivalent to the Julian year 1 BC. 1 Shevat 3760 AM, the Hebraic date, was the date of the astronomic Gregorian 25 December 1 BCE (Julian 27 December 2 BC). Its 29 February was a Tuesday. 177.68.126.178 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  0, a leap proleptic astronomic Gregorian year