Talk:Main Page/Archive 98

message: "Following a first-ever election victory, the separatist Scottish National Party surpasses Labour to become the largest political party in the Scottish Parliament (pictured). Labour also suffers losses in elections to the Welsh Assembly and to local councils across Britain. "
Can we please change "separatist" to "pro-independence" please? "Separatist" is unbelievably POV, and downright offensive. It's not a suitable term. --MacRusgail 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed please change it ASAP. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I hope more people will agree. If I used "annexationist" to describe supporters of the Union in Scotland, people wouldn't be happy, but this is more or less the same thing. --MacRusgail 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would the word "separatist" be "POV" or "offensive"? It links to Scottish independence. --74.13.126.166 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is derogatory. --MacRusgail 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on context. If there's credible reference, such as a GB newspaper from the 1770s, sure. Why not? --74.13.129.187 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, how on earth is "separatist" unbelievable POV?  The SNP wants a Scottish state that is governed, erm, separately from the rest of the UK.  Changing to "pro-independence" is akin to getting using pro-choice/pro-life distinctions when providing encyclopedic coverage of the abortion debate... a cuddlier-sounding word, what with the "pro" in there and all, maybe, but certainly no more accurate and far more politically tourqued. The Tom 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "separatist" is a derogatory term that demeans this political position. "Pro-independence" means that they support "independence", and is neutral like "Pro-Union" etc, it doesn't have the overtones of the abortion monikers because those use emotive names like "choice" or "life". --MacRusgail 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Derogatory!?!? No way!!!! This must be British/Scottish English. The word is used regularly in Canadian politics. Not derogatory at all here.  --74.13.129.187 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: British definitely. The Chinese refer to the Tibetan independence movement as "splittist" which has the same kind of overtones. We all know how they got a hold of Tibet, in spite of the fact that they consider it an "integral part of China". --MacRusgail 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Does everyone know how England got a hold of Wales, obviously an integral part of the "United" "Kingdom"? Ditto for Scotland? And Ireland? --74.13.130.85 04:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How on earth can "seperatist" be considered downright offensive? The SNP believes Scotland should be seperate from the UK. That is seperatism. Keep the news summary as it is. Matt7895 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also find it odd that anyone would find the word "separatist" offensive. I've removed it from ITN, along with a few other words, because the line seems too long to me, not because it's "unbelievable POV" or anything. --PFHLai 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Separatist" to me (and I expect many other people, aside from MacRusgail and Barryob) has the sense of "rebel".  It's what many people (including me!) use to describe Abu Sayyaf or Abkhazia, groups fighting against legitimate authorities to establish their own governments.  As such, when we have a NPOV alternative, we should use it.  Nyttend 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a narrow view of what a "Separatist" is.  There are violent militants, and there are civil politicians. Ask the SNP, or the Bloc Québécois in Canada, or those involved in the Velvet Divorce of Czechoslovakia. Separatism may mean many things. --74.14.20.134 14:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Separatist" is a term used by opponents of something. Like I say, it would be like calling those who support Scotland's Union with England "annexationists". If it said that, most of you would consider that POV, because it refers to the status quo. --MacRusgail 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Separatist" is a term abused by their opponents, but the word has probably been around long enough to mean different things in different places. If it's a bad word to use for UK news, then we should leave it out of ITN. --74.13.130.85 04:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On the original point, should we change all instances of `terrorist' to `freedom fighter'? Rossheth 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about violent folk. The SNP is a democratic party. Why is it that the status quo gets neutral language, but those who wish to make some kind of change get the loaded language? --MacRusgail 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive "Separatist" in Scottish news summary 

message: For what it's worth, "surpasses" should be "passes." Doops |  talk 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of changing that to "supplants". Would this work ? --PFHLai 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the real problem is that it's not a particularly 'real' point being made. Neither party has/had a majority; the SNP isn't "in power" at present nor will they necessarily be. All we're talking about is "which party has a plurality of seats." I would just reword the whole blurb to say something like "following the 2007 Scottish Parliament Elections, the SNP will hold a plurality in that body, the first time a party other than Labour has done so." -- this is at once clearer and subtler, I think. Doops |  talk 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To be continued on WP:ITN/C. --06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another wording issue in the UK item on ITN 

message: * Support. because giving the main portal more info should encourage users to actually use this feature.  although i am worried about the lay out, the main page aready is a bit crowded, i think over time this will be resolved with some careful tweaking--Greg.loutsenko 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * But if a person doesn't read the list/topic in the first couple of days, I doubt tacking even more time will get them to look at it.  ShadowHalo 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The main reason I recommend week or month is so we don't run out of lists. — Deckiller 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * But leaving it for a week or month renders the section useless for readers, most of the time that is.  ShadowHalo 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Neutral - It's a really good idea. People work very hard on them, I why call them featured if you aren't going to recognize them for it. As of now, I don't think it'd work, because there isn't enough Featured list, however, maybe in the future, when more are featured class, we could have them on the main page.--theblueflamingoSquawk 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: how can i find menu for view map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.161.228 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 May 2007
:What would you like to view a map of? --Monotonehell 07:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or if you want to browse, try :Commons:Category:Maps. --Quiddity 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: I cant insert images!Whats wrong-TaylorLTD  22:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only admins can insert images to the main page. --74.13.130.26 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong 

message: :I've got to put on one of DeBono's Six Thinking Hats (black) and say that the tables shown here are extremely hard to use and could use with some default templates that put some of the div, font, etc boilerplate code out of the way. Other than that how about pushing the portal list to the centre and putting the featured portal on the far right. That would rid of the whitespace problem... Merosonox 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merosonox 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That breaks the page width at 800x600. --Quiddity 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I'd agree, but adding pic is eye-catching. There must another way to direct a reader to the FPOR. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the only bolded link in the entire header, I think All portals is sufficient. --Quiddity 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a picture is rather necessary. You're whole perspective, though: it should be a portal section, not just a part of the header section. Atropos 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Portals and Tables 

message: Where the main page go? Strange indeed, but I'm sure it'll be fixed. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure someone who knows what the hell they're doing will fix it, I just wanna know how this was allowed to happen.  Cornell Rockey 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the deletion log. Doops |  talk 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What just happened, the page wasnt unprotected then vandalized because there was no history, it must have been actualy deleted...  Urdna 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found that although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page did not work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MainPage (Minus the underscore) did. i tried to set up a redirect but I don't know if THAT is what fixed it or if it just got fixed. that was a weird issue. I hope to get a clear picture as to what caused it. I think it was a change in the template or something. But what do I know... --Kirkoconnell 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did a little research (looked at the logs) and discovered the page was deleted by AndyZ and the edit summary was "my password is password" (the account has been blocked) and the page was reverted by AmiDaniel twice, after the first revert it was deleted by eagle 101, it was an admin messing around... Urdna 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Has the account been desysopped yet?  I know it's been blocked...  ShadowHalo 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has, . —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew, okay.  I need to figure how IRC works now...  ShadowHalo 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although this time it seems likely the admin account was compromised rather then the other time where it was unclear. Hopefully there are no other admins with the password 'password' Nil Einne 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was a dumb move.  Isn't "password" the most commons password?  Were it not so creepy, I'd suggest that we require admins have strong passwords.  ShadowHalo 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could require everyone to have a strong password. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have any1 check the database for admins or above with password as their password or will we have to do it manually (e.g try hacking every account :P)? Also is there a way to stop people posting their password on their user page?----User:Rock2e  Talk - Contribs  14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it seems like the password wasn't 'password'. At least assuming the User:Jiang we're speaking to now is the real Jiang. BTW, for those not fllowing the issue on incidents, a password bruteforcer will be run later today on admin accounts Nil Einne 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiang's wasn't; but Andy7's might have been. Doops |  talk 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I wasn't following that well and didn't realise two accounts had already been compromised (now 3). Nil Einne 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Main page seems to have been deleted 

message: Fix it asap.... (I dont know how...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the disgusting picture when you click on that story about disused train stations? That really wasn't good for me, I'm at school. Someone please fix it. How did something like that get on the main page? JordanZed 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FUCK, That was NOT good for my eyes. How did they hack the top notification bar?! --Toussaint 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried to delete it from the newest articles list to see if that would take it out but it didn't work. There's got to be a proper way to report this besides the bottom of the talk page. P.S. Please keep the bad language to a minimum lol JordanZed 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was on the top of "my watchlist" page.  Not cool at all. Any prognosis on how quickly this stuff gets resolved? InnocuousFox 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I just emailed them about it so it should be fixed quickly, I hope. JordanZed 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: Above, members are talking about an admin account with the password "password" so maybe that's how this happened. JordanZed 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See above, and the incident noticeboard for the issues involved. Admins are likely to be the first the notice this type of thing. The picture was in place for around 53 seconds, and the administrator was de-sysopped within minutes. No more ass on your page, sorry for the inconvenience... -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there's a real article/image there now? Good, it should be interesting. JordanZed 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who the hell put encylopedia my ass on the page?????? 

message: User:Conscious just went on a rampage, deleting everything in sight. Luckily, he got quickly stopped. Just thought I'd break the news: this is the second time recently. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 18:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that'd be the third, not second in the past week.  Jiang and AndyZ both were compromised.  WP:ANI and Wikipedia:Security are trying to figure out what to do, and there's a bot checking admins' passwords so that we can take care of any weak passwords.  ShadowHalo 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wow, again deleted. There was 5 deletions on 7 May! How the hell(and why) they did that? —comment added by DarthRahn(u/t\c)  03:17, 8-May, 2007 year (UTC).
well see when i log in to wikipedia at the bottom of the login box it says warning this is unsecured link try logging in on our secure server. something like that.  but when you go to link that is 'secure' my computer (windows xp) security pops up and says security certificates have something wrong with them and maybe someone will try to intercept data.  anyone else have that problem?
Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because the SSL certificate authority isn't one of the "big guys" recognized by the browser (such as VeriSign). If you examine the cert, it's good. howcheng  {chat} 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Look guys, its not the end of the world, and as long as we manage to undelete it in a reasonable amount of time (and do it correctly not my botched up work) we are fine. The devs are working on cracking weak passes as we speak. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Our current problems aren't being cuased by an insecure login system, but by cracking of weak passwords.  Martinp23 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, will users with weak passwords be notified? --Kimontalk 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment at least, they are only checking admin accounts. The passwords of those accounts were reset, so they will either automatically get an e-mail or will need to request an e-mail in the usual way from the log-in system. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God my password is only 'sirsirbob330' --02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not any more. --76.64.76.169 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  admin just went on rampage 

message: Not Sure If This Is In The Right Place But Hey, Here Goes, Should An Admin Post Something About The Little Girl Who Has Gone Missing in Portugal. Lukecarpenter169 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps You Should Try WP:ITN/C. (Sorry For Mocking You With The Capitalization :) howcheng  {chat} 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The odds are very good that the story is not a major international affair, so it won't get put on the Main Page (and probably also does not merit an article; people go missing all the time for either inane or unpleasant reasons). —Cuiviénen 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, And Should I Try Wikinews? Lukecarpenter169 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the event becomes notable for some reason then yes, Wikinews may be a more likely place for such a story. --Monotonehell 07:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lukecarpenter169 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you'd like to help update or create a news article on Wikinews in that case? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service. If the event gains some kind of notability that warrants its own encyclopedia article I'm sure someone will add it. As it stands it's news not a subject of an encyclopedia. :) --Monotonehell 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Girl 

message: I've made an article on this: Islamic terrorism plot at Fort Dix Army base. Please edit/rename the title as necessary. This should be on the main page after its improved, or perhaps its already in the process under a different name. thanks --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not Wikinews (n:MainPage), but an encyclopedia. Not every news story gets on MainPage. Please post to Portal: Current events first, expand the article, and then propose a headline at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, thanks. I'll do that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 2007 Fort Dix attack plot is now on ITN. --PFHLai 09:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic terrorist plot foiled 

message: Can someone please undo the move? --Kimontalk 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was quickly(!) reverted withing 10+ minutes.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! So, how does one revert a move? The original page still exists and this prevents the move of the new page to go through. --Kimontalk 01:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving a page automatically creates a redirect from the former name. If there is no edit history to this redirect page besides its creation, any user can move the page back to the old name (even though it's not red). On the other hand, if there's any further history, it takes an admin to fix it. Doops |  talk 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, there was history because the first thing I did was try moving it back and it failed. --Kimontalk 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. An administrator has to do it. That article was in fact protected against moves until it was unprotected a couple of months back, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of. Articles that are visible enough to be permanently semi-protected should generaly be (fully) move-protected too – Gurch 02:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which brings me to my next question. When trying to figure out how to get an admin's attention I got stumped. I was looking at the various administrative noticeboards but, none of them are for "getting an admin's attention to deal with something as soon as possible but, has nothing to do with dealing with other users". So, I figured that there must be a list somewhere of all the admins that are currently online, and then I can leave a message on their talk page. Nope, no such thing exists. My last thought was to post here and hope that someone would notice.So, my question is: How do I get an admin's attention when it's not to report another user? --Kimontalk 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *WP:AN (admin noticeboard) works.  Wickethewok 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: **Thanks. Now I'll know for next time. --Kimontalk 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adolph Hitler moved to HITLAH! 

message: Someone needs to fix where it says "perpetrate a massacre" in the News section.  This kind of language is not encyclopedic.  Also the front page needs to be unprotected or I need my privileges modified so I can make needed edits.  Furthermore Wikipedia should not log me out while I'm trying to edit things.  --Afed 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Please post at the top section of this page. 2)Why? 3)Please file a detailed report of the issue you are having here. ffm ✎talk 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been trolled.  Check out the guy's user page.  An obvious trouble-maker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.96.17 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughable hyperbole on the main page 

message: '1671 - Thomas Blood (pictured) was caught trying to steal the British Crown Jewels from the Tower of London.'
In 1671 there was no such thing as 'the British Crown Jewels' - Great Britain did not exist as a country until the Acts of Union in 1707. Reading the first paragraph of the article would have been enough for whoever wrote today's OTD to notice that it was in fact the English crown jewels that were stolen. England != Great Britain, see British Isles (terminology). Cynical 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've updated May 9 so it should be fixed for next year. To draw the attention of an administrator so as to get it fixed for this year (i.e. today), please post your request in the "error reports" at the top of this page. Cheers, Doops |  talk 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now fixed on MainPage, too. Thanks for pointing this out.  Next time, please report errors at WP:ERRORS. Response is usually quicker there 'coz WP:ERRORS is on many admins' watchlist. Thanks. --PFHLai 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in 'on this day' 

message: King Herods Tomb on the main page has BCE next to it. That is HIGHLY offensive, and I urge you to change it.-Signing is too much work  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.139.242 (talk) 20:03, May 8, 2007 (UTC)
:If you're looking for a wiki encyclopedia that uses BC, I recommend Conservapedia.  In the meantime, both BC and BCE are used here.  ShadowHalo 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be consistent within any given article. (My 2¢). Freshacconci 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the current guideline (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras).  Just like there's often no preference for American, British, etc. dialects, there's no preference for BC/AD or BCE/CE.  Any given article should use the variant first added to the article and just be consistent within itself.  ShadowHalo 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except in articles related to Judaism. There's no Christ, so pls don't use BC/AD in those articles. --76.64.76.169 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no Christ?  I urge you to think carefully before making statements like that. DoomsDay349 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Judaism. --74.14.23.8 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right on.  There's a difference between saying "There's no Christ" and "There's no Christ in Judaism".  One could be construed as an insult, the other is simple fact.  DoomsDay349 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about my poor sentence structures. It should be "Except in articles related to Judaism, where there's no Christ, so pls don't use BC/AD in those articles." Or something like that. Glad that you understand. --74.14.23.8 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's all good.  Now perhaps we should stop clogging the page.  :D DoomsDay349 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Nice chatting with you. Bye-bye. --74.14.23.8 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought there is a Christ in Judaism, s/he just hasn't arrived yet and it wasn't Jesus? Nil Einne 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. The Messiah is just expected, but not realised yet. In Judaism. --74.13.127.165 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding of the policies in regards to BCE and CE and BC and AD dating systems is, since they are equivalent, either is acceptable.  As a Christian myself I see no problem with it whatsoever, nor should anyone else.  They each work the same way; it's a difference of mere letters.  I strongly urge you to deal with it.  (as far as I know, the same goes for the variant forms of English). DoomsDay349 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Herod I, who died in 4 BCE, was supposed to be reigning in Judea during Christ's time on Earth. BC (Before Christ) is probably not applicable. --76.64.76.169 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how it's not applicable. BCE is equivalent to BC, CE is equivalent to AD. So really you could do either. DoomsDay349 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are used the same way, but the words meaning differently. BCE = Before Common Era, no mention of Christ. --76.64.76.169 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They refer to the exact same dates.  They are 100% interchangeable.  Still not fully understanding what you're trying to say.  DoomsDay349 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost 100%. Not quite. --76.64.76.169 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not really.  There's no instance when you couldn't use either.  CE and BCE are nothing more than neutral names for the same dates.  100 BC is 100 BCE, no matter what the context of an article.  Same deal.  DoomsDay349 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The birth year of Jesus was miscalculated when the modern calendar was formulated; it almost certainly happened in the year 4 BC (or possibly in 5 BC), not in 1 AD. Therefore, we have the odd conundrum of Jesus being alive during the tail end of "Before Christ". —Cuiviénen 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. --74.13.127.165 09:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever.  Not especially worth my time anyhow.  DoomsDay349 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem. --74.14.23.8 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is for discussing matters relevant to the Main Page.  If you have something to say about Wikipedia's use of the term, please go to Wikipedia talk:Eras; otherwise, I recommend a site such as Blogger.  ShadowHalo 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, this site is about fact & universal fact alone. Numerous cultures disagree with the presence of Christ & if we go placing BC on dates, it is as insensitive to those cultures as putting that there is no Christ. By putting BCE, scientists have made a neutral viewpoint which allows the fact to be presented, not some religious POV. Regardless of our beliefs, when we come on this site they should all be set aside & only universal fact should be used. Check out the Creationist debates going on at Wikiproject Dinosaurs & the Dinosaur article, as well as numerous other religion-fuelled arguments blazing around the place. Frankly, I'm getting sick & tired of fanatics making their unfounded claims on this site - as per above, take your ideas to Conservipedia. I may be religious, but I do know when to set aside my beliefs in the search of science. Thanks, 203.160.124.17 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This debate has also appeared in the Herod article itself. My stance and belief is that whatever system is used, it should not be changed for any reason. If it says BCE, so be it. If it says BC, what difference does it make? Just leave all the dates alone this is a matter of Political correctness by a few individuals who go screaming THIS IS HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. Please, leave Wikipedia free from both Political correctness and religious extremist values, because we don't have space for this shit. Thats how strongly I feel about a few who capitalize OFFENSIVE to get their minority point across. Stop it now and look for some better edits to be made. If it says BC then the author of the article thought it was appropriate for that and if it say BCE then we must respect their wishes too.Tourskin 05:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that the BC/BCE debate has much to do with "religious extremists" - it's a long leap from a Christian wanting the removal of "E" in BCE to suicide bombers who have been coined by the media as religious extremists. I think you're overreacting a bit in that regard. No need to swear either though; it just shows you're at a lack for better words & gets any reasonable argument nowhere. 203.160.124.17 09:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a worse argument still; that suicide bombers are the only extremists. Well its fundamentalist to say "ITS HIGHLY OFFENSIVCE" over an extra letter instead of just BC. I am a devout Catholic. But this is taking religion to the extreme by saying that BCE is highly offensive. I mean, come one people, God did not tell men when to set the date, it was calculated (incorrectly) by a monk ages ago, but after the death of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I neither support nor do I object to either system, I simply believe that its wrong for a few to claim its offensive and capitalizing it. 160.227.129.254 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE?