Talk:Julius Caesar/Dates

message: The BCE / BC debate has been resolved on most pages by using the rule: "retain the date format used by the page's original author."    The date format used by this article's original author (User:TimShell)was BCE.  Therefore, using the equitable solution adopted on other pages, this page will retain the BCE dating format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.78.240 (talk • contribs) .
:It was ironically settled before you started changing it? Don't you read the comments on the top? 
:Please refrain from using the "BCE" notation within this article without first discussing an era change at the talk page. Per consensus, users have decided that the anno Domini era of numbering is appropriate for this article. If adding a new section and you prefer to use "BCE", it will be reverted for consistency (see WP:MOS). 
:--Ddahlberg 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not consulted for this supposed "settling" of the BC/BCE problem.  On other pages, this issue has been settled with an equitable solution: maintain the date format used by the page's original author.  If you would take the time to look at the original version of the Julius Caesar page, you would see that User:TimShell used the BCE format.  You are thus completely unjustified in converting this article to BC.  From now on, it will use the BCE format.  Thank you. 68.225.78.240 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're an anonymous user. Why should you be consulted? This has been discussed and discussed, and a consensus arrived at. There is no justification for you unilaterally deciding to reverse it. --Nicknack009 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing with BC/BCE is that a consensus should not be violated by unilateral action of one user.  If there's never been a consensus, we go to the original editor, but if there has been one, we stick with whatever it was.  john k 13:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because I'm not a registered user does not mean that I'm not a member of the wikipedia community.  The consensus that was reached is: BCE should be used because the page's original author chose BCE.  Consuetudo pro lege servatur.   68.225.78.240 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#eras. There is a notice at the top of the article, as quoted by Ddahlberg above, asking editors not to ignore the consensus reached, but your indiscriminate search-and-replace function keeps changing it to say "Please refrain from using the "BCEE" notation". You're not even reading what you're changing! I note your IP number has been already warned for vandalism three times. I've just given you another one. Please stop it, or you can expect to be blocked. --Nicknack009 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your persistent vandalism has been reported to the admins. --Nicknack009 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your persistent complaining has been reported to the vandals. 209.173.133.41 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above commentator's contributions strongly suggest that he/she is a resurrection of User:68.225.78.240 and should be blocked indefinitely for violation of WP:SOCK. If he/she continues to use sockpuppets, semi-protection of Julius Caesar may be necessary. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have placed a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. This is getting out of hand. --Nicknack009 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE part 2 

message: I thought Caesar's birthday was thought to have happened on the 12th of July... At least that's what I remember from my History books. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is 12th July 100 everywhere in other language wikipedias so I will change the date to 13th. -nagytibi  ! ? 13:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: until the date style edit warriors find a more constructive use for their time. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected now.  Hopefully three days was long enough to allow all involved to recover their sense of perspective.  Perhaps we should switch to Roman dates to avoid the dispute altogether (only half kidding). --Tony SidawayTalk 16:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: protected

message: How is it that this article uses the Christian method of dating system BC/AD?!? The Gregorian calendar, that uses the Common era as its basis, was originally based on the date of death of Julius Caesar. BCE (Before Caeserian Era) and CE (Caeserian Era) were eventually turned to "common" to accustom to the alternative meaning of the common era, "Anno Domini". This "AD/BC" terminology was created by Christians as a conscious attempt at making us all talk about Jesus Christ, and it was easy since Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar have the same initials!!!! I demand that we start using Caeserian era terms now!!!!!!!!!142.176.117.16 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are very confused. Caesar died in 44 BC(E) so the calendar is not in any sense based on the date of his death. Caesar did have some involvment in the modern calendar in that he established the 265-day, twelve month year with a leap day every four years, later adjusted somewhat under Gregory, who was a pope, but the numbering of the years is based on the estimation of the birth of Christ by Dionyisus Exiguus, who was a monk. The dating system we use, whether we're Christians or not (I'm not) and whether we call it BC/AD or BCE/CE, is a Christian one, like it or not. --Nicknack009 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The calendar dating time was a little off considering Caesar died in 44 BCE, but it was definitely based on Caesar. Christians didn't even exist until well into the 1st century CE, and Jesus was never even born, he never existed. Christians just want us to think that our dating system is based on their false god. Like it or not, this is 2006 of the Caesarian Era142.176.117.16 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The twelve month calendar was established by Caesar. The numbering of the years has nothing to do with him. If it was based on the date of Caesar's death it would be 2049, not 2006. Read some history, and try not to let your (perfectly understandable) dislike of Christianity get in the way of its historical importance. --Nicknack009 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like noone understood 142.176.117.16 wanted to be funny, and succeeded.--Panairjdde 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the ... ???!!! 

message: I'm not registered, so I would just like to give you the info on the discussion page: Caesar was born on July 13. However, July 13 was the first day of the annual Apollo games in Rome, so the offical celebration of Caesar's birth was shifted to July 12. That's the reason why many still believe that he was born on July 12. 212.9.162.233 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Can we get rid of this from the discussion.  They take up half of the discussions and make it difficult to read and have absolutly nothing to do with the article.
Thanks,   
--Firebird 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the BC/BCE spam 

message: This is a problem that affects not only Caesar, but all Roman dates before AD 1 - and therefore the birth dates of Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, in addition to any other dates that we know.
The reason is simple - the calendar in use by the Romans, both before and after Caesar's reforms, does not correspond with what we now call the Julian calendar. Coincidentally (and it really is a pure coincidence), the two calendars run in sync only from AD 1 onwards - but not before. See this website for an extremely detailed analysis of the current academic discourse, plus comprehensive conversion tables.
In short, if Caesar was born on 12 or 13 Quintilis (i.e. July) 100 BC on the contemporary Roman calendar, this works out as 21 or 22 July on the proleptic Julian calendar for that particular year. Similarly, his death on the Roman date of 15 March 44 BC works out as 14 March 44 BC on the Julian calendar. Augustus's birth on 23 September 63 BC works out as 19 September 63 BC Julian, Tiberius's birth on 16 November 42 BC works out as 15 November 42 BC Julian, and Claudius's birth on 1 Sextilis (i.e. August) 10 BC works out as 3 August 10 BC Julian. All dates starting from 1 January AD 1 are  the same, however.
Why is this important? Well, it may not be. What is Wikipedia's policy on dating? To use an example from later in history, when is it appropriate to use either the Julian or the Gregorian calendar? The date of death of William Shakespeare, for example, is given in both, though the Gregorian (which was not yet in use in England) is relegated to a footnote. But for these Roman statesmen the dates are simply given, and not flagged as a date on the Roman calendar. This could lead to serious confusion if, as is the convention amongst historians, it was simply assumed that the Julian calendar is being used. TharkunColl 11:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caesar's dates of birth - and death - are "incorrect"