Talk:Common Era/Archive 5

message: ———MERGE REQUEST CANCELLED DUE TO APPARENT CONCENSUS———
– I still think this article needs to be toned down a bit because there is alot of original research and prolonged...well, B.S. frankly. 
::***Darwiner111 05:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give some details to support your contention about original research.  The first three sections are well-written and are the result of considerable work (and compromise) by a number of editors.  If, on the other hand, you mean the "Support" and "Opposition" sections, you would not get an argument from me.  There is a discussion of this below. Sunray 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: MSN Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica actually showed less information on the so-called "Common era" (which they referred to as either "Christian era" or non-existant) than the "kids encyclopedia" you're complaining about. Darwiner111 05:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[AD]] 

message: *as per above. Darwiner111 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree to Merge

message: *They need to be separate to be easier to find and because they are or should be, used by different groups. they have different implications.  it's somewhat like the present cartoon issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klide (talk • contribs) ..
*Disagree - issues over historical introduction of CE/BCE terms and debate about their use are real enough, and quite separate from any final consenesus decision on wikipedia housestyle(s)
**The Jewish calander is the only one used by Jews to determine the religious passage of years, mark the time since creation, the timing of festivals and weekly biblical readings. Our overwhelming preference in dialogue/writing is to use the terms CE/BCE, by which we mean that Commonly used by the (majority) Christian world.
**Personally I think the discussion on the historical origins & usage of the terms, arguements for & against are far too long to be incorporated (merged) within the existing AD article - but such information is well written and should be retained by wikipedia (whether or not one agrees with the routine use of AD/BC or CE/BCE, the information & debates are real in themselves.)
**As for which to use in wikipedia, I think WP:Civility should be the primary guiding rule. I personally see no problem in articles refering to Christian or Western historical events in using the terms AD/BC as would have been used by people at the specified time (Hence AD 1066 for the Norman conquest of Britain). However in articles about non-Christian events or people, then the relevant calander system should be stated first followed by the NPOV (Non-offending Point of view) to the relevant religious or racial group. Hence discussing a Jewish or Muslim person who lived in the Middle East prior to AD 1, I would prefer to see the relevant Jewish or Islamic calander date followed by the BCE equivalent.  Where an article covers non-Christian with Christian interaction, then AD/BC is probably to be preferred, given that this is English Wikipedia and the majority of English-speacking countries are overwhelmingly Christian and thus historically relate to the AD/BC usage. Similarly an article discussing any cultural changes as a result of the spread of Christianity really is referring directly to before & after the comming of Jesus and so appropriately should refer directly to AD/BC. Lacking fluency in other languages, I would be interested to know what dating system is primariliy used in the Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese wikipedias ...
**So in essence, do not merge, because the history & debate over CE/BCE is interesting in itself and is quite separate from whatever the final decission as to what wikipedia's house-style is to be. As to the later point, there are clearly at least some occasions when it is more sensitive to use the more culturally neutral term. David Ruben  Talk  02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MSN Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica actually showed less information on the so-called "Common era" (which they referred to as either "Christian era" or non-existant) than the "kids encyclopedia" you're complaining about. Darwiner111 05:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree with Merge

message: The support/opposition section of this article is becoming a nightmare, because it is too inviting to simply list one's personal objection or support there and run off; this page seems destined to become an indirect form of internet debate that way.
I think those two sections should be rewritten as one, merging all similar arguments and pairing them off to a single counter-argument, so that the list becomes coherent. Arguments should not appeal to authority. Your dictionary may be great, but it's still just your dictionary. If no counter-argument exists or can be found, the argument should be removed for being pointless or stating the obvious. Compare falsifiability. 
A good reason for having opposition and support paired up is that it (hopefully) deters people from adding their personal convictions, as the article would implicitly pressure people who add new points to also add a dissenting view, which is not something most POV-pushers will be very willing to do. The usual Wikipedia editwarringcooperation should keep both sides in balance.
I have put together a very rough example that only pairs off the arguments of the current revision at Talk: Common Era/Rewrite. This immediately shows the stylistic discrepancies, and that (surprisingly) there are only a small number of categories. I hope some clear-headed editors think this is a good idea and are willing to help out, because otherwise this wouldn't stand a hope in hell of succeeding. squell 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problem in that section is sourcing.  Whether arguments on the two sides are separated or paired off, they have to be sourced, or they should just go.  Most of what's there now is original research.  If we just delete any un-sourced arguments, that will be sufficient to prevent people just piling on whatever arguements they happen to think of. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Squell's suggestion makes a great deal of sense to me.  These two sections are a mess.  I think that attention to the style of writing would be a good approach and like the idea of coupling arguments.  I also think that sources could be used if authoritative, but agree that this might be impractical.  I will help with the re-write.  Sunray 07:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because they were lifted directly from the current revision; I simply put the support arguments first. It's exemplary for the current state of the article; the "+" items should logically not be counterpoints. Anyway, each section can be rewritten as two paragraphs (one discussing the support, the other opposition), or a single section which simply discusses the arguments relevant to it in the most natural order. I'm not sure whichever would flow more naturally as I haven't attempted to merge any section yet. But I'm very curious to know if there's agreement about the categorisations I've made. squell 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All things happen in fives! Your ordering seems to me a very natural one to use in the rewritten section; I also think the argument of 'correctness' is largely a stick to beat traditionalists with, as CE has not been invented to address it. But I recall reading some christian website which defended the use of CE by using that argument, so I put it just slightly above "irrelevant". As a technical aside; should we collaborate on the rewrite on that subpage, or simply start a new section in the main article and not worry about temporarily messing it up even further? squell 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments; long delay since Squell posted this.  I suggest re-writing it on a sub page, but wasn't sure which one you meant.  Here? Or somewhere else?  However, I'm not strong in my opinion on this.  Whichever seems easiest.  We need to get this done.  Sunray 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This subpage: Talk:Common Era/Rewrite. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. It would likely be more accurate to have 1980 = 1 PCE, since that is the circa year that political correctness began. This would be the year 25 PCE. I know we're joking and all...but some idiots would likely actually want this, :S. CrazyInSane 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to this:  I have done some etymological research, and discovered that the acronym "BCE" actually originated in Canada as "Before Christ, Eh?".  I find this rather helpful, as it serves to explain the otherwise unreferenceable and temporally disconnected term "Common."   So there...glad that's settled. --66.69.219.9 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support/Opposition rewrite 

message: First of all I'd like to mention that we used CE notation at school and I'd never even heard anyone refer to it as 'the Christian Era'. We were taught 'Common Era' and I think that's increasingly the case so whether or not google searches come up with Christian Era more is beside the point (apart from the obvious, that internet usage is highest in the West and particularly the USA and the USA is notably religiously Christian)... but that wasn't my point. It's this - when does anyone write either AD or CE these days?! When I write the date I write 2006, and when I'm talking about the 1980's I'm talking about the 1980's. Why do we need any suffix or prefix? Joziboy 14 March 2006, 21:27 (UTC)
: Whenever you use BCE or BC, you need to use AD or CE on nearby dates to make sure the difference is clear.--Prosfilaes 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The main argument regarding the era notations usually isn't 'AD' and 'CE'.. its 'BCE' and 'BC'. And writing something like 150 BC –15 just looks irregular. You need to affix the 'CE' or 'AD'. CrazyInSane 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropping AD or CE 

message: Please note that a merger tag has been placed on the Before Christ article.  The same group is attempting what they tried here at Common Era.  I have voted not to merge the BC and AD articles.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SirIsaacBrock is cordially mis-representing the facts here. User:dewet and I most certainly don't form a group — I've never edited with him before. Before Christ has always been a redirect to Anno Domini until User:SirIsaacBrock changed it, we are simply opposing that. It certainly has nothing to do with the AD/CE merge that was proposed recently. squell 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge AD to BC

message: I removed the following sentence:
:Also, Encyclopædia Britannica does not even have a listing for "Common era" , and uses the AD/BC notation in all of its articles.
Whoever added this doesn't seem to have researched the matter very thoroughly. Britannica may not have a listing for "common era", but I don't see that it has a listing for "anno domini" either . Further, it doesn't make sense to find an article that uses AD/BC and use it to claim that AD/BC is used in all its articles. A simple search for "BCE turns up hundreds of entries. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire pro/con section is a mess, anyway. If you feel up to it, please take a peek at the above rewrite proposal and Talk:Common Era/Rewrite. In that proposal, any appeal to authority (such as Brittanica) should simply be stricken from the article. squell 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal explanation 

message: Originally, perhaps, the use of "Common Era" came from the earlier use of "Vulgar Era" as a substitute when vulgar no longer was considered synonymous with "common". In this sense, common means somethng shared for everyday popular use (as the Vulgate was written in everyday Latin rather than formal Latin).
I see here that more than a few people are saying/suggesting that international adoptions imply that its adoptees share an observance of the event around which the Era is centered. I want to point out here that such is not necessarily what Common Era means.
As a substitute some are proposing Current Era. While personally I have no objection to this, I note 4 points:
#Search CE "Current Era" vs. CE "Common Era". My searches show that Current Era does not have nearly the currency that Common Era has. Unfortunately, perhaps, wikipedia reports on things & cannot single-handedly change the currency of an expression
#Current Era does not clearly eliminate the objection raised above - it still is centered on the incarnation of Jesus. I think it even moreso assumes that other cultures are placed in a position of adopting the era as well as the numbering system - they would be making it their Current Era - not just one they use "in common" with the rest of the world.
#Any attempt to create a New Era has less currency, would require calculation to transform (making EVERY date ever written in need of revision), and would still favor some culture over another.
# I do not think it really needs to be settled what CE stands for. I am in favor of letting people thinking the abbreviation means whatever they want. If thinking that CE stands for Christina Era helps people get over their aversion to it, that still is far superior to insisting that those who want to be able to refer to a year cross-culturally without confusion, must also adopt an abbreviation that literally and necessarily MEANS that the person (likely  miscalculated to have been) born in the year 1 BC is "the Lord", "our Lord", or "the Christ"--JimWae 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I agree that "Current Era" is no better than "Common Era" as a neutral term if 2006 remains 2006, but of course any other way of year numbering is just not workable. I would also say that anyone using BC/AD does not have to accept that "Jesus" is "the lord" or any other Christian beliefs, even if that is what BC/AD originally meant, and is still used by Christian with that meaning. As already stated, changing the name without changing the system in an attempt to be neutral does not work. LDHan 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is in "Common"?

message: After endless arguments about "AD/BC" being POV because "Anno Domini" endorses the indoctrination that Jesus is "our Lord" and "Before Christ" is asserting Jesus as "the Christ", I've come to realize something quite simple that technically assures that "AD/BC" is NPOV and "CE/BCE" is unneccesary. If I were to write "JC exists beyond a doubt" at random, this is NPOV because it could be interpreted as "Jimmy Carter exists beyond a doubt", "James Cameron exists beyond a doubt", or anything else. Nowhere in that sentence to I acknowledge that I am reffering to Jesus Christ. Thus the only way that "AD/BC" could be POV is if they were presented in such a context as "Bob was born (in) 100 (years) Before Christ and then he died (in) Anno Domini 2"— saying "Bob was born 100 BC and he then died in AD 2" is literally in no way POV because I could simply interperet it as "British Columbia" and "Andy Dick". For a broader example, writing something like "JCIOLAS" isn't POV until you write it out as "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior". I think this cripples all presented evidence of a POV stance that accusingly exists with "AD/BC". The POV is only with "Anno Domini" and "Before Christ", not "AD and BC". CrazyInSane 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Why not? Until you tell me what it stands for I can never know! CrazyInSane 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pbuh is a Backhanded compliment when referred to Jesus, it is used by Muslims.  It is an acronym for "peace be upon him".  To Christians peace is a divine gift.  Before he ascended into heaven, Jesus said "my peace I give you".  For Christians  peace comes from God to man.  Wishing peace on Jesus, implies that he needs peace from us, thus denying his divinity.  So to Jesus, the prophet as defined in Islam, pbuh is a compliment.  But to Jesus, as God as defined in Christianity, it is not.  ClemMcGann 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: would you rather have these disputes on the article page? ClemMcGann 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "AD/BC" is not POV 

message: Why is it that "Common era" has a capitalized "era" affixed? I propose that we move this article from Common Era to "Common era". Any objections? CrazyInSane 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Domini" is "God" in Latin, which is always capitalized in English. This is why you'll often see it written as this "anno Domini", whereas it is obvious the necessity of the "Domini" capitalization. I believe that since CE is an especially recent euphemism for AD (becoming first popular circa 1970s), the "era" part should not be capitalized. Especially since there isn't really even anything "common" about this era, other than it is based on the birth of Jesus Christ..is that common?CrazyInSane 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Domini doesn't mean "god" in Latin. Second, 'Common Era' is usually capitalized in english usage, like Act of Congress, National Assembly ... squell 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, Eras and Ages are normally capitalized.  No change should be made.  --Blainster 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Era = Common era? 

message: The following is given in this article as to why AD is "inferior" to CE. Since CE is based on, and is exactly eqivalent to, the AD notation (it's just another name for the same thing, like Myanmar is the same as Burma) it would seem that the point applies to CE also. So really it should not be used as an example.
The label Anno Domini is almost certainly inaccurate — the birth of Jesus of Nazareth probably occurred no later than 4 BC, the year of Herod the Great's death.  Arcturus 15:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. CrazyInSane 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and Cons 

message: The link to the Jesus article should instead link to Historical Jesus - we are dealing with historical evidence, rather than theoretical ideas. I did a test redirect, but CrazyInSane appeared to not like the proposition, seeing as he/she removed the edit without explanation (apparently not the first time).
If anyone has any objections, please discuss below.
Sfacets 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you resorting to the talk page for discussion regarding this link change. I reverted your edit because it was made without discussion and I personally disagree with it. The article Historical Jesus is meant to attract those interested primarily in the historicity of Jesus above all other aspects of his life. I deem it appropriate that the link here at Common Era be directly to Jesus so as that all aspects of the figure (including a historicity section) can be viewed when someone follows the link. Linking to Historical Jesus is hardly appropriate unless actually discussing the merits of his historicity, which I don't think is the case here. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really think there's that much confusion about his birth, or the real need to make this fine a distinction here.--Prosfilaes 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus vs Historical Jesus

message: CrazyInSane's addition of "Ante Christum Natum" to Bede is indeed misinformed. Bede used 'before Christ' only once. In book I, Chapter 2 of Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum we find "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus anno LXmo", which is loosely translated as "but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord" in the Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. I say loosely because "vero" is translated as "but" instead of "indeed", and the Latin does not have "nostrum" (our). Basically, Bede used "ante incarnationis dominicae" or "before the incarnation of the Lord". This differs from "ante Christum natum", "before Christ's birth", in two fundamental ways: incarnation instead of birth, and Lord instead of Christ. I have consulted many Latin books and I have never seen "ante Christum natum"! I would need several citations to support its entry in Wikipedia. — Joe Kress 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ante Christum Natum 

message: :: (Moved to Wikipedia talk:Eras.) — 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New WikiProject Common Era

message: We have been using B.C. for centuries, not BCE.  The issue is not about Christianity, it is about using a historical event as a reference point for the purposes of timekeeping and recording events of history.  Jesus was a real person -this is documented- and the events are significant.  If you really want to take references to God out of everything, we should all say we are living in the year 4,500,006,006, which would approximate to the beginning of the Earth, plus human civilization (assuming a beginning around 4,000 B.C., but not 4,000 BCE). 
:So you agree using BC & AD amounts to calling Jesus God? --JimWae 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Face it buddy, even though I personally agree with you, many don't— and they aren't all going to change their minds because of you. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's not about Christianity, then it's not secularization.--Prosfilaes 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the deal—AD/BC were used without dilemma for the past several centuries because in recent decades (in Western countries), sensitivity about personal matters has come to at an all-time high; including sensitivity over religion. This, as well as the fact that from 1990 to 2001 (according to census), the amount of self-proclaimed Non-theists or Non-religious persons jumped 130% in the United States alone, is the cause for the uproar against AD and BC. As B/CE enthusiasts claim, it is true that "AD" (anno Domini) claims that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, but this fact was never an issue in the past because of lower levels of sensitivity and atheism. Hope this is what you're trying to address...Oh, and as for the whole "this should be the year 4,500,006,006" thing, I'm almost positive than non-Christian B/CE activists have not put this calendar into effect merely because of the chaos and confusion it would cause; otherwise, they would. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough Secularization - it's B.C. and A.D. not BCE and CE! 

message: the article should probably note that alot of text books that use CE instead of AD often actuall use both.  Example -- "Germany was invaded by Norway in 143 CE (AD)"  just a thought --T-rex 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have specific examples? I can't remember ever reading "CE" or "BCE" before I got to college.--Ben Applegate 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: text books