Talk:Common Era/Archive 3

message: When reading 18th and 19th century documents, in both English and French, I sometimes see the year referred to as being of the "Vulgar Era" (l'ère vulgaire).  (Sources available upon request.)  I don't see this mentioned in the article, but "vulgar" used to mean "common", rather than its modern meaning of "offensive", as in Vulgar Latin.  Clearly this usage did not begin in the 20th century, so I wonder when "vulgar" got started and when it got changed to "common".
Also, "it has not entered into general use by the public", but I know a lot of Jews in the public who use it, and others, too.  In spite of the statement, "Philosophical reasons for opposing the Common Era designation include...It preserves a Christian-centric worldview", Jews prefer CE/BCE to AD/BC, and point out that Y'shua bar Yosef was not born in 1 CE.  Although I think that BCE is more common, since AD/CE may simply be ommitted after Year 1, whereas earlier years require the era to be specified. -- Nike 05:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit of a generalisation to say "Jews prefer CE/BCE to AD/BC". No doubt some do, but certainly not all, jguk 22:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say "all".  Rarely does all of any group do anything.  Jews live in New York, but that does not mean or imply that all of them do.  However, when reading Jewish literature and whenever the subject has come up with my relatives and other Jews, I never encountered any who said that they preferred AD/BC.  I'll admit that this is not a scientific poll, and I'm sure that some would prefer to assimilate, but others would prefer using AM.  I did a search and found links, such as www.jewish.com and www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org, which state it clearly. -- Nike 03:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vulgar Era

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 01:39, 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 have restored the link to religioustolerance.org. Of all the people who are currently contributing to this article, only jguk disagrees with this. He has set out his objections above, and they have been authoritatively and thoroughly refuted by Sunray and Nike. A look at the history page will also reveal that two other users, including myself, feel strongly enough that this link enhances this article that we have all restored it despite jguk's repeated reverts.
I have read these arguments, and have tried to meet him halfway. When organizing the external links section, I created a "Commentary" heading, so that readers could be sure that the links provided espoused a partisan point of view, as jguk continually complained. Yet even then, jguk continued to revert it.
It is obvious, then, that although several current contributors have provided the facts (and sheer numbers) to justify the inclusion of this link, jguk seems determined to continue his one-man campaign against this particular online resource.
Therefore, I will refer him and anyone else interested in this matter to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese), where jguk wrote the following about another user when opposing an action he felt went against a consensus of contributors:
How long will it take for [username] to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus? jguk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religioustolerance.org, once and for all 

message: The link should remain.  
This subject has already been debated at great length on this page.  Jguk has continually denigrated the authors of the Religious Tolerance website as not having theological training and therefore unworthy.  Jguk has not explained why one would need such qualifications to discuss religious tolerance.  He is alone in his view that the website should not be used as an external link.    
Each of Jguk's arguments about the merits of the Religious Tolerance website has been refuted.  However, for clarity's sake, I will reiterate what I think are the key reasons why the Religious Tolerance site should remain as an external link to this article: 
#This website reached over 9 million hits in one week in 2004. 
#It was rated by the Good Web Guide as the most popular religious website on the Internet. 
#The Religious Tolerance article makes several interesting points about our topic.
#The link meets Wikipedia's suggested criteria for an external link.
Apart from Jguk, all those who have commented on the talk page thus far support its retention (i.e., there is consensus). Sunray 10:48, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
:One correction to the above, for "authors" read "author" - virtually everything is a Bruce Robinson opinion piece! If the figures and Good Web Guide accolade are correct, it is about time the site was exposed and debunked (as shown above, it's very easy to do this if you look at the site for a few minutes). Yes, I do rubbish Robinson - who is he? A retired engineer. So why are we acting like he is a world-recognised expert in the field of religion?
:Also, there have been few commentators on this issue above, certainly not enough to generate a consensus, which is why a wider airing of this discussion may help, 10:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I count three who have commented on the talk page: Nike, dablaze and me.  At least two other editors Neutrality and Azkar have restored the link and been reverted by you, and then there is the editor who added the link in the first place.  Are you unable to see that you are alone in this?  Sunray 11:13, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
jguk, please review this Talk: section; perhaps you have forgotten about it. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And you seem to have forgotten that it is not appropriate to pretend a retired mechanical engineer with no religious training or position is an authoritative source of information about religion. If the views expressed are as common throughout the religious community as you say, it should be easy for you to replace the link with something much more appropriate. May I ask why you don't? jguk 21:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jguk pot kettle black.  --Rakista 07:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Just a quick thought here -- I think the article gives the impression that BCE/CE is used uniformly within academia, but that's not the case. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to give a few link-pairs to illustrate this, such as:
"BCE" at the Smithsonian and "BC" at the Smithsonian (BCE & BC are easier to search on than AD & CE, I've found.) I've also searched on a few other academic/scholarly sites with similar results.
Probably would have to figure out some decent formatting, but this might be an effective and web-friendly way of giving real-life usage examples (and frequencies). What do you all think? –dablaze 15:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
===CE usage at the Smithsonian===
My source for that info I added about the Smithsonian was an editor at the the Office of Exhibits Central at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, (contacted today, Apr 8 05). She told me that BCE/CE was preferred because of the "diversity of visitors" the museum gets, but added that the office is not necessarily involved in all exhibits at all museums, and that individual museums get the final say on date notation (and presumably other matters of style). But when the office is involved, it recommends BCE/CE by default.
BTW, this probably makes my comments above moot. Ah well, it was just a thought. –dablaze 22:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
:That's going right to the source, I'd say!  We could say something along the lines of "museums such as the Smithsonian (U.S.), the British Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum (Canada) have adopted BCE/CE notation in consideration of the diversity of visitors they receive."  We could put the ROM as an External Link and refer to it. Sunray 06:43, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
::Gotta love primary source research! :-) Actually Sunray, if you'd like to try and rewrite that paragraph, please go right ahead -- I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes. (Though the Smithsonian hasn't "adopted" CE, it just prefers it.)
::One caution, though: If the "diversity of visitors" is going to be mentioned, it would not only have to be in quotes, but be sourced as well to avoid the appearance of POV. Standard academic style for something like that would look like:
:::7. Jane Doe, Acme Co., telephone conversation with author, April 8, 2005.
::At least, that's what the Chicago manual recommends. But for obvious reasons, I'd rather not list this person's name on the internet. And I'm sure as hell not listing mine! But without that quote, I don't think it needs sourcing beyond the info on the talk page. Besides, I think it's pretty clear that CE is intended as an inclusive term (even if some people don't see it that way), so perhaps the quote's not vital here.
::But hell, I dunno... –dablaze 11:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::Three words, generally, does not a quote make... unless they are especially noteworthy (e.g. "Some chicken." (Churchill).  What we are doing here is trying to capture the essence of the Smithsonian's policy, so I think a full citation along the lines you have specified is not needed.  
:::I will add the sentence, slightly amended, use the ROM link and one from the Smithsonian.  If someone wants more info they could refer to this talk page (that is a general rule that people quickly learn when they use Wikipedia). We can make that explicit if necessary.  Sunray 14:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
:::OK, I just looked at the article and see that you have done exactly what I was going to do.  Looks good.  Sunray 14:40, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
We are yet waiting for any evidence that C.E. originated in (secular) academia; all evidence thus far points to its appearance in the twentieth century among religious scholars, i.e. Talmudic and Christian acedemia.  In fact, the most likely source for originating the abbreviated terms is Jacob Neusner.  Someone should e-mail him at Neusner@webjogger.net and ask him where his use of it originated, as I can't get my e-mail to work.  Thx.   Nobs 21:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on usage examples 

message: My source for that info I added about the Smithsonian was an editor at the the Office of Exhibits Central at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, (contacted today, Apr 8 05). She told me that BCE/CE was preferred because of the "diversity of visitors" the museum gets, but added that the office is not necessarily involved in all exhibits at all museums, and that individual museums get the final say on date notation (and presumably other matters of style). But when the office is involved, it recommends BCE/CE by default.
BTW, this probably makes my comments above moot. Ah well, it was just a thought. –dablaze 22:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
:That's going right to the source, I'd say!  We could say something along the lines of "museums such as the Smithsonian (U.S.), the British Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum (Canada) have adopted BCE/CE notation in consideration of the diversity of visitors they receive."  We could put the ROM as an External Link and refer to it. Sunray 06:43, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
::Gotta love primary source research! :-) Actually Sunray, if you'd like to try and rewrite that paragraph, please go right ahead -- I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes. (Though the Smithsonian hasn't "adopted" CE, it just prefers it.)
::One caution, though: If the "diversity of visitors" is going to be mentioned, it would not only have to be in quotes, but be sourced as well to avoid the appearance of POV. Standard academic style for something like that would look like:
:::7. Jane Doe, Acme Co., telephone conversation with author, April 8, 2005.
::At least, that's what the Chicago manual recommends. But for obvious reasons, I'd rather not list this person's name on the internet. And I'm sure as hell not listing mine! But without that quote, I don't think it needs sourcing beyond the info on the talk page. Besides, I think it's pretty clear that CE is intended as an inclusive term (even if some people don't see it that way), so perhaps the quote's not vital here.
::But hell, I dunno... –dablaze 11:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::Three words, generally, does not a quote make... unless they are especially noteworthy (e.g. "Some chicken." (Churchill).  What we are doing here is trying to capture the essence of the Smithsonian's policy, so I think a full citation along the lines you have specified is not needed.  
:::I will add the sentence, slightly amended, use the ROM link and one from the Smithsonian.  If someone wants more info they could refer to this talk page (that is a general rule that people quickly learn when they use Wikipedia). We can make that explicit if necessary.  Sunray 14:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
:::OK, I just looked at the article and see that you have done exactly what I was going to do.  Looks good.  Sunray 14:40, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
We are yet waiting for any evidence that C.E. originated in (secular) academia; all evidence thus far points to its appearance in the twentieth century among religious scholars, i.e. Talmudic and Christian acedemia.  In fact, the most likely source for originating the abbreviated terms is Jacob Neusner.  Someone should e-mail him at Neusner@webjogger.net and ask him where his use of it originated, as I can't get my e-mail to work.  Thx.   Nobs 21:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CE usage at the Smithsonian

message: Jayjg: the keyword is recognized, not compatible.  Go ahead have a try at it-   Nobs 19:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BC/AD notation is not part of the ISO 8601 standard either; your point is at best irrelevant, at worst deceptive. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ISO 8601]] 

message: I've removed the following statement from the Criticism section:
:Common could be misconstrued to mean profane or vulgar rather than belief in a shared deity.
Perhaps if anyone thinks it should be back in the article, they could explain why it would be included as a criticism of the term Common Era.  Many English words have multiple meanings.  To understand how the word common is used, one should be able to deduce it from the lead paragraph of the article.  If that isn't easy to do, then we should re-write the lead.  Defining the meaning of words is the role of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.  Sunray 06:09, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
:I don't think it's meant to be a criticism, but rather related to the origin of usage for CE (as hitherto, at times, VE) from latin (vulgāaris; from vulgus, “the common people”), see examples here. Still, on closer look, I think it can be better worded and qualified, so I will not revert for now. El_C 08:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: C.E. was developed by Jewish and Christian ecumenicalists to denote the shared values of a common Judeo-Christian heritage.  C.E. is not a Novus Ordo Seclorum or New Order of Secularism, over the Anno Domini system, i.e. a victory of the godless attempting to discard Christianity and the Church.  The Church infact took the leadership role of reforming itself to make itself more inclusive.  Only now, decades later, is secular academia following the leadership role of the church in society.  And of course atheists are free to continue decieving themselves that they are living in the year 2005.  Nobs 18:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh! Enlightening times in which we live. Actually, I would wager that most atheists, myself included, could not care less and are more concerned with such delusions as the earth revolving around the sun, etc., and are satisfied with more-or-less consistent periodization. El_C 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern here, as is typical, is original research; exactly who makes this argument as an objection to the usage of the term "Common Era"? Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise my concern has been that there has been zero, absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented to support the assertion that the CE/BCE convention originated with, or has been accepted by "scholarship", outside of Jewish or rabbinical scholarship, or Christian theological institutions.  You will recall, the basis of many who voted for CE/BCE was its use in "scholarship".  Nobs 15:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how your comment relates to mine, but did you read the article, and the examples provided? Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See further below for continuation from above.  As I understand wiki policy, I don't see how a general assertion can be regarded as fact, and primary and secondary sources discarded as evidence.  The general premise I cite is "There is no evidence non-religous scholorship began accepting CE/BCE until less than the past 27 years, and no evidence it has been mandated policy outside religous institutions anymore than 3 years."  Further, "There is no evidence CE/BCE convention began with non-religious scholars (and/or academia, seeing those proponents voting in the affirmative for change often cite this reason).  Where it began, for now, I beleive has been established.  It seems to me the next phase of this discussion is to understand what vulgar means.  And I beleive the wiki article on vulgar is correct, though lacking a racist implication the term once had toward Bulgarians (or Bulgars, more correctly).  Nobs 22:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you may be correct, but I still fail to see the relevance. It's certainly gaining currency today. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me clarify my personal position (see personal comment on Slrubenstein talk page); I have no problem with CE/CBE convention, (and have on occassion used it over the years depending on what audience I'm speaking to).  But personally I feel it needs to be clear: this is not a slap down by secularism against the Christian church.  This is in fact an occassion where the church has assumed the leadership role in society to be inclusive, and generic (secular) academia has followed.  My official position is neutral (meaning the default AD/BC convention), until those facts can be establish.  Of course, I welcome anyone to dispute the hypothesis and correct me if these impressions are in error.  Thank you.  Nobs 00:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That is not what you said, and I quote: "Likewise my concern has been that there has been zero, absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented to support the assertion that the CE/BCE convention originated with, or has been accepted by "scholarship", outside of Jewish or rabbinical scholarship, or Christian theological institutions."
More examples:
*  we prefer bce (before common era) and ce (common era) to bc and ad from World History Connected submission guidelines 
* prefers the use of B.C.E. and C.E. to B.C. and A.D from the Journal of early Christian Studies submission guidelines 
* We use BCE (Before the Common Era) as a religiously neutral chronology referent. We do this because BC (Before Christ) assumes Jesus was the Christ, and in a religiously plural age, not everyone makes that assumption. Similarly, CE (The Common Era) is used instead of AD (Anno Domini - After Christ). from Ethics Reader 
* So we use B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) rather than the Christian oriented terms, B.C. and A.D. from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 
* We prefer C.E. and B.C.E. to A.D. and B.C. from the Byzantine Publications Style Guide. 
*No periods in BC and AD. Some contributors prefer BCE and CE; This is fine. Wiki Classical Dictionary  — I misread 'periods' as periodization, this particular example is inapplicable, but my point stands. El_C 23:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That contemporaneity is actually my point, these are all active journals. If I try to establish Peer Review, that's what I look for. I'm not going to be searching for, let's say, American Politics Quarterly, but rather, American Politics Research (formerly American Politics Quarterly), etc. El_C 21:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism?

message: Unfortunately, I suspect this is a product of you not reading closely, as evidence has been provided by myself, in a discussion your were intensively involved in. It consisted of the following examples:
* For dates, please use the BCE-CE system, rather than BC-AD. From the The Publications Committee of the Egyptian Studies Society new guidelines for their journal Ostracon .
* All dates should be in the format BCE/CE, unless in quoted material. From the Contributor Guidelines for editorial submission in The International Journal of Pagan Studies 
* Eras and dates. The journal prefers B.C.E., C.E., 12 December 1999 From the American Journal of Philology 
* All dates should be in the format BCE/CE From the NSU Style Manual. 
* [W]e prefer BCE, CE Submission Manuscript Guidelines for Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 
* we prefer BCE, CE Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 
* Eras: Please use BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) rather than B.C. and A.D. From The Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies Style Guide. 
* we prefer BCE, CE From the Continuum International Publishing Group Brief Style Guide for Contributors to JSHJ and JSHJSup 
El_C 18:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what you said, and I quote: "Likewise my concern has been that there has been zero, absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented to support the assertion that the CE/BCE convention originated with, or has been accepted by "scholarship", outside of Jewish or rabbinical scholarship, or Christian theological institutions."
More examples:
*  we prefer bce (before common era) and ce (common era) to bc and ad from World History Connected submission guidelines 
* prefers the use of B.C.E. and C.E. to B.C. and A.D from the Journal of early Christian Studies submission guidelines 
* We use BCE (Before the Common Era) as a religiously neutral chronology referent. We do this because BC (Before Christ) assumes Jesus was the Christ, and in a religiously plural age, not everyone makes that assumption. Similarly, CE (The Common Era) is used instead of AD (Anno Domini - After Christ). from Ethics Reader 
* So we use B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) rather than the Christian oriented terms, B.C. and A.D. from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 
* We prefer C.E. and B.C.E. to A.D. and B.C. from the Byzantine Publications Style Guide. 
*No periods in BC and AD. Some contributors prefer BCE and CE; This is fine. Wiki Classical Dictionary  — I misread 'periods' as periodization, this particular example is inapplicable, but my point stands. El_C 23:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That contemporaneity is actually my point, these are all active journals. If I try to establish Peer Review, that's what I look for. I'm not going to be searching for, let's say, American Politics Quarterly, but rather, American Politics Research (formerly American Politics Quarterly), etc. El_C 21:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional scholarship

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)
replies: text: Are you referring to its contemporary use or its historical use over 2 millenia?  Nobs 15:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal concerning CE and NPOV 

message: What evidence supports the claim that the term "common era" was first mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopaedia in 1908. I thought the term pre-dated that, jguk 11:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to this. El_C 12:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Makes sense, we need definitive rather than possible origins of, unless it is demonstrated that this is as definitive as the scholarship gets on that question (which I highly doubt). It is unfortunate that SlR's (rather singular) efforts are the closest we are to an answer though. El_C 23:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is necessary. As far as I'm concerned, if it has been a relevant question for at least three decades, then it certainly can affect Wikipedia style. We don't call African-Americans "Negros" now though that was common as late as the 1960s. --Fastfission 04:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use