Talk:Common Era/Archive 4

message: I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the  Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cease-fire on eras

message: Ancient Rome ceased to be a Republic and became an Empire in the year 1, when Augustus was made the first Emperor.  The coincidence is too great. Our annual count may have begun with the start of the Roman Empire, and was possibly in standard use long before the Roman State Religion became Xianised.  The supposed wrong calculation may be a fraudulent attempt to pretend that the years date from the birth of Jesus, who was born during Herod's reign, which means that Jesus could have been many years older in the year one, not four with a miscalculation.   Norm Tered 02:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We normally start new comments at the bottom of the talk page. Furthermore, we have Wikipedia:No Original Research; stuff like this needs more than it feels right, it needs references. --Prosfilaes 03:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Empire

message: I thought the CE began at 0, not 1. Am I missing something here?
72.9.29.11 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To either 69.28.157.199 or 72.9.29.11 (I don't know whether the second is a vandal or a sock puppet): All historians regard CE as beginning at 1 without a 0. Only astronomers and ISO 8601 use a year zero, but neither of them apply an era designation like CE to it. It is incorrect to apply CE to either. — Joe Kress 04:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE begins at 0, not 1 

message: "The calendar used by the West has become a global standard - one built into every computer's hardware. It should be religiously and culturally neutral out of consideration for those cultures compelled to use it out of necessity."
The first sentence is false; our AD/BC or CE/BCE calendar is not built into every computer's hardware.  Computer hardware generally measures time in fractions of a second since an epoch, which is not the same as the Christian epoch.  Consider Unix time.  The AD/BC calendar is a software layer that interprets or translates the computer's clock value to form that is meaningful to the user.  Many software languages/packages/programs go to great lengths to provide "localizations" that allow for different calendars (for example, Java). 198.160.96.7 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did the second sentence come from? It's pure opinion - and the opinion of a very small minority at that. It has no place in the article, jguk 16:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: A recent edit has replaced the word academics (as people who prefer to use the term) with some. According to Wikipedia style guidelines the use of a word such as some in this context is descibed as a weasel word. We should attempt to say exactly who, or which groups of people, prefer this term. Arcturus 20:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: I'm reverting this sentence:
:The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the presumed birth year of Jesus as a starting point.
back to:
:The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point.
(differences bolded) The reason I'm changing it back is that the beginning of the AD calendar is not "presumed" by anyone to be the year of birth of Jesus.  It's a traditional date for his birth, that is not currently accepted by any scholar.  Any identification of the beginning of the Common Era with the birth of Jesus should be qualified in some way, so as not to indicate that Jesus was actually born within a year of January 1, AD 1. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "presumed birth year" of Jesus 

message: Things have taken a turn for the worse in the UK. On 29 December 2005 the celebrity edition of Mastermind on the BBC posed a question about Muhammad. John Humphrys, the questioner, stated a date using CE notation. Despite this, the question was correctly answered by Monty Don, but I bet it confused the hell out of the audience. I also think Humphrys would not be best pleased about his scripted question either. Still, what do you expect from the increasingly PC BBC. Arcturus 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully the worst of political correctness doesn't come to these shores. Of course, I'm not sure whether to marvel at the use of politically correct terms on the BBC or to marvel at the designation of Monty Don as a celebrity. WTF is he? jguk 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcturus: Use of the term "political correctness" in this way is akin to trolling: it is a loaded term.  I have asked Jguk to try to avoid using the term before and I will repeat my request.  Would you folks be able to avoid using terms like "political correctness" on talk pages?  There is nothing to be gained by it in promoting civil discussion. Sunray 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha! Now they're even trying to be politically correct about using the term "Politically correct"! LMFAO! CrazyInSane 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sunray: Usage of the term political correctness in this discussion is a very long way from "trolling". It is a excellent description of the phenomenon alluded to, and in my experience many people who are described as being "politically correct" do not take offence. I will continue using the term because; it is not offensive, it is not uncivil and it is a mainstream phrase. Talk pages are for relevant discussion and debate. You should not attempt to direct discussions in this manner. Arcturus 23:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article on Political correctness.  The term is now generally used pejoratively.  I wouldn't presume to "direct discussions" but do hope that you will be cognizant of how your words may be read by others. Sunray 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of CE on British Television