Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gerry Ashton (talk | contribs) at 05:30, 30 October 2007 (Index 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOTE: This is not a page for discussing CE/BCE; it's a page for discussion about Misplaced Pages's NPOV article on it, so discussions about whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea are not on-topic. For information about dating styles on Misplaced Pages, please read the Manual of Style first, and then go to Misplaced Pages:Eras for further info on the Misplaced Pages-wide debate on this subject.

Archives

Earlier material for this talk page can be found at:

• Archive 1: 2002-2003
• Archive 2: 2004
• Archive 3: Jan-Jun 2005
• Archive 4: Jun-Dec 2005
• Archive 5: Jan-Jun 2006
• Archive 6: Jul-Dec 2006

Abbreviation

A user from the IP address 88.110.58.57 recently made an edit that described A.D. and B.C. as abbreviations, and AD & BC as something else derived from those abbreviations. I disagree and have reverted. I belive A.D., B.C., AD, and BC are all abbreviations, and it is just a matter of style which is used. To support this position, I point out this passage from the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., p. 460, §14.2:

It is often an open question whether or not periods should be used with particular abbreviations. The trend now is strongly away from the use of periods with all kinds of abbreviations that have carried them in the past....It is simple enough for user of this manual to omit periods if that is the style they wish to adopt.

--Gerry Ashton 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Distraction from (better?) astronomical system

The recent edit by Special:Contributions/Hilesd(re distraction) attributes History Today - June 1999

Here is the list of articles from their site: from http://www.historytoday.com/dt_product.asp?gid=21344&aid=&tgid=&amid=&g21344=x&g21025=x&g21012=x&g19965=x&g19963=x

• The War Games of Central Italy
• Islamic Crossroads
• Jacqueline Guy
• First Europeans in Australia
• Saving the Last Destroyer
• Death of Countess of Blessington
• Publication of 1984
• First Performance of Elgar's 'Enigma Variations'
• When Farmers Grumble
• The Dutch, the Germans and the Jews
• Menage a Roi: Edward II and Piers Gaveston
• When the Boycott Began to Bite
• Bonaparte at Toulon The Right Man in the Right Place
• The Boer War and its Humanitarian Critics
• Drawn to the Ancient World

Which did Darian Hiles (apparently the same person & editor of much recent unsourced arguments diff) write & which is about dating systems - or was it a letter to the editor?--JimWae 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC) There's no "Of Dates and Decimals" article in 1999 at all --JimWae 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a letter, which I've now indicated in Edit page. However it hasn't appeared in the main entry page! Hilesd

Letters to the editor have come up in discussions in the talk page for Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources, and the concensus was that letters to the editor are not usually reliable sources, because publications usually do not have the same editorial safeguards for letters as for articles. I think there could be case-by-case exceptions. For example, if a letter was sent to comment about an article, and the author of the article responded, and agreed with the letter, I would consider the letter reliable. Is there any evidence that History Today took greater pains to make sure this letter is reliable than most publications usually take with letters? --Gerry Ashton 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. Yes, History Today placed the letter as an answer by a professional historian to a question by another writer about the start of the millennium. Although it was a letter and not an article, it presented new material and subsequent discussions indicated that it was a significant revelation to people who considered themselves experts in the field and that it influenced attitudes towards the timing of the celebrations.Hilesd 02:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

English language national variants?

There have been a few edits recently which changed back and forth between US and UK spelling. Either is fine with me, but the article should be consistent throughout (except for quotes, of course). When the subject of an article is not obviously linked to one English-speaking nation, the usual Misplaced Pages convention is to follow the choice of the first editor. The earliest version of this article uses the word civilization, which I believe is considered a US spelling variant, so I believe this article should use US spelling. Are there any counter-arguments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that it should be consistent. The spelling of civilization is not solely a US spelling - the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as the main spelling, with civilisation as a variant. That said, the OED is regarded by many as idiosyncratic with its use of -ize and -ization endings. I would be happier if a less ambiguous precedent were found, along the lines of favor or color. WLD 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with either UK or US spelling, but I do believe the correct use of a comma on both sides of the Atlantic is to place it within the inverted commas.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the earliest version that is unambiguous in its use of US spellings is this one, with 'favor' in the last line. The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style guidelines state that the comma should be placed outside the inverted commas, unless part of the quotation itself. "When punctuating quoted passages, Misplaced Pages strongly prefers to put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). This is commonplace outside the U.S." See WP:MOS#Quotation_marks. WLD 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected (although I'm going to have to work really hard to stop doing it the way my mother, the English teacher, taught me...

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions*

Did your mother also teach you to close parentheses? <grin> WLD 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not as well as she taught me to put punctuation inside the quotation marks.

I'm going to leave my blunder in place, partly so you don't appear clueless and partly as an object lesson in humility for me.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment on this, as I appear to be the first editor. (But I'm not really the first editor - my edit summary shows that I was just fixing a typo. The Misplaced Pages software that was used until January 2002 didn't permanently retain old versions, so old edit histories are often incomplete.) The spelling civilization is both British and American, though civilisation is an alternative in British English. Putting punctuation in quotes when it isn't part of what is being quoted is a peculiarity of American English, and is best avoided in Misplaced Pages. Who cares whether the article uses British spellings or American spellings? --Zundark 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The choice of variety of English to be used in articles is important to enough people for there to be a guideline in the Manual of Style for it here: Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English and here: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (national varieties of English); a brief guide to spelling here: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (spelling); and documentation of the differences between American and (mostly) British usages here:American and British English differences, here:List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, here:List of words having different meanings in British and American English, here:List of British words not widely used in the United States and here:American and British English spelling differences. Overall, I think it would be best if editors did their best to use culturally neutral spelling in articles where it becomes an issue. I would generally expect an article on Pearl Harbor to be written using American English usage, and Dunkirk using British English usage, but an article on say, oceanography, to be neither overtly one nor the other. I would certainly expect confusing usages to be avoided - such as the use of alternate (Am.), which has a quite different meaning to alternative when used in British English. WLD 13:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New argument in the Opposition secton

The following argument was introduced into the Opposition section:

• Changing the original BC/AD notations in favor of neutrality would suggest that other religious terms like "Wednesday", named for the god Woden, should all have their own euphemisms. To do this for every word and phrase with religious or sectarian connotations would be very time consuming and pointless, as almost every word has an originally religious or sectarian meaning.

I have moved it here until such time as a source is provided for this argument. The argument seems reasonable to me, but neither the opinion of the editor who introduced this, nor my opinion, is a valid reason to include it in Misplaced Pages. --Gerry Ashton 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon scouring the history of this page, I discovered that there was actually a similarly worded argument in place around December 2006, and it was somehow removed unnoticed. It had a (shared) source, and upon visiting the source it clearly mentions the "Weekday names argument". I've put that argument back in, so the one above need not be added. Thank you.— OLP1999 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation for Christian Era

A recent series of edits contend that Christian Era is abbreviated CE. I do not believe this. When I look up "C.E." in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., I find that "C.E." is an abbreviation for chemical engineer, civil engineer, and Common Era. "Christian Era" is not mentioned. Note that I don't dispute the existence of the term "Christian Era", only the abbreviation. --Gerry Ashton 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, Google's 844,000 hits for "Christian era almost double the 450,000 hits for "Common era", thus at least suggesting equal due weight for the "Christian era" term. The American Heritage Dictionary does not represent everyone. Merriam-Webster has an article for "Christian era", but its article for "Common era" simply suggests that it is a synonym to "Christian era". Many other online dictionary/reference articles note that the abbreviations CE/BCE do indeed stand for "(Before) Christian era", , , .

Although even by my observations "Common era" does seem to be more popularly noted publicly, the Google and Merriam-Webster sources for "Christian era" suggests at least equal notability for both terms, and I'd like to see some sources of yours that may suggest "Common era" deserves higher recognition than "Christian era". Finally, as for "Current era", it has less hits than both so perhaps should not be included if my edits are restored— OLP1999 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't take any position about whether "Common era" or "Christian era" is more popular. I contend that the abbreviation for "Common era" is "CE" and the abbrevation for "Christian era" is "AD". I believe this is a simple case of an English phrase being abbreviated according to the corresponding phrase in a foreign language, just like International System of Units is abbreviated "SI" or International Organization for Standardization is abbreviated "ISO".

Also, some people consider editing articles on the basis of Google hits to be original research, just as editing on the basis of an opinion poll you conducted yourself would be original research.

When I viewed the references in your talk page remark, I found in every case a definition for "Christian Era", not a definition for "CE". --Gerry Ashton 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand here. Where are your sources for why the term "Common era" is used moreover than "Christian era" for the abbreviations CE/BCE? All you provide is your personal POV. I didn't only provide the Google searches as sources, I mentioned Merriam-Webster as well which only acknowledges "Common era" as a synonym for "Christian era" (and since "Common era" is connotated with the abbreviation "CE", I assume Merriam-Webster sees "Christian era" as "CE"). Please provide me sources (or point to any that are already in the article) that would at least suggest CE/BCE never stand for "Christian era" as much as "Common era". Your simple opinion that "Christian era" is AD and "Common era" is CE is insufficient. After all, AD is only ever used as reference to years specifically, not as the entire era itself, thus redirecting "Christian era" to anno Domini is not appropriate— OLP1999 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat from my first comment: "when I look up "C.E." in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., I find that "C.E." is an abbreviation for chemical engineer, civil engineer, and Common Era. "Christian Era" is not mentioned." I looked up C.E. in the dictionary, not Christian Era. As for my personal belief that "Christian Era" is abbreviated "A.D.", I have found a source: the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus (American edition, 1997) contains this entry: "A.D. abbr. (of a date) of the Christian era (Latin Anno Domini, 'in the year of the Lord')." When I looked up "CE" in the same dictionary, I only found that Ce is a symbol for the element cerium. --Gerry Ashton 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page to indicate that while CE is an abbreviation for Common Era, the abreviation for Christian Era is AD. If there is a reliable source to indicate otherwise, I'd be delighted to see it. --Gerry Ashton 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese term for "Common Era" (公元)

The following is an explanation for some edits made to the text about the Chinese term for "Common Era".

The Chinese term for "Common Era" is "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán). To properly understand the term and its formation, one has to understand that most Chinese characters are ambiguous and represent more than one (relatively) simple concept. Chinese terms representing more complex concepts are often formed by combining multiple characters representing relevant simpler concepts. However, terms formed this way generally cannot be understood correctly just by arbitrarily combining the literal meanings of the constituent characters. This is because the constituent characters are generally ambiguous, and the etymology of a term is most often based on only one of the several senses of the constituent characters. Another reason is that sometimes one or more of the constituent characters are chosen not for their literal meanings, but for their figurative meanings. Further, it is common in Chinese for terms to be formed by combining characters taken from two or more existing multi-character terms.

In the case of "公元", "公" in Chinese has (among others) the meaning of "common" (in the sense of "shared"). In the Chinese term 公共 ("public") 公 is used in this sense. The Chinese character "元" in "公元" mostly likely come from (and is almost certainly related to) the Chinese term "紀元" ("era").

In some revisions of the article, the used of "公" as a common prefix in some Chinese translations of metric unit names was given to justified a literal translation of "metric era" for "公元". This is erroneous. The use of "公" in Chinese metric names came from the "公制", an informal name for the International System of Units (SI). "公制" in turn is an abbreviation of "万国公制" (old Chinese translation for SI; somewhat literally: "international common system" or "universal common system", or very literally: "ten-thousand-nation common system"). The prefix "公" is used to distinguish Chinese metric units from older units sharing the same base names. "公" in "公元" is unrelated to this "万国公制"→"公制"→"公" derivation).

As an aside, one should be very careful when consulting Chinese character dictionaries that provide definitions in English—a lot can be lost in translation. --71.175.22.69 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you've said more clearly (and elegantly) what I was trying to put across. The key point is that translating "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán) purely as 'Common era' is not correct - as you correctly point out, there are shades of meaning, and although 'common era' is one translation of that particular set of combined characters, it is by no means the only correct translation. Perusing multiple on-line and print dictionaries translates that set of characters variously as "A.D.", "Christian Era", and "Common Era" among other possibilities. As such, I do not think that the Chinese term is a confirming instance of 'common era' usage and it should not be used as such in the article. I linked to the on-line dictionary purely because few Misplaced Pages readers will have easy access to print dictionaries. If you disagree, please indicate why you think 'common era' is the only correct translation. Regards, WLD 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán) is not an example of 'common era' usage and it should not be in the article. Gongyuan can be translated to English as "AD" just as much as it can be translated as "Common Era". LDHan 10:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"公元" is an example of "Common Era" in a language other than English. Although it may be translated as "AD" (and I can believe that such translation is quite common), it is only because "AD" is the more common English equivalent that refers to the same thing—it is not a literal translation. However, in terms of the literal meaning, "common era" is the best literal translation based on the word formation. --71.175.22.69 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(In response to comment of WLD made 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC):) "Common era" is a correct and, in my opinion, the best literal translation of "公元" based on word formation. I have looked up a few online Chinese character dictionaries before, and have found them severely lacking. One problem is that the different senses of a character is used in different (groups of) terms and phrases, and those dictionaries don't distinguish between them and, perhaps unintentionally, suggest that the characters can be interpreted in different senses regardless of the words (in a sense, context) in which they occur. Print Chinese character dictionaries in Chinese generally illustrates the different senses with classical and modern example words in which the characters are used, and are often better for that reason. Note that the different meanings of a characters are very often more than just shades of meaning—they can be totally unrelated meanings attached to the same symbol. In the case of "公" in "公元", "common" is the only meaning of the character that makes sense in the context and the likely original from which the term was translated. For some corroboration of my explanation, I refer you to this online English-Chinese dictionary . (BTW, I'm not endorsing the the dictionary, I'm merely using it as an example). Look up "common era" and you'll get Chinese translations of the two indivdual words. You'll see that some Chinese translations of "common" do begin with "公" and the first translation of "era" is "紀元". This is my opinion as someone who can read, write and speak Chinese and who can read classical Chinese (with a little help from a dictionary). --71.175.22.69 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be in violent agreement here. Yes, "Common era" is a correct translation. Yes, context is important. Yes, meaning can differ by more than just shades. Your opinion is that it is the best literal translation - but Misplaced Pages runs on verifiability, not opinion or truth, and it is actually not relevant, even if you can provide copper-bottomed citations of its being the best literal translation, as common era is not the only translation of those characters. As such, it cannot be a confirming instance of the use of Common Era in the English language, so as an example, it does not belong in the article. Now, the point that whoever it was who introduced the Chinese example into the article was trying to make may well be that the Chinese words that describe the calendar that starts at 0001-01-01 do not include references to concepts that translate into 'our Lord' - but that is not what was said, and I don't believe pointing this out adds to the article in any case. It's a pretty subtle point. Other editors will (obviously) have differing opinions here. WLD 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Oxford/Commercial Press English-Chinese English- Chinese dictionary, which is almost the standard used by English speaking learners of Chinese, "A.D." is translated as "公元" (gōngyuán), and "公元" (gōngyuán) is translated as "A.D. ; Christian era" (note lower case e). Gōngyuán is not an example of 'Common Era' usage in a non-English language precisely because gōngyuán can also be translated as "AD". The point about "Common Era" usage is that it is an alternative to "AD". Whether or not "common era" is the best literal translation of gōngyuán is beside the point, actual translations must be used when you are attaching equivalent meanings to and usage of words in different languages. And as already mentioned, wikipedia is based on verifiability, not on original research. LDHan 16:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford/Commercial Press English-Chinese English-Chinese dictionary is hardly the authority for resolving the current issue: whether "公元" should be considered the Chinese equivalent of "Common Era". Translating dictionaries in general do not attempt to provide a comprehensive of list of equivalent terms in the destination language—usually they provide one or a few approximate destination-language equivalents of a word in the source language. Another common problem with translating dictionaries is that they often do a poor job in explaining the differences in the connotations and usages of the different "equivalents". My point is, relying on a dictionary like the one you cited is problematic. Going back to our question here, one issue that we have not discussed is what should be the criterion of equivalence in the current context. I think we can agree that "公元" and "AD" and "CE" have the same extension, i.e. they are different labels referring to the same thing. If having the same extension is the criterion of equivalence, all three terms should be considered equivalent. It would be wrong to deny that "公元" is the Chinese equivalent of "Common Era". However, given that there is a controversy over the usage of "CE" vs "AD" because of the semantic structures of these labels, I submit that extensional equivalence is not the relevant criterion. If the intensions of these terms, based on their semantic structures, are what really matter, then "公元" and "AD" are not equivalent—anno domini makes reference to "(the) lord", but "公元" doesn't. On the other hand, "公元" and "Common Era" are equivalent—they both represent a composition of the concepts of "common" and "era". The fact that "公元" is not the equivalent of anno domini is further evidenced by the fact that some Chinese Christians use the term "主歷" (literally "(the) Lord's calendar") as the Chinese designation for anno domini. If there were no semantic difference between "公元" and anno domini in the eyes of a Chinese speaker, there would have been no reason to create the word "主歷". --71.175.22.69 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of new information. <grin> By the way - did you mean 'intentions' rather than 'intensions' above? If you can cite good references for your statement above "some Chinese Christians use the term "主歷" (literally "(the) Lord's calendar") as the Chinese designation for anno domini", then this probably should be in the article - that is, that the meaning/semantic content of "公元" is "common era" and the meaning/semantic content of "主歷" is "Lord's calendar" - but it all needs to be properly referenced, no matter how good your own individual qualifications and knowledge are. If you have the luxury of citing your own work, so much the better. Without citations, assertions can be summarily deleted by any editor of Misplaced Pages - the fact that they usually are not does not make it good practice. Regards, WLD 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Intension" was not a typo—I did mean to use the term. (See Intension) "主歷" is indeed a term that some Chinese Christians used as the Chinese designation for anno domini. However, the term is only used in certain contexts. The term is typically used in more formal writings or speech in which a writer or speaker would otherwise use "AD", "anno domini", or "in the year of the Lord", and when the audience is also Christian. Some examples of such writings and speech are: sermons, writings and speeches about church history or the history of Christianity, formal announcements, and obituaries. A Google search on the term returns about 6800 hits, a fraction of which is spurious. I don't know when the Chinese term was first used. --71.175.22.69 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think AD and anno domini needs to be distinguished, they are not the same nor are they equivalent. LDHan 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How not? "AD" is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini."

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)LDHan, do you mean AD and anno Domini should be distinguished in the context of translating to or from Chinese, or do you mean they should be distinguished in general. If you mean distinguished in general, please start a new heading, because people who don't speak or read Chinese may not be reading this heading. --Gerry Ashton 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the above discussion with interest. 71.175.22.69 states: "The Chinese term for "Common Era" is "公元" (pinyin: gōngyuán)." He then supports this statement in detail, and, to the satisfaction of others questioning this. This is not the first time that we have had this debate on this page. Both times, the case was strongly made that the Chinese use the term "Common Era." I was therefore surprised to find that the statement affirming this had been removed from the article. I will re-insert it now. Sunray 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunray just inserted "The Chinese term for "Common Era" is "公元" into the article, including the quotation marks. However, no source is given for this quotation. Every quotation should have an inline citation. (I do not read Chinese and have no idea if the statement is true or not.) --Gerry Ashton 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, silly of me. I forgot to remove the quotes. They are gone now. Sunray 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Correct Meaning of CE

Whether CE is used to represent Christian Era, or whether CE refers to a time based on Jesus' birth is incredibly irrelevant. CE - as referenced in both an American and the major British Dictionary (see: http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=C.E.&ia=ahd4 and http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ce?view=uk) shows that CE is MEANT to represent Common Era. Not Current Era, not Christian Era.

However, I don't know how to properly reference this on the front page - I think the first sentence should read:

"The Common era, also (but incorrectly) known as the Christian era or the Current era."

Christian Era is a false etymology - there is certainly no good reason to come up with CE if it were only to replace AD and BC as they were - still religious.

If someone could change with evidence on my behalf, it would be most appreciated.

Katiejayn 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between the name Common era and the abbreviation CE. It's true that CE is the abbreviation for Common era; I have no source saying it is an abbreviation for any other era-related phrase. It is indeed incorrect to say that CE is an abbreviation for Christian era; there is a source already in the article that says the abbreviation for Christian era is AD.

However, we could say that the Common era is also known as the Current era and Christian era, because all these names refer to the era that numbers the year of the first moon landing as 1969.

I feel the first paragraph is overly complex, and I propose to replace it with the text that is currently in my User:Gerry Ashton/sandbox. I don't want to post it here because of the mess that would result from trying to put footnotes on a talk page. --Gerry Ashton 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary lists both "Christian Era" and "Common Era" as the expansion for CE. Misplaced Pages's article on Common Era itself quotes the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia article "General Chronology", which states that the terms "Christian Era", "Vulgar Era", and "Common Era" were in use (at the time the encyclopedia was published). I could not find evidence to answer definitively the question whether "CE" was originally specifically created as an abbreviation for "Common Era" and not "Christian Era". To confuse the issue further, Wiktionary's entry on "Christian Era" describes the term as a backronym for "Common Era". However, I don't consider that information authoritative because the same entry cites Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), whose entry on "Christian Era" dates the term back to 1650–1660. I have yet to find a reference, authoritative or otherwise, that dates "Common Era" to that far back. So, at this point, I would hesitate to call it incorrect to say that "CE" also stands for "Christian Era".

"AD" is not an abbreviation for "Christian Era"—not in the true sense of the word "abbreviation". In terms of usage, "Christian Era" refers to a period of time that begins with a particular year. "AD", on the other hand, is used as a designation for a system of reckoning, when a year number is used. "AD" is not used in other contexts to refer to an era (i.e. a period). --71.175.22.69 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a situation where the abbreviation chosen would depend on context. If one wished to abbreviate "2007 of the Christian Era" one would probably write "2007 AD". In a case like the phrase "the initial date for the Christian Era was estimated by Dionysius Exiguus", I've never seen an abbreviation used; I don't know what, if any, abbreviation would be appropriate. --Gerry Ashton 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But... what the article doesn't say is why it's "common" Is before year 1 "uncommon"? What is significant that we started at 1 only 2007 years ago rather than some time earlier? I cannot think of anything significant. --Zhulien 13:49, 8 August 2007 (GMT+10)

I cannot find any source that explains just what it is about the Common Era that is actually common. My own interpretation is that the era is commonly understood by people throughout the world, at least those people who participate in international communications. --Gerry Ashton 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• My interperetation is that it is a shared way of ascertaining the date - a calendar that people have "in common". I know others think of other meanings of "common", but this is at least one meaning that makes sense --JimWae 07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there are more 'BCE' years than 'CE' years, I propose that we switch them around, as clearly the years before the birth of Jesus are much more common. 4.231.131.39 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Common Era"

"Common Era" is a proper noun, it does not refer to just any era that fits the description of being "common"—it is a label for a particular era with a particular beginning year. As such, the term should be capitalized. Most (but not all) occurrences of "Common Era" in the article should be capitalized according to stylistic conventions in English. However, many of them are not capitalized. Unless someone comes up with a convincing counterargument, I plan to correct the inconsistent capitalizations to bring the article in line with normal stylistic conventions in that regard. --71.175.22.69 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Literal meaning of "anno domini"

This explains the rationale behind a recent change to the literal translation of "anno domini", which was overwritten by later edits by JimWae shortly after.

I changed the "anno Domini" to "(in the) year of (the) Lord". I put "in the" and the second "the" in parentheses on the basis of them not being in the literal meaning of the original Latin phrase. In his remark on the changes he made, JimWae wrote:

"of" is not there either -- Latin uses declensions for prepositions

My rationale for not putting "of" in parentheses is that it is part of the meaning of domini, although not written as a separate word.

I invite other contributors to share their thoughts on my use of parentheses. --71.175.22.69 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the reference for that sentence (Blackburn & Holford-Strevens). Your change is not supported by the reference, so you should have either refrained from making any change, or removed the reference and replaced it with something better. --Gerry Ashton 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not cite that reference. I was correcting a problem with the literal translation. You have a valid point about removing or replacing the reference to preserve consistency. --71.175.22.69 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that we are under no obligation to translate foreign languages literally, and when a certain foreigh phrase is translated into English frequently, the most common translation is probably better than a literal one. --Gerry Ashton 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anno is second declension ablative case - that is where the "in" comes from. Latin does not use articles. Were we to follow your suggestion, AD would mean "year lord" --JimWae 05:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholar's essay

This perspective that "crosses the aisle" may be useful as a possible resource for the article. In it an evangelical seminary scholar suggests that BCE/CE be used in writing for a general audience. --Blainster 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality of sources (BBC, Religious Tolerance)

The article is currently relying rather heavily on this source, which it cites as "BBC". Let's be clear that this essay does not represent BBC policy and was not written by a BBC journalist. In fact, it's from a kind of "Misplaced Pages-lite" section of the BBC and can be edited by anyone. For this reason, it cannot be considered a Reliable Source in the Wikipedian sense. It's not a bad essay, and I've no objection to including it in the External Links section, but we should be looking for higher-quality citations.

You are correct about the provenance of that piece, I should like to object to h2g2 being referred to as 'wikipedia-light'. To quote from the Misplaced Pages entry on h2g2 "h2g2 was founded in April 1999 as the Earth edition of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by the author of the series, Douglas Adams, and his friends and colleagues at The Digital Village. "h2g2" serves as a handy abbreviation for that rather lengthy title, with the advantage that most people are able to spell it.

It is true that listing the "BBC" as the source in the Notes section is quite misleading. One could argue that linking to a Misplaced Pages-like source is almost tantamount to Misplaced Pages linking to ITSELF as a source. Therefore the validity of using this citation is very questionable, IMHO. Regardless, the Notes have been changed so that the source is now cited more correctly as "BBC H2G2 User-generated encyclopaedia" to remove any ambiguity regarding whether a BBC-sanctioned author wrote the article.

The Tolerance is another one that tends to get more cred in these kinds of debates than it really deserves. Just to clarify things, none of the people involved in the site have scholarly credentials in religious studies or other relevant areas - the main author is a retired engineer. It's not a bad web site, by any means, but it shouldn't be treated as if it were a scholarly journal or equivalent - i.e., it's not a Reliable Source. CJGB (Chris) 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Usage section

What is now the second paragraph of the Usage section has just been added by AncientEyes. I have some issues with the new paragraph.

1. The citation to Toynbee is to a 12 volume work; I think it is unreasonable to give a citation to such a large work; specific volumes and pages should be given, or at least specific volumes and chapters.
2. The citation to Toynbee is not properly formatted; the publisher should be given in this article, not in a Wikilinked article.
3. Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources, so the wikilinks to recognition, mind control, and negationism are not references. Unless these portions of the paragraph are supported by Toynbee, they should be removed, or reliable sources should be found.
4. The paragraph uses the weaselwords such as "Many people" and "some". Rather than vague references to some unknown group of people, surveys published in reliable sources should be quoted. --Gerry Ashton 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• It does not belong in the Usage section at all - it is a variation of one of the arguments against already in that section - it merits speedy removal --JimWae 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage

It appears that the effort to include logical references to the opposition to this topic is disallowed on this site. Perhaps this is because of an underlying goal to change this traditional approach to history. The start of the Usage section is as Weasil as anything I wrote. I have thus proven here that the effort is to change a societal norm and replace it with one that is based only on the preferences of a distinct grouping of the populous that has rushed to control the editing of the online encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages.AncientEyes 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)AncientEyes

• You have violated WP:3RR by re-inserting basically the same unattributed material 5x in less than 24 hours. As such, you are subject to being blocked from editing for a periosd of time to be determined by a wiki-admin. The section you keep inserting it in is about usage, whereas what you have inserted is about opposition to its usage - which already has its own section & where a more cogent, less antagonistic (mind-control?), and properly referenced version of your original "contribution" exists --JimWae 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AncientEyes' criticism of the first paragraph in the Usage section. I have provided a reference, and reworded it to only say what can be supported by the source. --Gerry Ashton 06:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the kernel of AncientEyes' main criticism in a single encyclopedic, if unsourced, sentence. I tried to make it sound a bit less speculative. Hope this helps. Yakuman 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Use on Misplaced Pages?

Is there a prefered notation on wikipedia in refernece to years? If so, it should be listed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.192.130 (talk • contribs) 16:19 28 March 2007 UTC (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), both are acceptable. --Gerry Ashton 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be stated strongly is that no-one outside the USA has ever heard of this, I'm sure that most people in the USA do not use this 'system'. Politically correct fads come and go, in the meantime this just confuses everyone else. What seems particularly silly is that it uses the (purported) date of Christ's birth as the dividing line. If the aim is to banish Christian references from dating in order not to offend non-christians, it seems ridiculous to change the name, but leave the numbering the same. Calling it 'common' raises the question 'why is it common? Of course its common because its been used historically to divide history before and after christ.

The Muslim world has its own calendar, as do the Chinese and Japanese and many other cultures, are they expected to ditch them? Of course not, that would NOT be pc. I don't have a single friend who goes to church, but we all think this is sheer nuttiness of the type you you only get from middle class, white hand-wringers. Out with common Era and in with some common sense.

This tosh will never be adopted by the world at large, so lets nip it in the bud now because if this is allowed, every potty sectional group with an axe to grind will render this site completely incomprehensible

I really do worry about the sanity of some people in the academic world in the USA, theyreally need to get out more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs) 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that many people outside of the USA have heard of this. CE/BCE has been used in some British school textbooks for several years. I knew a few teachers who insisted on using it. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. CE/BCE should not be used anywhere in Misplaced Pages. In trying to justify its use editors will make statements like "Jewish articles should not use christian date notation", to which I would say "Why not?". Those with such views are missing the point. An article about a Jewish topic, for example, has not been written to be read particularly by Jewish people. Rather, it has been written for the benefit of ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE, and what do the majority of English speaking people think about this? Most don't have a view on it, but of those that do, the majority are likely to be of a Christian persuasion or background, so why should we - they - put up with this PC nonsense? 86.31.67.157 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement that the majority of English speaking people are are likely to be of a Christian persuasion or background. One of the reasons I don't believe this is because I know Chineese and Indian people who speak English when speaking to people from their own country, but another province or state (I even know a married Chineese couple who speak English to each other because they are from different provinces). Neither India nor China is usually though of as a predominantly Christian country.

Nevertheless, I am not inclined to use CE/BCE because I feel it only disguises the issue; it does not resolve it. --Gerry Ashton 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I really meant people whose mother tongue is English, and at whom the English Misplaced Pages is primarily aimed. The majority of such people are probably from a Christian background. 86.31.67.157 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy which says that we are primarily aimed at people whose mother tongue is English? Nil Einne 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Er - no! There is, as you know, no such policy. You don't need policies to state the obvious, not even at the "over-policied" Misplaced Pages. 82.27.244.67 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, folks, as the big pink banner at the top of this page reminds us all, this talk page is to discuss the article, and not the Misplaced Pages house style. If you want to debate the date format(s) that Misplaced Pages uses, the place is WP:MOSDATE, not here.

Atlant 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term Era Vulgaris

How prevalent is this term in relation to the Common Era? Era Vulgaris redirects here, but does not seem to occupy much importance in this article. Should it redirect instead to Era Vulgaris (album)?–Skomorokh 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speak up or the redirect gets it. Skomorokh 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Era Vulgaris should continue to point to this article. One reason is that a person who comes across the term "Era Vulgaris" in old documents is more likely to need help finding an appropriate article than a person who is interested in the album. Also, I would guess that over a long period of time (say, 50 years) more people will be interested in the era than in the album. --Gerry Ashton 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Common era has 2 names. The album only has one. Also Era Vulgaris is not as widely used a term as Common Era, so I think Era Vulgaris should link to the album, with a link on the album page back to this page.--Richy 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Argument without source

I have moved the following argument here because there is no source provided:

• The use of "common era" suggests that the the "christian era" is a "common one", and thus may be seen to suggest in a subversive way the predominance of a colonial christian worldview

Does anyone know where this argument came from? (One way to discredit this argument is to note that the common era is in fact commonly used throughout the world, whatever the reasons behind the usage might be.) --Gerry Ashton 05:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Christian era

I think my main problem with using the term in the first sentence is that it is mentioned in the second sentence. "Christian era" isn't actually a commonly used term, whereas the Latin version is (or at least AD is). It just strikes me as a bit of POV to equate it with "common era": and yes, I understand we're talking about the same numerical years, but it's a subtle POV push, IMO, especially when it's mentioned in the very next sentence. Freshacconci 14:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the term "Christian era"" is appropriate in the first sentence because some readers will arrive at the article looking for information about the abbreviation "CE", and those readers should be alerted to the possibility that "CE" might be short for "Christian Era" in some contexts. Also, the CE disambiguation page mentions Christian Era, so I think this article should be consistent with that. --Gerry Ashton 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i have personally read many religious citations to CE as Christian Era. that issue alone, IMO warrants acknowledgment of the term first off, to avoid confusion. Some thing 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Freshacconci. The use of CE and BCE merely seems to be the attempt of some people to throw off anything to do with Christianity. When you can interpretate CE to mean anything you want, it doesn't really mean anything at all. This article needs some unbiased editing, it should just give the facts instead of trying to push away the most commonly used "AD" and "BC" as radical Christian marks upon dating methods. I would also be very interested as to some information about why "CE" and "BCE" were invented, who invented them, and why. JazzFrog66 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Christian Era" is actually a far more common term than "Common Era" - dictionaries often define "Common Era" as "see Christian Era", and a quick search on the internet ought to demonstrate that to you. The reverse is true of the abbreviations CE and BCE, with a far larger proportion of those who use the terms interpreting it as "Common Era" than those who interpret it as "Christian Era". I do, however, strongly question reference to the term "Current Era" (see my new thread below). Foula 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

When adding material to this article please restrict your entires to reliable sources, not any website you happen to find discussing the subject. http://studentsfriend.com/feed/topic11.html and http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1290168 do not qualify. Jayjg 02:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

h2g2

I just noticed that a source that is cited 10 times in this article, number 26, is operated by the BBC, but according to a help page, "The Guide is written by visitors to the website - people like you". I suggest that this makes it an unreliable source (like Misplaced Pages) and the statements supported by that source should be reconsidered. --Gerry Ashton 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the points in the Support and Opposition sections that were based on this source. One argument had other sources too, so I left it. I was able to find an alternate source for the accuracy argument. --Gerry Ashton 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"is preferred by some"

Please rewrite. Who prefers this notation? 85.227.226.149 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Same with "Some criticize "Common Era" notation as a euphemism" and "Others criticize". Remove or reference.

As for "is preferred by some", I think this is a valid paraphrase of the article by Andrew Hermann that is cited at the end of the paragraph. That article says, in part, "The changes -- showing up at museums, in academic circles and in school textbooks -- have been touted as more sensitive to people of faiths outside of Christianity." --Gerry Ashton 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reference to support the sentence that starts "Some criticize…" but I do see support for the sentence that starts "Others criticize…" The same article by Andrew Hermann says "The use of BCE and CE have rankled some Christians. In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention criticized the use of BCE and CE, calling them 'the result of secularization' and 'political correctness.'" --Gerry Ashton 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

The whole section with the support and opposition of the idea seems very un-NPOV to me. It specifically shows opinions and does not have any disclaimer to suggest that these are opinions and not facts. In fact, some of them seem to be the starters of an edit war. I think this section of the article should be deleted, as per the article, it is already noted that there are ongoing debates on each use, there is not need to put your personal opinions and disguise them as a wikipedia article section Mishy dishy 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree: The deletion of the CE/BCE vs. AD/BC section would improve the article's neutrality, IMO. There has been a great deal of discussion on this page about the problems of the section. The net result of these discussions has been the conclusion that it needed cleaning up. However, attempts to do that have failed and the section remains a drive-by repository for opinions. Let's be bold and delete it. Then if someone later wished to write a proper summary of the debate in narrative form, that might be fine. As it stands now, it is not neutral and has little redeeming value. Sunray 19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think you can adequately explain the history and meaning of the era notations without outlining the areas of disagreement. You can't eliminate controversy by ignoring it, and an encyclopedic entry shouldn't be stripped of an integral part of the history of this type of notation. If you leave out the disagreements, people will put it back but minus any of the improvements that have been made prior. Avruch 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The support & opposition section does appear far from NPOV. Avruch is correct that the controversy is an intrinsic part of the BCE-CE/BC-AD articles. But either we have to stick that section precisely as it is here into the Anno Domini article as well (and keep them the same in the future, rather you than me), or it has to go to a separate page, e.g. 'BC-AD and BCE-CE controversy' with in both articles only a short (not necessarily identical) text in a section 'BC-AD versus BCE-CE' that at its top shows main article: BC-AD and BCE-CE controversy.
I'm not suggesting this as a way to get a separated POV-pushing article (against which WP:NPOV warns) or to get the controversy far out of sight: Also on such separate page we must avoid the problem with the current lists, e.g. a sourced BCE/CE opposers' argument states "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis." but in that opposer's section there is no counter-argument possible, e.g. that it makes a difference for people from other cultures and religions to accept the calender that is most widespread in the world they already accept to be internationalizing and mainly using the English language for international contacts, and these people themselves having to actually use phrases that mean "in the year of the Lord". The year of the Lord is now 2550, the Lord Buddha, I mean. Hence each topic that is used by supporters or by opposers, should be handled one by one with the pro/contra arguments for that topic (which will be more BC-AD for some argumentations, more BCE-CE for others, for many it will mainly depend on the reader), instead of an apparent competiton of getting the longest list of arguments, that also forces the reader to see each type of argument as belonging into the one camp or into the other, needlessly and very unNPOV-like jutting the reader to take a side in the controversy. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 03:01–03:09 (UTC)

I agree with Gerry Ashton, Sunray and SomeHuman that we should not have a "Support" vs "Oppose" section. It is structured in an unacademic way that invites users to type in their own preferred argument. Much of what is there is unreferenced, is not supported by the reference cited for it, or is referenced to something that is not a reliable source. That's not to say that we should ignore the controversy surrounding the usage of BCE and CE. Avruch is certainly right in saying we would be wrong to ignore it, and Sunray also notes that "if someone later wished to write a proper summary of the debate in narrative form, that might be fine". (My only disagreement with this is that I think someone will have to write a proper summary of the debate in narrative form at the same time as they remove the current "Support" vs "Oppose" section if they are going to have much of a chance of getting the removal to stick.)

So in summary, I believe the "Support" vs "Oppose" section should go, to be relaced by a proper summary of the debate in narrative form. Foula 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be very difficult to present a proper summary of the debate in narrative form if we are (as we must be) limited to sourced arguments. NONE of the sources have presented anything approaching a comprehensive summary - and it could turn into WP:OR to try to summarize sources when each has so little in it. This has been suggested before, but nobody produced anything (perhaps because of its difficulty). If you wish to do so, it should be fully presented here on Talk first - I have no doubt it would be take at least 2 months of frustrating debate - and it likely would never stabilize. I think until somebody submits something scholarly for publication, the best we can do is present both sides - pointed source by sourced point. --JimWae 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. I hope it should not be as difficult as you say, primarily as I hope there are more people trying to get a well-sourced, NPOV article than those who are eager to insert their favourite arguments for or against. You can see my progress (or lack thereof) on User:Foula/Sandbox. I should note here, that I know I will not write the ideal one or two paragraphs by myself, but I hope when they do appear people seek to edit them to improve them rather than revert to the old "support" vs "oppose" version. Foula 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Widespread usage

The article states, "major museums in the English-speaking world," but then goes on to give examples of American institutions. Likewise, most of the rest of the usage section talks about usage in the US, and the sources have a heavy US bias. I would say that either some effort needs to made to find a wider supply of sources, or that the article should explicitly say that the use of BCE/CE is predominantly an American usage. --DrHacky 04:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more sources external to the US should be found, but I disagree that lacking those sources we should imply that the sources do not exist (i.e., that the use "is predominantly an American usage"), as I'm fairly certain that the use of BCE/CE is actually more common outside the US than within. I'm sure some non-Americans can and will find and supply such sources, so my disagreement is presumably only academic (assuming I'm right). Ben Hocking 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CE/BCE is not well-known outside the US - I would suggest. However, I would like to take issue with one of the points used to support CE/BCE. National Geographic Society publications are cited as an example of where the usage is "typical". Nonetheless in the August 2007 edition the article on the Maya civilization uses BC/AD. I don't know if this particular use is atypical, but if the NG uses a mixture then I would suggest it is not a good reference to use in support of the CE/BCE notation. 86.31.116.163 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

When it's said that the National Geographic Society typically uses CE/BCE, where is this typical usage to be found? In the August and September issues of their magazine AD and BC are repeatedly used and CE and BCE aren't used at all. The use of NG in the context of support for CE usage is clearly not a good one. I'll remove it from the "Support" section of the article unless anyone can come up with a good reason why it should stay. 86.31.127.31 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that National Geographic's policy on use of BCE is similar to that of Misplaced Pages's. To permit use of BCE by authors for non-Christian subjects. Examples: , , . Sunray 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a quick google search suggests quite the opposite. Once you discount results that are irrelevant to this point, you are left with six examples of BCE notation on NG's website, compared to well over 900 examples of BC notation being used. It's unfortunate, for the purposes of this discussion, that they do not post their own manual of style on their website - but google-searches strongly suggest that BC is their house style, and that those six examples either slipped through the net, or for some other reason they were not concerned about changing them. I would agree with the anonymous editor that NG should not be listed in the "Support" section. Foula 09:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between permission and prevalence. I used the phrase "permit the use of BCE." Obviously the use of BC/AD is much more common. That doesn't change the fact that NG allows the use of BCE/CE. Sunray 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The current phrasing currently reads, however, "the Society typically 'uses the terms BCE (before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era).'" This apparently is not true (and is also unsourced). Ben Hocking 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Since the word "typically" was not part of the quote, I removed it. Sunray 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunray, since you seem familiar with it, where does the quotation come from? Who said/wrote it and where? As noted above, it clearly does not reflect NG's observed practice, so it would be interesting to understand how the variance arises. Foula 15:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where that quote comes from. I was just reading what it said. I'm going to put a citation needed tag on it. Sunray 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Citation tag rather than deletion is perhaps more appropriate. On the subject of citation tags, there seems to be a lot of them, in both the support and opposition sections. I would contend that the points being made, apart from that relating to NG and recently tagged, are axioms and don't require citation. Should we remove all these unsightly tags? 86.31.127.31 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the tagged arguments are cleary true, but we have no proof that people who support or oppose the (B)CE notation actually use these arguments in support of their positions. Do we really want a Misplaced Pages article to be making its own arguments for or against the notation, even if the arguments are true? --Gerry Ashton 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to remove the paragraph on NG straightaway as not only does it have no citation, it also is at variance with observed practice, which appears to be heavily in favour of using BC and AD notation as a house style. On the other bits of the support and opposition sections, I would take the approach that they should be removed, unless someone can find a suitable citation showing that those are points argued by supporters or opponents of the notation, as appropriate. I'm inclined to be a bit more patient for a citation of these as they don't have so strong a smell of being wrong. Foula 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged with a "citation needed" tag, so I think we should give people enough time to find a cite. If I cite cannot be found, the statement should be revised to just say that NG uses the term — since they do. Sunray 18:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit longer to see if someone can provide a citation, then. I would note again that google searches show that fewer than 1% of their onsite articles that have cause to use BC or BCE notation use BCE notation. That is indicative either of NG's house style being to use BC, and the proofreader just overlooking changing BCE to BC in those articles, or otherwise that only a very, very small proportion of their contributors make a free choice to use BCE notation rather than BC notation. Whichever of the two it is, it hardly constitutes much in the way of "support" for BCE. Foula 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of the renown of NB, the fact that BCE/CE is used at all is noteworthy, IMO. Sunray 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Foula. NG appears to use BCE on an occasional basis. As such, it can hardly be used as an example of an institute that supports the notation. I concur with the suggestion that the paragraph should be removed immediately. 86.31.127.31 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Having left it a small number of days, I have now removed the following statement:

"*The National Geographic Society (2006) states that because "Many scholars and editors working today in the multicultural discipline of world history use terminology that does not impose the standards of one culture on others," the Society "uses the terms BCE (before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era).""

This is on the grounds that, not only is it unreferenced, it also appears to be wholly wrong. The NG website uses BC notation over 99% of the time, with the instance of BCE notation being consistent with there being a small number of proof reading errors. An earlier user has noted that NG's main publication continues to use BC notation. If someone provides new sources that would support the re-insertion of the statement I have removed, or the insertion of a slightly modified version of it, then fair enough, but until then, I do not think we can make the claim. Foula 15:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Era???

I've never heard this as being synonymous with the Christian Era. Where did this information come from? Is there a reference for this? Foula 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's synonymous because they both count starting in Year 1, 2006 years before the current one. Something particular happened that year, no matter what label "Current", "Common", "Christian", "Anno Domini", we put on it. The labels are synonymous. 198.49.180.40 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If everyone is happy with the answer of the editor using IP address 198.49.180.40, I guess it's settled. But if anyone wants to discuss it further, please note the word "synonymous" does not appear in the article. --Gerry Ashton 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with his answer, but the simple point is to look at the sources:

Common Era
–noun
Christian Era.

Ben Hocking 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources, as far as I can see, uses the term "Current Era" (note, in particular, the capitalisation of the C and E). It's one thing saying that this year is year 2007 of the current era (which I'm not sure anyone says anyway), and saying that this year is year 2007 of the Current Era. If no-one can supply a source for "Current Era", then I'll remove it. Foula 07:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it seems many of us misunderstood the source of your complaint. Yes, Common Era is quite common and the sources point out that Christian Era is also valid, but if we have no sources for Current Era, then I think it should be removed or, preferably, commented out. (Commenting out allows it to be obvious to future editors that it was considered and rejected. Such a commenting out would include mention that it was rejected due to a lack of sources.) I'd probably wait a few days, at least, to allow anyone to register any dissenting opinion on that. Ben Hocking 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is one source (ref #20, near the end) that does use the term Current Era, but I'm not sure if that is enough to satisfy the WP:WEIGHT criteria. OTOH, it might be quite common in Canada, but our US-centric bias isn't adequately reflecting that. If we do keep it, and I'm ambiguous about whether we should, we should at least include that reference near the location where we first mention Current Era as a synonym. Ben Hocking 13:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Having read your comments I tried searching for "Before Current Era" on google. Previously I only searched on "Current Era", which gives nothing useful. It does demonstrate that there is some limited currency for the term: "Before Current Era" returns 1,960 results. "Before Common Era" is much more common, returning 31,900, and by far the most common term, "Before Christian Era" returns 68,500. Maybe we should retain a reference to "Current Era", but mark it up as a much rarer term. Foula 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. John Smith's 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds fair, but wouldn't marking it up as a much rarer term (or even just a rarer term) require a source? Unfortunately, there's a double-edged sword here — the term might be so rare that it would be difficult to find a source that described it as being rare! It might be less problematic to just comment it out, unless someone has an objection to that. (AFAIK, no one has raised such an objection yet.) I'm not going to challenge it if someone does decide to call it rare or more rare, but I thought I'd at least point out policy. ;) Ben Hocking 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence to support retaining a reference to "Current Era" but calling it rare is the google searches on "Before Current Era", "Before Common Era" and "Before Christian Era", and noting that the term does not appear in any online dictionary. If this is insufficient to retain the term "Current Era", then I agree it should be removed. I can see that it may not be desirable for Misplaced Pages to say a term means something when that term cannot be found in any dictionary. Foula 10:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Misplaced Pages has a policy against citing Google search results, but when I went to look for said policy I came up short. My instinct is that a Google search is not a reliable source (for one thing it's obviously biased towards things that are on-line), but I don't feel particularly strongly about it, so, as far as I'm concerned, do what you think is best. Ben Hocking 12:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and removed references to "Current Era". Foula 12:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which you should not have done. There are many references to Current Era. CE originated as the abbreviation for Common Era and that is still the most common usage in English for CE. That is why the article is named Common Era, and not Christian Era. But because it can fit the latter, that meaning has been propagated to entice Christians to accept the CE abbreviation (as it is thus clearly not unChristian). Because the BC-AD notation has been and still is the mostly used notation, of course each explanation of 'Common Era' mentions that it is the 'Christian Era', which is understood by everyone. The abbreviation is also often rendered as short for 'Current Era' but if one wants to explain the main term 'Common Era', one will simply write that it is the current era, it would not make any sense to declare it is the same as the even less commonly used 'Current Era'. There are in fact quite few texts that use 'Christian Era' other than those explaining 'Common Era'. But the only proper way is stating that CE stands for 'Common Era', though also 'Christian Era' and 'Current Era' are found. Hence I restored the opening phrase that had been there some time ago: "The Common Era, also known as the Current Era or Christian Era, abbreviated CE,...". There are three sources given, one of which uses 'Current Era'. In fact, I had been looking for a source that has everything right, and there are very few. The only one that I found so far, is: Arosio, Paola; Meozzi, Diego (amateur archeologists) (© 1996-2003). "Stone pages – glossary". Retrieved 2007-09-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) — It mentions BCE & CE completely with the three terms, correctly spells 'anno Domini' (small a, though often A is used) and correctly translates it from Latin (many sources say 'in the year of our Lord', which is in Latin: 'anno Domini nostri'). Unfortunately, that source is the personal web page of a couple of amateur archeologists and thus not suited for Misplaced Pages. But at least that couple got its facts straight. And there is also the BBC (and not from its h2g2 section where anyone can edit). Also the Encyclopaedia Britannica online has anno Domini with small a (even if looking for it with capital A: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-26365/Anno-Domini). — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 04:38 (UTC)

Someone had reintroduced the 'citation needed' template, which I had already removed from behind 'Current Era' because it should never have been placed: the text on Muslim and Jewish calendars replacement:history that was already provided as one of the three references right behind the three names for CE, already clearly mentions 'Current Era'. Moreover it does such without mentioning 'Common Era' and thus cannot be assumed to be trying to be overly complete, but actually sees CE to stand for Current Era, and such in a proper source for Misplaced Pages that handles the specialized topic of calendars replacement:of historical dates. The same contributor afterwards removed the 'citation needed' flag while introducing the source I had given in my former comment, called 'Stone pages – glossary', though I had explicitly stated this unfortunately not to be an admissable source for WP (personal web site of to WP standards not particularly notable people). Hence I removed that source and once again directed the contributor to the still available source that confims 'Current Era' to be used as name for what is abbreviated as CE. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 19:25 (UTC)

That editor apologizes for any confusion and has moved the reference you're referring to such that it properly indicates what it is supporting (it doesn't mention "Christian Era"). On a side note, Foula did not act without first gathering support (and no one objected to his proposed change), so his actions were quite justifiable. One doesn't typically wait a week to see if anyone has an objection before making a change. I understand you're not always on, etc., but it was not clear that anyone would object to the change. Ben Hocking 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well accepted, and I'm sorry to have had to revert your last edit. Of course it was well intended, but we cannot introduce the POV impression of strongly supporting the 'Christian Era' by three references, none for 'Common Era' and just one for 'Current Era'. In fact, two of the references support 'Current Era': Unlike what I had written here above, the Muslim & Jewish calendar article mentions the several different names including 'Current Era', but it is the one on 'History of Judaism 63BCE-1086CE' that you had put immediately behind 'Current Era' that mentions the 'Current Era' in fluent text. In fact, (no inuendo intended), I had yesterday or so lifted that relevant sentence into a quote where it should be clearly enough visible for readers. We cannot push references directly under a reader's eyes, with 4 refs a reader should at least look at the 4 refs and with the quote he/she does not even have to look into all of them to realize which is (one of the) relevant sources. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 19:48 (UTC)

I understand your concern and will leave it alone. Adding the quotes to the sources (which you had already done) goes a long way towards alleviating my concerns. Ben Hocking 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Foula and you are working from the assumption that contributors would need to keep following each article and its talk page at which they may ever have contributed. Sooner or later I will die. Then you'll come around with a question on the talk page and a few weeks later you're going to disrupt my years of hard work at becoming immortal here? It is up to the reader who thinks that a statement is not properly referenced, to actively and carefully read each given reference, which might even be a 'general reference' that had been used to create the article and corroborates dozens of statements all over the article. There have been discussions with opinions that expect Misplaced Pages finally winding up with indexed references behind each sentence, but that is no Misplaced Pages policy. So far, one has to look in the references aka sources section to see if there is a general reference or several of them, if necessary go to a library and ask to have the rare book transfered to that library, read the entire book (or several) carefully, and only if having made very sure that the suspected statement is not confirmed therein, set a 'fact' aka 'cn' tag at the proper place in the article.
Fortunately, it is not generally that difficult to check references, and if one has properly referenced a book, it should mention the relevant page. But the full burden is by Misplaced Pages indeed still put on the person who wants to check references. There is no rule that prevents you from trying out a shortcut by putting a question on the talk page, or by looking into the article history to find out which user made the suspected statement and to go to his/her talk page, but if there is no reaction... you have a tedious job ahead. In practice, for a simple thing like 'Current Era', it is much easier to google around for a proper reference and put it in yourself, I needed only a short time to see that there were many occurrences of 'Current Era' and just a little more time to find a source good enough for WP. That is far more productive than tagging the article and have someone else do the work. Only if I have trouble finding a proper reference for a statement that I doubt to be correct, and if I then really can't find support for a statement after looking for a source myself, I know I may have to look harder into the references (especially if general ones are books). But I do put in a 'fact' tag once in a while. But not too quickly, I think. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 20:30 (UTC)

First I remain concerned that there still isn't a dictionary reference to support the term "Current Era". I can see from google searches that the term has some limited currency, but it is not clear from the results whether that arises through people mistakenly forgetting the term "Common Era" or "Christian Era" or because it is now a separate term in its own right. I think it would be useful to know if etymologists (dictionary-writers) recognise the term "Current Era". As noted above, I do not think this necessarily means we should not refer to the term "Current Era" at all, but I do think we should take care as to not give it a greater prominence than the references suggest it deserves.

Second, although I note you state your belief that "Common Era" is the most usual interpretation of "CE", this article is not entitled "CE and BCE notation". That the term "Christian Era" appears as the more common term both in dictionaries and in google searches is relevant, and it is reasonable to restructure the lead so as to give this right impression. Foula 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Another source issue

The article says "Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively use CE and BCE in their publications, generally explaining in footnotes that the terms stand for "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era"."

The footnote providing a source for this is "In this publication, instead of the traditional 'AD' and 'BC', the more accurate 'CE' (Common Era) and 'BCE' (before the Common Era) are used." — The Bible — God’s Word or Man’s?, p. 16 footnote, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. "

I'm not disputing that that publication makes that footnote, nor that it is published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. What I do question, however, is how the article leaps from that fact to claiming that "Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively use CE and BCE in their publications".

I should say I have no idea whether the statement is true or not, and I have no objection to it remaining in the article if someone can provide a proper source demonstrating that it is true. It's just that at present the source does not support the statement it claims to support. Foula 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether or not it's true, the source needs to support it. That said, the source might support it, even if the quoted excerpt doesn't support it entirely. Ben Hocking 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The source supports the contention that at least one book published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. exclusively uses CE and BCE, explaining in footnotes that the terms stand for "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era".

That fact is not worth mentioning. Yet if someone can prove the general statement that is currently in the article, it worth retaining. Foula 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing a couple of Google searches: vs. , for example, suggests to me that the original statement is quite true. However, as I've said before I don't take Google to be a "reliable" source as far as Misplaced Pages goes. OTOH, the statement might be backed up by the source provided. Until someone secures a copy of it (and argued that it's not backed up by that soruce), I'm not sure that the statement or citation should be removed since no one is really challenging the veracity of the statement itself. Ben Hocking 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy that the searches demonstrate that watchtower.org uses BCE exclusively, but they do not demonstrate that "Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively use CE and BCE in their publications". I've also just read Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is interesting as it seems to make clear that watchtower.org represents the top governing body. I'm inclined to think the wording is a bit loose. It's unlikely that every single JW who publishes anything anywhere in the world does what is stated, and even less likely that we'd be able to prove it even if it were true, but the issue should be able to be resolved by careful tightening of the language. Foula 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not great with tightening language, only with loosening it, so I'll leave that in your hands. Ben Hocking 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now tightened up the language so that the article is only saying what we can prove. Foula 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Other calendric eras - merge?

There is a note at the top of this section that says "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Calendar era". This links to a discussion on Talk:Calendar era that happened in January 2007, where four or five users supported the merger, with one opposing.

It still seems sensible to me that we should merge the "Other calendric eras" into the article on Calendar era. The section really offers nothing about the Common Era, other than perhaps highlighting that there are alternatives to the Anno Domini-Common/Christian Era dating system. I think it would be better to do this by having a short paragraph saying this, and then linking through to Calendar era, rather than give all the details of alternatives. Before doing so, since the original discussion stalled some months ago, I thought it would be appropriate to let others comment on the proposal, if they so wish - hence this post. Foula 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems non-controversial, but I agree it's best to allow others to weight in. Ben Hocking 20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Absent further comment, I am now merging that section into Calendar era. Foula 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I object most strongly in the way this is being done. Before deleting the paragraphs from his article, the article into which they are to be merged should be updated - then, once the merge has been done is it time to start deleting text from this article. Am undeleting pro tem. WLD 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also say that the point I made previously about the proposed merge still stands: "The information in the Common Era article should be retained in that article, as it prevents giving the (false) impression of a dichotomy between the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE." WLD 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed the merge. Next time I come to merge an article, I'll do the merge first before the delete.

I'm afraid I did not see your second comment until I completed the merge. As you will also recall you were in a one to four minority (now increase to a one to six minority).

I retain my view that the detailed text about alternative era designations is best dealt with in the Calendar era article. I also think that your point, about making sure we do not give a false impression that there are no other era designations, is best dealt with by a few well-worded sentences, rather than giving so much detail that is already covered elsewhere. My starter for ten is "Calendar era, for an outline of different dating systems that have been or are currently used throughout the world", but I'm quite happy to go for better wording, if West London Dweller, or someone else, can better encapsulate the point. Foula 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage - a major omission

A major omission on our section about usage is that it does not refer to usage in Jewish publications. Searching on the internet, I have been unable to find any Jewish online publication anywhere in the world that uses BC notation. This is generally untrue of any other possible groupings of people I search under. BCE notation appears to be very rare outside the US, with only a small number of exceptions about. It's surely worth noting that Jewish publications take the opposite approach, especially as it is Jewish academics and Jewish publications that popularised the term.

Does anyone have any ready references to support this? If not, I'll add comments based on things I can justify through web searches (eg it's easy to search the Jerusalem Post or Jewish Chronicle). Any other ideas on how to improve our content in this regard? Foula 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a great excerpt from what appears to be a reliable source:

Jews do not generally use the words "A.D." and "B.C." to refer to the years on the Gregorian calendar. "A.D." means "the year of our L-rd," and we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. (Common or Christian Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).

I am strong with the Google-fu, but my writing is not so good, so feel free to rewrite what I add. Ben Hocking 21:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed - "Support"

The following points were listed under the "Support" heading:

• It is simple to change from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation, since the years are numbered identically in both (e.g., 33 BC becomes 33 BCE), Documents with years that do not have AD designation do not need to be changed at all (e.g., 1066 remains 1066 in AD and in CE systems).

• Anno Domini (which means, literally, "in the year of the Lord") works well with specific dates, e.g., AD 655. But its use with centuries (and other time units such as decades and millennia) presents grammatical difficulties: AD 7th Century would mean, literally, "In the year of the Lord, 7th Century" — a syntactical error. The CE notation avoids this grammatical problem.

Both had {{fact}} added. I removed these and it was immediately reverted by Gerry Ashton. I contend that both arguments are obvious and don't need a reference. In the first point it is clear that AD 1066 and 1066 CE and 1066 all refer to the same year. Gerry claims that a reference is needed that this is used as support for proponents of CE. We are talking about advantages and disadvantages of nomenclature here (under the headings of Support and Opposition). It is a clear advantage.

In the second point, Anno Domini means "in the year of our Lord" and it points out the grammatical issues with it. Another obvious problem. Again Gerry requires a reference that this is used by CE proponents as an argument.

I contend that these points show positives and negatives. Some obvious and some not obvious at all (and these will need references).

I seek others' opinions on this. Jim77742 04:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is so obvious that it doesn't need a citation doesn't need to be said in the first place. (And, yes, this is ignored in plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages, and possibly in other places within this same article.) These both do need a reference. Adding {{fact}} or {{cn}} to them is the polite thing to do rather than just remove them as it gives the editor who added them a chance to find a supporting reference. Furthermore, finding references that support these positions should be possible, so it's not just polite to add those tags, it's the correct thing to do. Ben Hocking 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for adding a fact tag the first time an argument shows up, but these just keep coming back. --Gerry Ashton 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "these" are you referring to the fact tags or the points themselves? (From Jim's comment, I'm assuming that you're referring to the points themselves, but assuming things can be dangerous.) Ben Hocking 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ben, I'm talking about the points themselves. I'm not going to search through the history, but I'd estimate these points have been introduced, without citations, three or more times each. Congratulations on finding a citation for one of them. --Gerry Ashton 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The other one seems valid, but it's very tricky. The statement itself is obviously true (about the literal problem introduced), and I can find several sources that use this literal problem as a justification for CE/BCE. However, all of those sources point back to Misplaced Pages, so including those sources feels a tad bit incestuous. Ben Hocking 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a circular reference is only a problem if the source that got an idea from Misplaced Pages is not capable of evaluating the quality of the statement itself. If a statement is written as graffitti on a seat in a baseball stadium, and a scholar uses it for inspiration and publishes in a reliable publication, the statement becomes reliable. --Gerry Ashton 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See how you feel about these sources: . (I don't want all of them, just tell me which, if any, are your favorites. This goes for anyone, and not just Gerry.) Ben Hocking 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the statement "Anything that is so obvious that it doesn't need a citation doesn't need to be said in the first place" is valid. This would mean every sentence must have a reference. Now in Misplaced Pages material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must have a reference. These are not the same. A statement may be obviously correct (and not likely to be challenged) and still be useful to mention in the context of an article. e.g. "2 is the only even prime number" would fall in that useful-to-mention category but not needing a reference.

I'm with you guys on requesting citations and putting the request rather than deleting the edit - it's just the points above seem so obvious to me. And I also did find them interesting and relevant - so they shouldn't be removed.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though and am happy to leave the citation requests there Time for sleep... Regards, Jim77742 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that I was being overly broad in my statement. Your interpretation is better. I've found one citation, but the other one is trickier — every place I've found it so far, has pointed back to either this article or the anno Domini article. Ben Hocking 16:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting an argument underneath the "support" or "oppose" sections is really to make a claim that at least some of those that support or oppose BCE notation use that argument. That claim really should be supported by a reference.

With this in mind, I should note that I disagree with Jim that the arguments under the "support" section are "obvious".

The first statement is:

"It is simple to change from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation, since the years are numbered identically in both (e.g., 33 BC becomes 33 BCE), Documents with years that do not have AD designation do not need to be changed at all (e.g., 1066 remains 1066 in AD and in CE systems)."

But it is not obvious that just because something is easy to do that it should be done (and it is debatable as to whether it is easy to do). To me, at best, this is a refutation of the argument that we should not use BCE/CE because it involves an unacceptable amount of change. Regarding the second point, clearly many documents or books do still refer to "AD 1066" or "1066 AD", even though there would have been little lost by removing the "AD".

The second statement is:

"Anno Domini (which means, literally, "in the year of the Lord") works well with specific dates, e.g., AD 655. But its use with centuries (and other time units such as decades and millennia) presents grammatical difficulties: AD 7th Century would mean, literally, "In the year of the Lord, 7th Century" — a syntactical error. The CE notation avoids this grammatical problem."

But it is not obvious to me that there is no problem with CE notation. If you read "the 1st century CE" as "the 1st century Common Era", you still have a grammatical error. To resolve this you need to insert the words "of the" before CE.

So these arguments are not obvious, and may not even be correct. Of course, if a quote-worthy publication cites these arguments in support of BCE/CE notation, then that's fair enough, we can truthfully say that at least some supporters use that argument, but without a reference, you cannot.

I also think we need to be careful about allowing arguments to remain when there is no reference to support them. If we are talking about an argument that is not in there at present, I think it is reasonable not revert any attempt to insert it until a reference is provided. Maybe a short amount of time ought to be permitted to allow users to find references for the arguments already present, but that should only be a short amount of time. If no citation is provided within two to four weeks, then I think it's reasonable to remove them (with an acknowledgment that if a reference is later provided they may be able to return). Foula 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead worthy?

Does this belong in lede?

• Only the abbreviation AD may be written either traditionally before, or after the year number.
  • Isn't it about how to use abbreviations in the AD system rather than about either the Common Era or how to use abbreviations in the Common Era? If removing presents problems, does it really merit an entire sentence? And shouldn't "traditionally" be in parentheses? --JimWae 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• thus Aristotle was born in 384 BCE (or 384 BC), and Genghis Khan died in 1227 CE (or AD 1227, or 1227 AD)
  • Is it not droning on to repeat this after already making the point that the year numbers are the same in both systems? And, even if you disagree, shouldn't the dates be more likely to be known ones (such as "In both systems 2024 designates the current year ((also written as AD 2024 and as 2024 CE)); and the year Caesar was assassinated, designated 44 BC in the AD/BC system, is 44 BCE in the CE/BCE system")--JimWae 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Year 1 BCE (or 1 BC) however, corresponds to the year zero of the astronomical system and to year 0000 of the ISO 8601 standard.
  • Does the lede need to say anything much more than that Common Era notation does not use a year zer0 (of any kind) (just as AD does not)? --JimWae 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some of what you say might be better in the body of the text, but I also think the lead still needs to be fullly reworked.

This article is entitled "Common Era", not "CE and BCE notation", and so it should start by explaining what the Common Era is, which should include a reference to it being equivalent to years Anno Domini.

Only once we have described what "Common Era" is, should we introduce a paragraph describing how it is abbreviated. It is useful to compare this to how AD and BC abbreviated, particularly as AD can either precede or follow the year, whereas the abbreviation we are describing as being equivalent to it, CE, always follows the year, although I accept that different wording might avoid the comparison and just note that BCE and CE both always follow the year.

Taking your particular points in order:

• We should omit the word "traditionally". I prefer to compare how BCE and CE are used with how BC and AD are used, but note that it ought to be possible to omit this comparison whilst still making it clear that CE never precedes the year.

• I think adding ", or 1227 AD" is too much. The rest of the sentence seems reasonable. Your alternative also appears reasonable.

• I agree that referring to the astronomical stystem is unnecessary. There's no reason to single it out for special mention here. A lack of year zero is interesting, but it may be better to have this in the body of th text.

Foula 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Year Zer0 remark is more than interesting. It is a common misconception about CE that it has a year zer0. Saying CE does not use any year zer0 is a quick way to emphasize that the numbering is not at all affected by usage of CE/BCE rather than AD/BC.
• I agree the part about abbreviations needs to be reworked. Instead of being worked over in successive sentences that jarringly are split between 2 successive paragraphs, the topic (Common Era) needs to be explained first. Admittedly though, the abbreviations are more important to this article than in nearly any other
• I think the lede could also contain a remark that the Common Era terminology (including the Latin EV) has been around for several centuries--JimWae 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I take your point about saying there is no year zero. My main concern is the reference to the astronomical system, which appears merely to complicate the matter. Maybe we can remove that reference whilst still noting that there is no year zero: "This dating system has no year zero - year 1 of the Common Era was directly preceded by year 1 Before the Common Era".
• I agree that the abbreviations are more important that in almost all other articles, which is why I think we should cover them right up there at the start - but in the second paragraph, after the first paragraph has explained the term first.
• Maybe, although I think it might be better to improve the body of the text before adding more to the lead. Personally I think we ought to have a reference to the terminology's popularity in Jewish publications and ideally add some sense of worldwide usage (which is missing even in the body at present). So I'd rather improve the rest of the article first.
• On improving the rest of the article, I wonder whether you have seen and have comments on the "NPOV?" section above. I agree the lead needs improving, but for me the biggest blight on the article at present is the "Support" vs "Oppose" section. Foula 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The word traditionally is the proper term, as the only other one is conservative which however would require calling the post positioning of AD modernistic. It would be POV to write "traditionally" within " " as it is used in the simple everyday meaning of being the traditional place for the AD abbreviation. It is also the only correct place from a linguistic viewpoint, but that is not a discussion point for a WP article, WP simply follows the usage in English.

Precisely because it is made clear that CE corresponds to AD, and because AD still occurs often before the year, it is necessary to point out that such mustnot be the position for CE. The easiest way and the most correct way, which also offers the most complete information about the position for all four relevant abbreviations, is now in the article.

Whether Aristotle and Ghengis Khan are the best samples, I would not dare to say; but at least they are known to have lived well before and after the start of the Gregorian calendar, which cannot be said for e.g. Julius Caesar. They also come from two entirely different cultures, which is also an advantage. The sample is needed because that shows much better than any text how the abbreviations are to be used and which are the corresponding ones in each set.

This article is about Common Era, not about 'Common Era and Anno Domini', the latter has its own article. That is why the BCE and CE are here shown with the alternatives between round brackets. The sentence that said 'the current year, 2007 CE, can also be written as AD 2007" on the other hand, rather suggests that it is in fact 2007 CE but if one really insists, AD 2007 would be acceptable. I rephrased that in a neutral way.

The precise statistical ocurrence of 'Common Era', 'Current Era' and 'Christian Era' is not available, and it is hard to get reliable data because the terms 'Christian era' and 'current era' occur in sentences that do not intend to mention a specific calendar and its notations. An earlier remark as if this calendar would not be about calendar notations, is mistaken: the Gregorian calendar is described in another article. This one is about the notation of years in that calendar system in the BCE-CE notation, for which there are several wordy descriptions. The latter would not be notable enough to have an article but just be two words used together and written as 'Christian era' and 'current era' instead of with all initial characters capitalized. As Google etc does not allow case sensitive searching, a simple test that excludes the 'Christian era' and 'current era' used in another way than that relevant for this article, is a search on "2005 of the Common Era", "2005 in the Common Era", and identical phrases with 'Christian' and then with 'Current' replacing 'Common'. It will be seen that 'Common Era' is indeed the proper term and that both others occur much less often; hence the opening sentence of the article includes "Common Era, also known as Current Era or Christian Era".

The iso 8601 is a modern notation for years, and one that appears to handle 'our' calendar; as it is about as modern as the BCE-CE notation, it is very likely for people to assume both 'novelties' to be associated and thus the year 0000 has to be specified as well as the astronomical year 0 for the same reason.

The abbeviations are the reason for existence of this article, because they are the reason of existence of the term 'Common Era' and 'before the Common Era'. The term 'Common Era' did not came in use for a long time after which people started to abbreviate them. The origin is as alternative abbreviations for BC and AD (and not as an alternative wordy term for BC and AD's origins as 'anno Domini' and 'before Christ' because those full descriptions are comparatively hardly used and one could avoid them without having to coin the more recent 'Common Era'). That is why they belong right at the start of the lead from the article's point of view. But there is another compelling reason. Regular users are encouraged to set their user preferences etc, and they can also use a tool in their (what's its name, monosomething.js) javascript setup that allows them to preview an article by just hoovering on a WP link. The user can then read the title and the first paragraph without having to click on the link and that goes much faster than opening the page. But one canonly see the first paragraph. It is then important that the first paragraph contains all the essential information; that clearly includes the information of CE and BCE being the abbreviations for Common Era (which may be enough for the reader either by itself, or by ensuring the reader that this is indeed the article he/she wishes to know more about so as to open it properly.

— SomeHuman 09 Sep2007 18:03–18:28 (UTC)

• I think, now that other calendar systems is gone from the article, a section on other (competing) notational reforms (for want of a better word) could be added that explains the difference between CE & the astronomical & ISO systems - rather than cluttering the lede with sentences that are NOT about the main topic --JimWae 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• The first paragraph does not have to contain all the rules on where to place AD & BC. Neither the article's nor the lede's structure should be subordinate to a preview tool (though it can be a consideration.
• Please try to write with less use of "should" and "right" and "proper" when there is no agreement here on whether those terms apply - some seem only to express your preferences--JimWae 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cluttering the lead? It's still very short (maybe just about the minimum length required for a 'featured article'). Entirely different other calendar systems do not need to appear in the lead, but the astronomical calendar and the representation by iso standards, are very closely related to the same calendar and the difference must than be stated immediately, not somewhere tucked away in the article. Note that a lead is supposed to have paragraphs with the most relevant information about the article's topic, which subtopics may then still be handled in-depth in the article's sections, if needed. The CE notation is an alternative for the iso notation, for dates that appear to be the same and are the same, while they also appear the same but are not the same for years BCE. That is about the most relevant, important and useful information this article can offer.

The first paragraph does not contain either the proper positionings for AD or BC or the right place for CE or BCE, and it shouldn't.

My preferences are based on arguments, or on references, or should be most obvious. — SomeHuman 09 Sep2007 19:09 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that 2 sets are equivalent?

As there has been ANOTHER revert that completely ignores this discussion that was on my talk page, I am taking the matter up here

• In set language, it means they have the same # of elements - this adds nothing to the article
• If you mean, as you suggested on my talk page (but give no hint in article text) they have some kind of equal value (social? moral?), then that is a POV statement. CE advocates would say it has more value, CE detractors would say less. Please consider my recent edit (using "corresponds") as an improved way to deal with this

--JimWae 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let people see your talk page then. English is not limited to the restricted purely mathematical definition of equivalence; the latter is derived from the normal usage in English. And this is not an article on math, no sensible person could be confused. I can't help your unwillingness to look up the meaning of a normal English word that is correctly used in the article. I tried to explain (in length) that there is a difference between 'correspond' and 'be equivalent'. Comparing the set of a fly in the sky and the set of a whale in the ocean, the fly corresponds to the whale and the sky corresponds to the ocean. But no-one can say that the fly is equivalent to the whale. The POV is not in saying that the BCE-CE notation is equivalent to the BC-AD notation, the POV is in omitting the information while explaining that CE is the same as the better-known tradition. POV would be to suggest that CE would be preferred or that it would be deprecated. Note that this is not a personal opinion, it is the Misplaced Pages policy regarding the usage of BCE-CE or BC-AD in articles; hence WP holds an outspoken neutral position that declares both notation systems to be equally valid and worthy, as part of its NPOV policy. Your claim that stating them to be of equal value would be POV is thus directly opposing the WP:NPOV policy. — SomeHuman 09 Sep2007 19:09 (UTC)

Kentucky

I was following up the source about Kentucky, when I came across these , , . Does this mean that Kentucky has outlawed BCE notation, or merely that it was proposed that it was outlawed? Also, can someone better than me at searching see where this was debated in the Kentucky legislature? (it may, or I suppose may not, provide some good references for arguments for or against BCE notation). Foula 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the link 'HB14' in the 2nd (I didn't check the third) of these given sources, you find "The program of studies and other related documents used in Kentucky public schools shall use the abbreviations A.D. (Anno Domini) and B.C. (before Christ) exclusively when referencing historical dates and time." being in bold print and underlined; that, as well as the short text of the 2nd given source itself, suggests this HB14 to be a proposed amendment to KRS 156.160. The nature of the source appears to make clear that the designed proposal has been brought forward officially. Whether it was already voted on, and if so whether it has been accepted, should be verified in the current text of KRS 156.160 which is found (by Google's first return for doublequoted "KRS 156.160") in . The latter does not show the amendment in the relevant phrase "(a) Courses of study for the different grades and kinds of common schools identifying the common curriculum content directly tied to the goals, outcomes, and assessment strategies developed under KRS 158.645, 158.6451, and 158.6453 and distributed to local school districts and schools. The administrative regulations shall provide that:". Thus... there are fanatics who spend a lot of time on what to most people appears to be a triviality, but other decision makers may not lightheartedly handle an apparently trivial matter when it comes to respecting different viewpoints. (Unless of course, the proposal was not yet voted on, which I'm afraid is the case if I interpret your 2nd source's "Oct 4-To: Interim Joint Committee on Education; Jan 2-introduced in House; Jan 3-to Education (H)" correctly: it appears the advise? of 'Education' requested? by the House, has not yet been given... assuming that the web page for the 2nd source gets properly updated upon each step of the process) – As far as the WP article is concerned, as long as the published source KRS 156.160 does not show the proposal to be in effect, and the proposal does not appear as a notable issue in the major press, nothing notable appears to be going on. — SomeHuman 09 Sep2007 21:27–21:51 (UTC)

CE/BCE equivalent to AD/BC?

Look up equivalent in Merriam-Webster - see definition 3 (which is the one I believe applies): "corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function". If CE/BCE were equivalent to AD/BC, then there would be no dispute over which to use. There is a dispute, documented in the article, ergo they are not equivalent. The designations are used for the same purpose: to indicate periods of time ante- and post- dating the putative birthdate of Jesus, but are not equivalent. WLD 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your definition makes both notations equivalent. Apart from "corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function", equivalent in English still means what the (Latin) origin of the word states: being of equal worth, which is not identical in every respect. The notation sets are equivalent in the way they are used (the AD at front of the year does not render more or less worth), the purpose they are used for (functionally identical), and the respect given to the choice of using either one set of abbreviations. The fact that individuals and organisations give numerous reasons to defend one and/or attack the other does not change that. The worth of or respect for black people, white people, Muslim people, Jewish people,... is also assumed to be equal, from the neutral point of view obliged in Misplaced Pages articles, and one mustnot be death silent about any mentioning of such (as far as this would not yet be obvious, and that is precisely not evident to every reader about the equivalence of both era notation sets). Of people we will not as easily say that they are equivalent, because not only the equal worth but also, as you noted, the equal practical use to serve a purpose is implied by the term; which would be rather disrespectful to say about people but makes it the most exact term for the notation sets. The fact that there are far more severe racist and religious inspired monstrosities does not change the correctness of holding people at equal value and worth. For BC-AD / BCE-CE the statement of both sets being equivalent is part of the WP:NPOV policy which is not to be camouflaged in articles. See two sections above, #What does it mean to say that 2 sets are equivalent? and the link there to a discussion on a user page. The controversy is clearly mentioned in the paragraph immediately underneath, still in the lead, and (perhaps too overzealous and too black-and-white) in the further sections of the article. — SomeHuman 12 Sep2007 21:21 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with either wording. I understand that you think your wording is fine, but do you think that WLD's wording is inaccurate? Ben Hocking 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is incomplete, not inaccurate. And what it states is already made clear by the rest of the paragraph, not saying more would make the statement superfluous: WLD only stated the technical usage to be largely the same, the term 'equivalent' correctly also suggests both are considered of equal worth, equally respectable in particular from an encyclopaedic point of view, one may choose to use either set according to one's own preferences (or following the style guides of a company, journal, institution etc). The BC (and AD) usage has been more common and generally still is. In many cases, a more prevailing usage is for that reason alone a preferred usage in a language. In this case, mainly, and for many people solely, other aspects play a role in making the choice of which set to use. It thus is required to mention their equivalence, moreover as both are used on Misplaced Pages and the policy forbids changing an article from using one set towards using the other, and WP explicitly does not prefer one set above the other.
There is also a proper reference behind the statement that supports the use of 'equivalent', though I did not follow its statement of BCE-CE being the secular equivalent of BC-AD, because that would be a straightforward contradiction with mentioning 'Christian Era' as one of the descriptions of CE, and the latter description (though notably more rare and not the original) is sufficiently supported by sources. — SomeHuman 12 Sep2007 21:56 (UTC)

I think you're actually arguing WLD's point there. You say "the term 'equivalent' correctly also suggests both are considered of equal worth", but that is clearly a POV judgment (not one I have a problem with, mind you). POV judgments, however correct they might seem to us, do not belong here. Ben Hocking 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a problem here is that judging the items to be of equal worth is, as Ben says, a POV exercise. My contention is that we can say that the two sets of abbreviations are used to designate the same periods of time, but each set has significant 'cultural baggage' that makes their usage non-equivalent. For example, I can designate (describe) a women as a lady or a bitch "This lady has taken my seat" vs. "This bitch has taken my seat" - usage is the same, but the terms are non-equivalent because of the connotations. Of course, in a restricted sense, 'lady' and 'bitch' are equivalent in that they designate female humans, but in a general sense, they are not equivalent in the slightest. I think the same can be said to apply CE/BCE & AD/BC - in a restricted sense (designation of periods of time) they are equivalent, but in terms of their place in a cultural landscape, they are by no means equivalent. I think it overreaches to assert that they are equivalent in the lead of the article. WLD 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the POV argument. See two sections higher. Your explanation emphasizes the need of using 'equivalent': BCE-CE and BC-AD are of equal worth from an encyclopaedic viewpoint (and explicitly so for this one); no encyclopaedic or other viewpoint makes the term 'bitch' the equivalent of a 'lady', even if a same person is being described. That individuals may find BCE better than BC for a number of reasons, is not a generally accepted viewpoint and neither is the reverse. For 'bitch' and 'lady' the first term is generally and consistently considered derogative and the second as flattering. A neutral point of view obliges us to present BCE-CE in a different way than 'bitch'. It is quite correct for an encyclopaedia to explicitly state that the term 'bitch' if used for a woman, is always strongly derogative. That is not POV but NPOV. Readers on the Common Era article will automatically wonder which is the more proper one to use and thus it is necessary to clarify that both are equivalent, while the following text mentions the controversy and describes the elements and argumentations that cause it; that too is WP:NPOV. The even-worthy usage is not as explicitly stated as one does in the WP guidelines, but is required because the argumentations that follow are bound to show some more or some less arguments or less well formulated argumentations for one or the other, not mainly because of the strenght of the arguments, while the overall balance is close to the middle (as is clear from long and often strong discussions on this topic elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, one never comes to a beginning of a consensus). That is the position of many manuals of style and the others do not tend to be clearly more in one camp than in the other, which makes a neutral position of holding both notations at equal worth encyclopaedical. Notice that sources that are clearly supporting one camp, are rarely generally considered neutral, though amongst defenders of BCE there are a number of esteemed scholarly institutions, but that too is part of the pro/contra argumentations in the article. May I perhaps remind you that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages and that language is not spoken solely in the United States. The recent revival of too my opinion very radical or fundamentalist Christianity and the built-up controversy between religion and science is not found to the same extend in other Englih-speaking countries and should not prevent this article from being encyclopaedic in its descriptions. — SomeHuman 12 Sep2007 23:31 (UTC)

• Several people have pointed out here that there is a problem in saying the 2 are equivalent. What you intend by "equivalent" is NOT apparent in the text you are so ultra-comitted to. Beyond that you say that the sets are equivalent - and that suggests a specific meaning to anyone who has had any training in set theory. Since it is not clear to us here what saying they are "equivalent sets" means, alternative language needs to be explored. You seem to be saying on the talk pages that they have equal VALUE - but none of that is clear in the article text. POV is to use editorial voice to make an evaluation. Misplaced Pages never says the 2 are equivalent, nor does it anywhere say they are of equal value & worthiness -- it simply says either is acceptable to use on wikipedia - it does not make any claim outside that realm - something that saying they are of equal value would say. Many here would contend that CE has greater (or lesser) cultural value than AD - and saying (but you never really do) that both are "equally proper" is obviously POV against both camps. Misplaced Pages can decide for its editors the relative value of the 2 terms, but it is not the job of wikipedia to proclaim to the world anything about the relative value of the 2 terms for the rest of the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Given that SomeHuman objects to saying they are used in substantially the same manner, can somebody suggest a different form of words that avoids claiming they are equivalent that would meet with SomeHuman's approval? WLD 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• To answer my own request, I see that JimWae has done this, and I think the resultant text is far improved from mine. WLD 07:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• SomeHuman - you do not own this article, nobody does. Several people have raised objections to your wording & you repeatedly revert to the same exact text. You will have to give an account here for rejecting all the text I have added - which was not "about Anno Domini" but necessarily compared CE to AD. The abbreviations WERE still included in first paragraph - just not the trivial stuff about small caps & periods. You are right that criticisms need a source - but we do know where they are, don't we? --JimWae 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • and only the last sentence of the 1st paragraph lacked a source (easily found)--JimWae 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also, CE does not ALWAYS follow the year number. Work with others here or you will see very little of your work remain --JimWae 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• You also, without any relevant comment, reverted all the changes I made to the body of the article. Please read WP:Own --JimWae 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think others here will agree my version for a first paragraph gives a far more complete overview of the topic than the one you repeatedly revert to --JimWae 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Common Era, also known as Current Era or Christian Era, abbreviated CE, is a designation for the period of time beginning with year 1 of the Gregorian calendar. An earlier date is then designated BCE, described as "Before the Common, Current, or Christian Era". The numbering of years is identical to the numbering in the Anno Domini system, neither system using a year zero. The only difference is that the term "Common Era" (and its concomitant abbreviations) does not use the religious titles for Jesus ("Lord" and "Christ") that are explicit in "anno Domini" and "before Christ". Originating among Christians as early as 1716 (at first in Latin), Common Era notation has been adopted by many non-Christians, and also by some Christians wanting to be sensitive to non-Christians. The use of BCE and CE has been criticized by some who favor the AD/BC system as being "the result of secularization" and "political correctness". It has also been criticized for not including a year zero, and for not removing the traditional year of birth for Jesus as the reference date that divides BCE from CE. --JimWae 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a chance to explain, if the edit comment is not yet clear enough for you. Your objection to "set" is nonsense, I had already explained that this is not an article on mathematics. "set: A number of things of the same kind, ordinarily used or classed together; a collection of articles which naturally complement each other, and usually go together; an assortment; a suit; as, a set of chairs, of china, of surgical or mathematical instruments, of books, etc.". I can't start from your revision. You were bold, but created more havoc than you seem to realize. I'll come back on this a little later. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 18:21 (UTC)

"Giving a chance to explain" would not include allowing a change that makes the article worse, even if an editor professes an intention to make the article better later. If you need to work on the article step-by-step to improve it, do it in your sandbox. --Gerry Ashton 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was worse before I reverted. That I will explain, and improve the article. JimWae's revision had as topic Anno Domini even more that the previous versions. He had eliminated an origin of 'era vulgaris' that sounded respectable, and now started by calling it the 'vulgar era'. He had given two of the cheapest anti-BCE-CE arguments in the lead and such even without attributing those to the source (for such a mere index reference is not sufficient, according to WP:NPOV) and it certainly does not belong in the lead. He had eliminated the properly attributed Chicago Sun reporter's quote that gave a short and balanced view on both camps main point of view. And that is just a start of what was wrong with it. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 19:14 (UTC)

And JimWae, please stop inserting comments (18:23 and again 18:25) after there's been a reaction (18:21). That is not correct behaviour on talk pages. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 19:27 (UTC)

• The Sun article was still in my version - as a source rather than giving over (nearly or all of) an entire paragraph of the lede to a single newspaper article (which someday likely will not be discoverable on the Internet)
• The comparison with AD is unavoidable - for CE is a (fairly) new name for an old thing. The lack of appearance of CE in the AD lede is irrelevant to this article
• The supposed source of Era Vulgaris in ancient Roman philosophy was unsubstantiated - but I remarked on its Latin appearance to the lede, and nowhere did I call it the Vulgar Era - I sectioned out a part that already mentioned that interpretation, since it does NOT really belong in Origins section.
• Those "cheapest" criticisms are easily sourced (already appearing in article) & are one of the main reasons why there is dissension amongst those wanting a replacement for AD. The controversey is inherent to this topic & needs to be in the lede - and not just from the Xn, non-Xn viewpoints.
• nowhere have you addressed to the satisfaction of others the numerous objections raised to the version you are so ultra-committed--JimWae 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• And JimWae signed those inserts which came during edit conflicts, were not deletions, and belonged there--JimWae 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• My objection to "equivalent sets" is NOT nonsense - and others agree. You are trading on an ambiguity in "equivalent" which makes that sentence say either very little (if anything at all) or makes a POV assertion --JimWae 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is not about the abbreviations - which are still very important & while still covered in the 1st paragraph, should not predominate in the lede. The article is about the concept "Common Era" - which includes its usage in Latin --JimWae 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) If a group people feel put upon to be forced to use words or abbreviations they dislike in order to be understood, and a different set of words or abbreviations are available that refer to the same object or concept, but do not make the same group of people feel put upon, the two sets of words are not equivalent because they do not have the same effect. --Gerry Ashton 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserting after a reaction is not considered WP:CIVIL. WP:NPOV clearly states that controversial arguments should be attributed in the text of the article; as the source is properly cited, its disappearance from the internet would not matter, it remains WP:verifiable. An unsubstanciated statement may be removed, but as it was not very recent and did not appear most unlikely or uncivil, it is more normal practice to bring on the subject on the talk page first, and to tag the particular statement in the article. The cheapest criticisms can be sourced but it is your very personal POV to pick exactly those from a long series of which, I for instances, could pick more interesting ones, and then also from the other list of pro-arguments. The controversy is not the topic of the article. It can only appear after the topic itself and in the last section of the lead. An earlier argument of one of your eliminations had been that CE also occurs before the year, i'm shure thaer art poeple ho spel baldy. You had stated not to have broken the paragraph; but I think you did: it does not normally show on a page when you start on a new line, but it does constitute a break (see for instance when you compare versions in the article history - which made it also impossible to work from your version, one could never compare easily with any earlier version, I'll have to check each of your many saved edits one by one just to spot all differences).

And your claim that others agree with your objection to 'equivalent sets' is intellectually dishonest: Only one (or were there two) contributors incorrectly assume it may POV, whereas I called your insisted (on your talk page and here) strictly mathematical interpretation of 'sets' and 'equivalence' being an argument to stop using these plain general language terms in an entirely different context, nonsense. Forgive me for not yet handling everything, there were just too many things quite wrong with your series of edits.
Neither does it appear intellectually honest to say that this article is not about the abbreviations, because you do not mention that I have at length explained to you (here or on your talk page) that the BCE and CE notations are the reason of existence of the coined term 'Common Era', else there would not be other descriptions as 'Current Era' or 'Christian Era', and in practice, apart from writing about BCE and CE, the terms occur rarely in fluent text. And I had also mentioned that nearly every link to this article will be from under 'BCE' of 'CE' and only the first paragraph can be seen by WP-ers having set-up their WP javascript page for preview, without having to actually and comparatively slowly open the entire article. All that is why the abbreviations belong there, and you had read the arguments before. This is a discussion page, but not reacting on your opponent's arguments whilst restating your opinion as if nothing had been discusssed before, quickly makes it a futile discussion. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 20:31 (UTC)

One of SomeHuman's objections to JimWae's edits was "He had given two of the cheapest anti-BCE-CE arguments in the lead and such even without attributing those to the source (for such a mere index reference is not sufficient, according to WP:NPOV) and it certainly does not belong in the lead." I think he is referring to CE/BCE not including a year zero, and CE/BCE not addressing the problem that the epoch is still based on the Incarnation of Jesus, even though the new wording does not mention Jesus. The second argument is mentioned in more detail, with a source, in the Opposition section, so I think that one is OK. I don't see any sorce for the year zero issue, so I have removed that.

Also, I don't understad what SomeHuman means when he says "a mere index reference is not sufficient". What is an index reference? --Gerry Ashton 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gerry, to your 'unindent' comment: your either set does not give the same people an identical or equivalent psychological satisfaction. You can compare my argument on their equivalence with the usage of American English, British newspapers' English, or British OED English. Hardly anyone will feel equally comfortable with these, but in general they are even-worthy. That statement about the versions of English is not considered POV in the sense of breaching WP:NPOV, such may need to be said in an article. But the choice of usage is individual or prevailing within certain groups, and one may have strong emotions, likings or dislikings for the different styles. That is my argument for insisting on stating the sets to be equivalent. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 20:44 (UTC)

Gerry, to your latest comments: Read WP:NPOV (or one of its linked pages on NPOV style): a controversial opionion should not be expressed without the text itself saying something like According to X, the head of Y, it is... instead of merely mentioning his opinion and putting the source of the opinion in a footnote reference which is only shown as an index . — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 20:50 (UTC)

I'm not too pleased with talking here and meanwhile seeing article edits being reverted to a most unsatisfying version that violates about every NPOV policy and style guide WP has. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 21:01 (UTC)

I now understand what SomeHuman meant by an index reference. We should indeed be careful to say something like According to X, the head of Y, it is... for views that are not widespread. As for equivalence, terms referring to the same object or concept are not equivalent when they create significant emotional reactions in some groups. This obviously applies to derogatory terms (the type of terms that get radio talk show hosts fired, for example). But just because two terms are used by various respectable publications does not make them equivalent. --Gerry Ashton 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I cannot find the section you are talking about in NPOV, but I suspect what you may be referring to is putting "CE is anti-Christian" in the text with a footnote that sources somebody saying that. That would be presenting someone's opinion as a fact - and not the form in the text we are discussing --JimWae 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your use of "equivalence" is vague & actually unsourced - your source says it is the "secular equivalent". What you are repeatedly reverting to is committing the very POV fault discussed above that you are accusing me of, plus other faults - such as misstating your source. You would have wikipedia say "the 2 ARE equivalent" with a footnote (of somebody's opinion - who does not even exactly say that)--JimWae 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also not re-inserted the last 2 criticisms, so your objections are minimized -- yet you still revert. I have made my 2nd revert for the day, which will be my last. You have none left under the WP:3RR rule--JimWae 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see how you operate: First you make a section that you don't like disappear by putting <-- --> around it in the edit page; then you remove the entire part, including the very proper source that corroborated it. Then you go to the talk page and accuse me of POV for leaving out the term 'secular', after I had brought that up myself (already before your wild revision) on this talk page and had given the reason. And you 'forget' to mention that I had not just mentioned the source in the reference but I had included the literal quote: "The terms BCE and CE are abbreviations for "Before Common Era" and "Common Era," respectively. They are the secular equivalents to the BC and AD dating conventions." This is the NASA/Goddard source. I see you also eliminated other references, without any discussion or relevant edit comment and after having juggled paragraphs around so it is very hard if not impossible for most readers to verify what your 'edits' actually did. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 22:15 (UTC)

WP:AGF I left that section there despite your many reverts so it would not be entirely lost (nor is it even now - edit history works fine, no?) After you reverted 3 times, I decided you would probably know how to find it again anyway - and the lede has far too much hidden & footnote material to properly find the text one wants to edit. We do not need 4 dictionary entries for nearly every term - for most even 2 is too many--JimWae 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And, No, I did NOT, as you say, "you also eliminated other references". Look & read, please --JimWae 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The main one from NASA, page VenusCatalog.html, is entirely eliminated (the one I had mentioned as other is indeed only moved elsewhere, my mistake). The devious aspect is that "Fred Espenak. Year dating conventions. NASA. Retrieved on 2007-09-07" still appears in your version of the article, another page by the same author and published by NASA, and you claim not to have removed the one that had supported the sentence that you had the strongest objections against in the first place, and which disputed part did get out of the article - a sentence that has caused so much conversation on your talk page and on this talk page so recently, would have disappeared unconsciously, accidentally, perhaps?

And I stronglyh resent your here above linking a 'history' proof of an edit on top of "you also eliminated other references", addressing me, as if proving me to have eliminated sources, while that links to YOUR edit. If you refer to my getting back to my last version having eliminated sources that you might have added in the long series of edits that cannot be followed properly by the edit history because of your breaking of paragraphs, I had declared that I was going to incorporate your proper changes, and had asked a little time - which you did not allow me but started edit-warring instead.
And that "despite your many reverts" is highly demagogical because 1) I was not reverting but trying to bring two versions together and needed to do such from the known one, of which the paragraphs were not haphazardly broken; a second time I had already started to rephrase and had to save across your revert because of an edit conflict 2) your clear reverts over my work being undone, does not make it difficult at all, in fact impossible, to lose parts, thus "despite" is nonsense.
Assuming good faith is hard if you cannot wait to revert even if on the talk page I had declared my intend to work from my version towards your version (as far as possible, because it simply is not good enough), and it is even harder when seeing an article overhauled to show all the Christian anti-BCE points of view, even poorly or unattributed, in the most visible places while the well-referenced statements that gave a more balanced view disappeared, with notable source and all, after your declaring on your talk page that you rather preferred BCE notation. And the attempt to let people believe you had left a reference because there is one that at face value looks near-identical... — SomeHuman 14 Sep2007 01:00 (UTC)

CE abbreviation use religious titles?

No - not even as Christian Era does CE use title of Lord or Christ --JimWae 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Go look up "Christian" in your dictionary, before you declare that the initials "CE" are totally unrelated to Jesus Christ. Also, Merriam Webster's declares that "CE" is also an abbreviation for "Christian Era". You need not engage in original research by redefining the initials without any sources, and then contradicting sources already provided.--Endroit 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that calling CE the Xn era is not the same as calling Jesus the Christ or the Lord - it does not use the religious titles for Jesus. However, you mau note, I have not re-inserted that since it is of little consequence to me - I have other battles to win --JimWae 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would actually be quite happy if Xns would be willing to "tolerate" CE if all it took was getting them to think "Christian Era" to themselves--JimWae 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, if you have a source that says "CE is unrelated to Jesus Christ", you can cite it. You just have to mention it in an appropriate manner in light of Merriam Webster's definition.--Endroit 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read. Nowhere does what I say depend on CE being unrelated to Jesus --JimWae 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just questioning the following sentence, particularly the "(and its concomitant abbreviations)" part in parentheses:

• The only difference is that the term "Common Era" (and its concomitant abbreviations) does not use the religious titles for Jesus ("Lord" and "Christ") that are explicit in "anno Domini" and "before Christ".

You were implying that the word "Christian" does not include the word "Christ", which is false.--Endroit 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling a group or (something) "Christian" is not the same as attributing the title "Christ" to Jesus. Apparently non-Xns were the first to call Jesus' followers Xns - and that is the name that stuck. Christian Era does not (at least no implicitly) use Christ as a "title for Jesus" --JimWae 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well our opinions differ. Your opinion is not sourced, and amounts to original research.--Endroit 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No Endroit, you are picking just one dictionary quotation that mentions Christian Era at equal level with Common Era for the abreviation CE while many other referenced dictionaries only mention Common Era. That makes Common Era the coined term for CE. At most, the article can mention that CE is also known as Current Era or Christian Era, as I did in my version. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 22:24 (UTC)

Speaking strictly about the initials "CE", they were originally used exclusively for "Christian Era". Later, it has come to be used more for "Current Era", while "Christian Era" is becoming passe. However, none of the sources say that "CE cannot mean 'Christian Era'". Therefore our article cannot declare that "'CE' does not contain the word 'Christ'", because it would be contradictory.--Endroit 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, how do we know that the initials CE originally meant only Christian Era? I'd like to look at that source and see where it leads. --Gerry Ashton 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Columbia Encyclopedia source which backs my assertion that "CE" meant "Christian Era" exclusively at first.--Endroit 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Unfortunately, it does not attempt to date 'originally'. Common Era is also the translation of Era Vulgaris, another term of which I find it hard to date it in a reliable way. When calling something 'original', a time frame is the least to ask for. — SomeHuman 14 Sep2007 01:06 (UTC)

By the way, the origin does not make a difference to the current usage. It is only for the 'Origins' section. The lead should only pay attention to current usage. Googling on "the year 2005 Common Era", "the year 2005 of the Common Era", "the ear 2005 in the Common Era", and such for Current and for Christian makes clear which usage prevails in today's English. — SomeHuman 14 Sep2007 01:18 (UTC)

First usage of "Vulgar Era" or "Common Era" in English

The book written in 1716 by Prideaux was The Old and New Testament connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations. However, it was written by Humphrey Prideaux (not Bishop John Prideaux, who lived much earlier). Humphrey was a D.D., definitely a Christian & apparently an anti-Deist, anti-Jewish & anti-Muslim - but never a bishop. Pieces of the book are available for free download at http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/augustus_neander_and_more_books.htm - but the text seems incomplete & is not searchable by computer. The online pieces are from a 1845 reprint of the book (it had many). It does not appear to me that the full work is downloadable even if you pay. Perhaps someone can find where he uses vulgar era (AD & BC & such are there aplenty). Perhaps somebody can find it online (JSTOR?) It seem the religioustolerance website was the original source of this info. Also see: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Humphrey_Prideaua --JimWae 06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two unsourced arguments

Two arguments appeared today in the Opposition section of the article (that is, arguments against adopting the Common Era).

• Besides the religious connotation, the epoch origin is not only Eurocentric but, parochial to the Germanic peoples and their point of entry to the mainstream of common human historical development, since the latter had been underway for several thousands of years before 0 BCE.

• The origin event is ill-defined.

Both arguments seem to belong in the Support section rather than the Opposition section. Neither argument is supported by a source that show proponents or opponents of Common Era notation actually use either argument in support of their respective positions. The first argument is not obvious and needs a source to show it is accepted by reputable publications. The second argument is equally applicable to the Common Era and the anno Domini. --Gerry Ashton 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, concur in editorial action. The more interesting material is here anyway. Actually, the argument is in opposition to the entire scheme either the original one or the "reformed" one. Of the two, the latter is more in your face ethnocentrism with it's implication that this cultures norms are applicable to humanity generally. Wow 6 archives already! Lycurgus 05:55, 21 Vintage 4705 公元 (UTC)

Moved from Article - unsourced & some very US specific

• The idea that years designated as "AD" are a common era is a bit misleading. Many social, political, religious, technological, scientific and even agricultural revolutions and discoveries have been made since the first century. Various other dates have been offered as substitutes for a new "common era," such as:

2001 - The year of the Terrorist attacks on the WTC, 1969 - The year Apollo 11 landed on the moon, 1961 - The year Yuri Gagarin orbited the earth, 1947 - The inaugural year of the United Nations, 1945 - The end of the second World War, 1865 - The end of the U.S. Civil War, 1815 - The end of Napoleon Bonaparte's reign, and the end of the French Revolution, 1789 - The adoption of the U.S. Constitution, 1492 - The year of Columbus's discovery of the New World,

--24.86.187.84 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC) --JimWae 07:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Common Era?

This is an athiest description of the Christian calendar and no decent respectable encyclopaedia carries it. The calendar we all use commences from the year of the birth of Jesus Christ and therefore it is a Christian calendar, pure and simple. Calling it a "common era" is entirely meaningless and scandalous. This is nothing whatsoever to do with POV. It is to do with fact. David Lauder 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you name a single "respectable" encyclopedia that doesn't carry it? Ben Hocking 12:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here? It exists as a concept and term whether you agree with it or not. Therefore, Misplaced Pages should include it as a topic. Freshacconci | Talk 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a good article.

It's heavily and properly cited, highly informative, and follows NPOV appropriately. Overall, given the sensitivity due to the nature of the matter and its religious contexts, this is a really well done article, moreso than many other articles. All in all, what exactly is the reasoning behind this article not being given a Featured consideration or review? As can be witnessed from this discussion page, this article hasn't even been given a rating of its quality assessment, showing that this article is being completely snubbed. Why exactly is this? Given its state, I say this article deserves more recognition than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage of Ice (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Index 1

Jclerman edited the article to try to explain that Common Era and Anno Domini dating uses index 1. I see a number of problems with this edit:

1. The meaning of "index 1" is not immediately obvious in this context.
2. The Wikilink went to a disambiguation page; that's always a bad idea.
3. Once we figure out that "index 1" means that the year that begins at the beginning of the era is labeled "1", that still does not tell us that AD 1 coincides with 1 CE.
4. The era was created by Dionysius Exiguus, but because either he did not adequately document his reasoning, or because his documentation did not survive, we don't know whether Dionysius considered the era to begin in what we would now call 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1. Thus, it isn't clear if "index 1" applies or not. --Gerry Ashton 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)