Talk:Anno Mundi

message: Ok,
now current US politics aside, what I do think would be very interesting to know, are the actual days of the week for those dates.
Considering the various different cultures and historical changes, that's some information that's really missing.
Anyone up for the math?
: There is a converter at fourmilab that does this; put the date you want in the calendar you have, push the button and it fills in all the other calendars,including day of the week for the Gregorian and Julian calendars. --Bazzargh (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekday 

message: The date given here (5194 BCE) appears to be incorrect.The two entries around 0 BCE give:
* The Age of the World, 5194. The second year of Crimhthann. (last entry before Christian era)
* The first year of the age of Christ, and the eighth year of the reign of Crimhthann Niadhnairg. (0 BCE)
This would make 0 AM = 5200 BCE according to the annals, I reckon; but certainly not 5194 BCE. See also Talk:Annals of the Four Masters#Calendar and deluge, which gives yet another date --Bazzargh (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anno Mundi years were not counted from 0, but from 1. Hence 1 AM = 5199 BC. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Annals of the Four Masters 

message: I see a previous ref for the Martyrology date was deleted for wp:rs reasons and theres a bit of an edit war going on the page right now, so I don't just want to add this just now. That said, how about this for a reference: 
in the Martyrology for Christmas Day, the creation of Adam is put down in the year 5199 B. C.
:from 
--Bazzargh (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geoffrey Keating in The History of Ireland: From the Earliest Period to the English Invasion (1866) page lxix states that Eusebius puts 5199 years between Adam and the birth of Christ. Also see Forth Century, The Penn Commentary on Piers Plowman by Andrew Galloway page 69, "Of the many Mundane Eras in circulation, that of Eusebius-Jerome (inc. 5199 B.C.) was overwhelmingly popular in the West", and many other sources. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the refs and the explanation. I've added them to the article. I didn't add the JSTOR one because its less accessible, also found this one that might be useful The Popular Biblical Educator, Vol 2., pp26-27 by J. Blackburn (1855), it gives a large table of dates and who suggested them --Bazzargh (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martyrology 

message: Can you guys have a discussion please, before you edit the page again? Continually reverting each other isn't helping the article quality. --Bazzargh (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just trying to comply with the manual of style.  The last edit asserts (quite incorrectly) that CE is appropriate for all non-Christian calendars.  Wikipedia policy plainly states that either system of reckoning is acceptable.  It also states that editors should not change to the other system for a non-substantive reason.  As such, per the manual of style the article should have remained with its originual style.  In a previous edit, one of the editors maintained that it should have remained in the CE/BCE style, per the manual of style, because the article was stable in that style.  However the article has not been stable in that style as the original usages of this article BC was used as recently as a few months ago.  As such, per the manual, the style to be used is that of the first major contributor, i.e. the B.C/A.D. style.  Contrary to one editors silly and unfounded accusation in and edit summary, I am not POV pushing and if this article began using the alternate style, I would have left it as it was.  My position is correct and now that an editor advocating deviation from the original style has realized that the manual of style supports my position there is a spurious accusation of POV.  I'm going to revert again.  Any editor seeking to change the style again should posit a valid reason for doing so. (There should be no further change because there is no valid reason to do so.Mamalujo (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your username (MAMALUJO = "MAtthew MArk LUke JOhn") undermines the credibility of your argument.  I highly doubt that you've ever advocated this strongly for the preservation of "CE" over "AD" in any article.  Whatever the case is, you're incorrect that the "BCE/CE is appropriate except when discussing Christian subjects" assertion is incorrect.  BCE/CE is neutral, academically preferred terminology.  The MOS states that dating systems should not be changed unless there is a valid reason for doing so – and there is. Groupthink (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ad hominem argument regarding my user name has no baring on the merits of the argumement as to which style is appropriate.  I never said "BCE/CE is appropriate except when discussing Christian subjects".  Rather I was objecting to the edit summary for an edit changing to the BCE/CE style which claimed (incorrectly) that such style was appropriate for all non-Christian subjects.  Your ad hominem and other spurious arguments aside, this article per the manual of style should have remained with its original style.  I am reverting to that original style.  Please do not change it without a valid reason for doing so.Mamalujo (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than beating the "MOS original style" assertion to death (which as I have already pointed out is invalid) you have brushed aside my perfectly valid arguments as "spurious" and "incorrect" without offering any constructive counter-points of your own.  I will not butt heads with you any longer but will call for a third opinion instead. Groupthink (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've also requested temporary full page protection. Groupthink (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No one is saying that, you're missing the point. A 2nd century Jew wouldn't have used AD/BC or CE/BCE but we have to provide dates that can easily be understood. Wikipedia is agnostic as to which is used. Nothing to do with the sources as no one is claiming anything about how the dates were written in the sources. dougweller (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, but the rules at the top say 'No original research' and 'verifiable'. Thus it is wrong to do this by adding things to what the sources actually say. For example, I would quote Julius Caesar as saying "Veni vidi vici which in English is I came, I saw, I conquered" rather then quoting him as speaking English. Also it would be necessary to prove who translated it as there is to be no original research. Wikipedia does not have to conform to petty religious arguments. Nibblet (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Try observing the policy, WP:ERA, which is clear enough. Your observation is completely wrong in my experience - the great majority of articles on European prehistory and pre-Christian ancient history for example use BC (as does eg the British Museum). Many East Asian and Jewish subjects don't. The policy accepts no principle of "relevance". It is first come first served unless there has been an agreement on the talk page, which there has not been here.  But articles should always be consistent. It is clear from the above that BC has been the established style here. If you want to change that you should start a new discussion at the bottom. I have no strong views personally. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When I worked on this article back in 2007, the era notation was BCE/CE, so per WP:ERA we need to revert to that, as that was the original notation. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you ever check anything before pronouncing? oldest edits. The article was still mixed at your last edit. Note your policy-breaking edit summary just before: "Christian dating should use BC, other dating should use BCE", which has rightly never been policy. Stop spouting bullshit, & launch a proposal here now.  Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Firstly, the nature and wording of your comments are rather unfortunate; I know that civility is honored more in the breach than in the main, but there is absolutely no call for you to talk the way you are. If you cannot have a civil conversation, and discuss an issue on its merits, without resorting to obscenity, that does not bode well for any resolution. Regarding policy, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 84#BC/BCE in articles on religious figures, where there was no disagreement that articles that refer to figures or issues relevant to religions other than CHristianity as well could, if not should, use BCE/CE. I don't remember that changing, so the change to BCE/CE in 2007 was per that discussion, which is what I put in the edit summary. Where has that been overruled? Absent any controverting evidence, this entire article should be BCE/CE then. -- Avi (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I'm not going to go into your behaviour except to say it has been such that this cut no ice at all with me. WP:ERA has been here since forever and is perfectly clear. I've no idea what your redlink might say. This is all beside the point as Schreiberbike has opened the discussion you should have done below. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I can read it. You are joking, aren't you?  That's not policy, or consensus on anything. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Nope. There was no argument to the point raised there, edits were made to a number of articles based on that discussion, and no one raised an argument. Consensus arises when discussions are had and resolutions are agreed upon; they do not require system-wide RfCs every time. -- Avi (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy requires being in a guideline. WP:ERA has been the way it has forever precisely to avoid people like you making arguments about relevance. I can assure you there have been literally thousands of little conversations with a lot more participants than that one that have confirmed the rejection of "relevance" as a factor that can be just asserted.  It is a perfectly good personal preference but needs to be confirmed by consensus on the talk page.   Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring over BC/BCE 

message: From what I have observed over the past 5 or so years, BCE/CE has almost always been preferred for articles which are not Christianity-specific. There are sections of this article which are not Christianity specific; forcing AD/BC is inappropriate. On the other hand, having the Christianity-specific sections go one way, and the rest of the article the other, may look strange. -- Avi (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Try observing the policy, WP:ERA, which is clear enough. Your observation is completely wrong in my experience - the great majority of articles on European prehistory and pre-Christian ancient history for example use BC (as does eg the British Museum). Many East Asian and Jewish subjects don't. The policy accepts no principle of "relevance". It is first come first served unless there has been an agreement on the talk page, which there has not been here.  But articles should always be consistent. It is clear from the above that BC has been the established style here. If you want to change that you should start a new discussion at the bottom. I have no strong views personally. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When I worked on this article back in 2007, the era notation was BCE/CE, so per WP:ERA we need to revert to that, as that was the original notation. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you ever check anything before pronouncing? oldest edits. The article was still mixed at your last edit. Note your policy-breaking edit summary just before: "Christian dating should use BC, other dating should use BCE", which has rightly never been policy. Stop spouting bullshit, & launch a proposal here now.  Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Firstly, the nature and wording of your comments are rather unfortunate; I know that civility is honored more in the breach than in the main, but there is absolutely no call for you to talk the way you are. If you cannot have a civil conversation, and discuss an issue on its merits, without resorting to obscenity, that does not bode well for any resolution. Regarding policy, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 84#BC/BCE in articles on religious figures, where there was no disagreement that articles that refer to figures or issues relevant to religions other than CHristianity as well could, if not should, use BCE/CE. I don't remember that changing, so the change to BCE/CE in 2007 was per that discussion, which is what I put in the edit summary. Where has that been overruled? Absent any controverting evidence, this entire article should be BCE/CE then. -- Avi (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I'm not going to go into your behaviour except to say it has been such that this cut no ice at all with me. WP:ERA has been here since forever and is perfectly clear. I've no idea what your redlink might say. This is all beside the point as Schreiberbike has opened the discussion you should have done below. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I can read it. You are joking, aren't you?  That's not policy, or consensus on anything. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Nope. There was no argument to the point raised there, edits were made to a number of articles based on that discussion, and no one raised an argument. Consensus arises when discussions are had and resolutions are agreed upon; they do not require system-wide RfCs every time. -- Avi (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy requires being in a guideline. WP:ERA has been the way it has forever precisely to avoid people like you making arguments about relevance. I can assure you there have been literally thousands of little conversations with a lot more participants than that one that have confirmed the rejection of "relevance" as a factor that can be just asserted.  It is a perfectly good personal preference but needs to be confirmed by consensus on the talk page.   Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: revived 2013

message: For what it's worth, I came across a reference to "year of the world" in the inscription on the Agas map of London c1560 where it says "this ancient and famous city of london was first founded ... in the year of the world [2832], and before the nativity of our saviour christ [1130]." This makes the creation date 3962 BC, which is one hundred years adrift of Bede. It makes me wonder whether that was a one-off bit of dodgy arithmetic by a sixteenth century map maker, or a more systematic difference that was prevalent at that time. (http://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/section.php?id=D2) 87.115.3.0 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In 725 Bede placed Creation in 3952 BC, only ten years after 3962 BC. In 1583 Scaliger, the father of modern chronology, dated Creation to 3949 BC. In 1650, Ussher dated Creation to 4004 BC. All are reasonably close to each other and to other Creation dates of the period, at least those from Western Europe which used a Christian interpretation of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Eastern European writers used the Septuagint so placed Creation about 1500 years earlier, near 5500 BC.— Joe Kress (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3962 BCE 

message: Hi, I'm new here, but what I'm trying to point out is that Judiasm now uses CE to refer to years Anno Mundi. And that to Judiasm, C.E. is not the same as A.D. Stilkind (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting your edit because most Jewish history written in English uses CE = AD and BCE = BC. See for example  and . Furthermore, on this talk page you categorically state that CE = AM and CE ≠ AD. But in the article you only say "Many Jews also substitute the term CE (common era) to refer to the Anno Mundi timeframe." implying that other Jews do not. In any case, you must provide a reliable source to support your assertion because it conflicts with all other sources. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE = AM 

message: I read, "Western Christianity never adopted an Anno Mundi epoch system, relying instead on the Anno Domini (AD) epoch system." This is clearly incorrect (depending on one's definition of 'adopted', I suppose), since that dating was of direct relevance to the calculation of the Last Judgment: Bede, for instance, in De Temporum Ratione, recalculates the birth of Jesus at 3952 AM
, "thus postponing the date of the apocalypse over 1200 years to 2048 AD."
::There were lots of calculations by lots of different people, but there was never really one single A.M. system which was considered "official", or widely used for dating ordinary contemporary documents (which had nothing to do with Biblical chronology). AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Certainly it's not all or nothing. Not "official" obviously doesn't mean it was not important, since it was. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was important for those concerned with Biblical chronology, or in deriving prophecies therefrom, and sometimes monastic choniclers piled on a lot of chronologies to make redundantly certain that dating systems were properly synchronized.  However, an ordinary property deed or letter or royal decree would be unlikely to use an A.M. date, indicating that none of the various A.M. schemes was really in common use as a calendar epoch... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree--but I note that while true, your statement and the claim in the article is verified. I'm going to add my note, as a caveat to the general remark--which really needs a CN tag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman tradition 

message: As recent edits have had frequent changes regarding era style, a discussion on which era style is most appropriate for this article seems appropriate. Choices:
#BC/AD
#BCE/CE
#WP:IGNORE and use BC/AD notation in the sections relating to Christianity and BCE/CE notation in the remainder. 
Thoughts? SchreiberBike (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference to CE is flat-out wrong.  It's not relevant here.  StevenJ81 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense reason, but valid preference. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: As noted above, the discussion linked to was used and referenced other places (see Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 1#Dating should use the neutral scholarly BCE/CE..., and unless shown otherwise, is indicative of consensus on Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is indicative of people following the long-established WP:ERA guideline and discussing the individual article at its talk page as we are now doing, although you refused to set up such a discussion when I twice suggested it.  It proves the opposite of what you are saying. The validity of the little chat between you & Tony as any sort of precedent was explicitly rejected in the 2nd discussion. I can't be bothered to hunt them down, but there have been numerous attempts to add wording like that to WP:ERA, all of which have been rejected.  Well here's one somewhat relevant one.  Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: *Notice has been posted at WT:X, WT:JEW, and WT:WikiProject Time regarding this discussion. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: *:Thanks, Schreiber. -- Avi (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * #3 is flat against WP:ERA and not sustainable. It would be a nightmare if every article on say the Roman Empire started using a different system part way through. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Alas! that is true.  But I'd rather break that rule than have a whole war over it here.  Truthfully, BC/AD is more common, BCE/CE is more scholarly, more neutral, and is generally inoffensive.  So my vote is then for #2.  StevenJ81 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. The only "war" here is over whether we should follow clear and well-established MOS policy (by having this discussion), or not. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm all for discussion.  I don't have your editing experience, but my own record is clear enough on those matters. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  I don't follow you.  StevenJ81 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't like the cultural imperialism that results, but I think the weight of logic goes in favor of BC/AD. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Just saw this. Disappointing that there was no room for compromise and that the discussion was curtailed with the assumption that the original state of the article would always have preference. Since the Jewish literature has a large part in this article, that should be taken into account. Bever (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Ditto. I found it jarring that an article dealing mostly with Judaica uses "before Christ"/"anno Domini" which is really offensive to many. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of era style 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anno Mundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715093926/http://www.wra1th.plus.com/byzcong/comms/Kuzenkov_paper.pdf to http://www.wra1th.plus.com/byzcong/comms/Kuzenkov_paper.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the heading "Jewish tradition", it is written that "By his [Rabbi Jose ben Halafta's] calculation, based on the Masoretic Text, Adam and Eve were created on 1st of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah Day 1) in 3761 BCE, later confirmed by the Muslim chronologist al-Biruni as 3448 years before the Seleucid era. [references omitted by me in this citation]". However, the year is wrong; instead of "3761 BCE" it should read "3760 BCE". It is true that the traditional rabbinical "Anno Mundi" epoch is equal to the 1st of Tishrei in "3761 BCE", but this is NOT the traditional rabbinical date of Creation. Instead, most of the traditional rabbinical year A.M. 1 passed BEFORE Creation, which is traditionally dated to the 25th of Elul A.M. 1, with Adam and Eve created on the sixth day of the Creation Week, the 1st of Tishrei A.M. 2, which is (nominally, i.e. at noon) equal to "the 26th of September 3760 BCE" (proleptic Julian calendar). This is also confirmed by al-Biruni, whose interval between the Seleucid era (the Macedonian version, with its epoch in the autumn of "312 BCE") and the Jewish is given as "3448 years"; and 3448 years before the autumn of "312 BCE" gives the autumn of "3760 BCE" (and not "3761 BCE"). For a good, scholarly reference on the Internet, see e.g. http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/hebrew.php, where the following information is given: "Years are counted since the creation of the world, which is assumed to have taken place in the autumn of 3760 BCE. In that year, after less than a week belonging to AM 1, AM 2 started (AM = Anno Mundi = year of the world). In other words, AM 2 started less than a week after the 'creation of the world'.". /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Adam and Eve in Jewish tradition 

message: What's with the backwards writing in the lede? It's hard to read, and no reasons is given (that I could see in the article) for using it. It's been that way for years, too. Noel (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the Hebrew words which translate as "to the creation of the world"? I don't read Hebrew, so I used Google Translate. It gave the correct translation. You know that Hebrew is read from right to left, right?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backward writing in lede 

message: The usage of calendar era in the article is currently mixed, so we need to choose one and go with it. Editor2020 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERA 

message: Hi, can some-one explain the following:
:The [=Theophilus's] chronology puts the creation of the world at about 5529 BC: "All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5,698 years." Seraphim Rose corrected the date to about 5530 BC, to recognise that there is no year 0 in Christian era dating.
The Christian era dating had not yet been invented in Theophilus's time, so how could he make an error with it? Bever (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange correction regarding year 0 

message: On mobile view, the lead is jumbled around. I’d fix this myself, but I’m not sure what’s going on with it. Can anyone confirm that this isn’t just a problem with my phone? And if so, what’s the fix? Student298 (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile page bug 

message: The Jewish text refers to that Christian holidays starts at midnight, but that is not the case in Lutheran churches like in Sweden, starts 18.00 Saturday and finish 18.00 on Sunday. 
Holiday prayers or holiday ringing are held in certain parts of Christianity, where the churches have bells, including the Church of Sweden, as an introduction to the weekend.
The church bells usually ring at 18.00 on Saturdays and rings out on Sunday at 18.00. The reason why the weekend is called in the evening before the holiday is that the day of the Bible actually begins with the evening in accordance with the first chapter of Genesis: "And there was evening and there was morning the first day". In connection with the ringing, a devotional called "weekend prayer" is sometimes held.
This is the reason X-mas eve is the great moment in families and is celebrated the evening of the 24th of December, X-mas is started, Santa (Tomten) is coming. In the morning of the 25th there is the Church celebration, when everybody vist the church. Same procedure is taking place every weekend but in lesser scale, Saturday nights are always the private party time. Previously Saturdays were half work day. 
--Zzalpha (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran holidays starts Saturday 18.00 and ends Sunday 18.00 

message: I reverted a good faith contribution by an IP editor concerning the use of AM by Scottish Rite freemasonry. This article is about AM, not about uses of it. I have added a line to the See Also section as it is marginally relevant. 
The contributor may wish to add the information to the Scottish Rite article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Rite