Wikipedia

Talk:Common Era/Archive 10

< Talk:Common Era
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Arthur Rubin in topic Explanation of why CE and AD are equivalent
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

POV Dispute

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion

I suggest that the notation be changed so as to accept the common defination of an era. An era is a time frame common to geology and subordinate to the eon of which there are three -- the Archean, the Proterozic, and the Phanerozic -- the present eon. Eras have names like Paleozoic, Mesozic, and Cenozic -- the present era. Within the Cenozic era two periods exist called the Tertiary and Quaternary -- the present period. Within Quaternary period two epochs are named -- the Pleistocene and the present Epoch -- the Holocene. So when we speak or write of time we should be consistant. Since the term 'era' is long established I hereby argue that it is inapropiate to use the same term for different consecpts within the same subject -- time. Another term in common but unformalized usage is the 'age' as in 'ice age.' I am not aware of how ages are defined; but it is logical that we need a more refined defination. I suggest we let the geologist name and refine them for the Holocene such that that approximate 10,000 years are logically divided and the last of such divisions be used to establish a numbering system for the centuries and years. All they would have too do is to pin down some event that could mark the moment of the beginning of the Halocene and start numbering and naming--71.68.42.115 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


This article claims the following: "Common Era, abbreviated as CE, is a designation for the world's most commonly used year-numbering system." However, the references given do not state that fact. In fact, both seem to address the Gregorian calendar, and not the date style use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD. Most articles I have read indicate that while many scholars seem to prefer BCE/CE the general public prefers BC/AD. Bottom line, this statement and the references given do not match. Unless there is a reference backing up this statement, I believe the statement should be removed. (72.154.125.138 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

There is a system for numbering years which numbers years from the incarnation of Jesus, as calculated by Dionysius Exiguus. This system is the world's most commonly used year numbering system. That is the claim. The citations back up the claim.
There is no claim that either AD or CE are the most popular designations for that system. If I were to guess, I would guess the most common designation is probably a Chinese phrase.
So please clarify what you think is not sufficiently backed up by citations, that the year numbering system is the most popular, or the non-existent claim that AD or CE is the most popular designation. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
When I read the article, it seems to me that the claim is about the BCE/CE date style, since that is what the article is about. If there are no objections, I will clarify that the statement is about the Gregorian calendar. (72.154.125.138 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
I strongly suggest you post your suggested change here on the talk page for discussion. Some people come to this article as combatants in the CE vs. AD fight, and interpret every word as part of that fight. But other people come here not knowing what CE means, and the article attempts to answer that question right off by explaining that CE designates the most popular year-numbering system in the world. There have been many discussions about the wording of the lead of this article, and it is probable that someone will object to whatever change you have in mind. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with the current wording as you left in the words that I added "one of the designations." Later in the article it explains the other date style. We all have an opinion on the date style topic, and I am no exception. This, in my opinion, takes away the debate because no matter which style someone uses, this article now seems to be written in a neutral way. That was my goal...thanks! (72.154.125.138 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Revisiting "Common era" in Chinese usage

"... I would guess the most common designation is probably a Chinese phrase." Yup, the Chinese use "Common Era," as the article points out. Sunray (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that most Chinese people speak and write English most of the time. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL. I was going to use the Chinese term (公元)", but didn't think you would understand. It translates as (drum roll please)... "Common Era." Sunray (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
According to this it actually translates to "AD". Do we have any citations indicating that it translates to "Common era"? — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
So much for Google Translator. This was discussed extensively on this page. Chinese speakers assure us that it means "Common Era." The PRC adopted "Common Era" in 1949. References confirm this: [1], [2]
I'm not sure we need citations in the article (which has contained that phrase for about 5 years). We don't have citations for "the sky is blue" or "oranges are a citrus fruit," after all. Comments? Sunray (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Not one of those links you provided indicates that "公元" itself translates to "Common era" (the second link is a mirror of Wikipedia's Anno Domini article), while the Google source gives a direct translation to AD. You said this has already been discussed extensively on this page... where? And your comment comparing this matter to "the sky is blue" makes no sense, there are plenty of citations and evidences to confirm that; there are none for "公元=CE". I am restoring the citation needed template and it should stay until this is resolved. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You are right about the second link being a mirror. Careless of me. I've removed it. I also removed two others which only show usage. I've added another that can be used as a citation.

I think that you should read the archives. I recall that this was discussed several years ago and editors from WikiProject China confirmed the Chinese. I do not think that we need to verify the translation further. Google Translator is notoriously weak. If you doubt this take any non-English language you are familiar with and translate a paragraph into English. It will be riddled with errors. Since you are insisting on the "citation needed" tag, I will add the two citations. But I do so under protest. We do not need to source every sentence in Wikipedia. Sunray (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

See these:

"Common Unit" is probably the closest to a "literal" translation. Literal translations do not resemble "year" or "anno" or "Lord' or "Domini".--JimWae (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the article's wording "In Asia, the Chinese use the term "Common Era (公元)". a bit misleading? Here, "Common Era" wikilinks to a section of another article that mentions nothing about the Chinese using "Common era" itself over "Anno Domini", and is lacking in any sources. According to one of the links you added above, Jim, (this one in particular), 公元 can be interpreted/translated as either CE or AD, and there's no clear indication that the Chinese intended to specifically use CE rather than AD. Shouldn't we reword this to something like "In Asia, the Chinese use gōngyuán (公元), which translates to "common unit", as with the Korean and Japanese explanations? There's no indication that the Chinese specifically and consciously chose "Common Era" in particular. — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Words have a primary meaning, and connotations due to their etymology. For example, "Common Era" and "Anno Domini" have the same primary meaning: the system of year numbering initiated by Dionysius Exiguus. However, the connotations are different. Translations cannot be relied upon to preserve the connotations, so you could cite 10,000 English translations of Chinese documents, all of which use the term "Common Era", and all it would prove is that that the translators preferred to use "Common Era" rather than some other English term. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese_era_name#How_the_Era_System_worked discusses how 元 (yuán) was used to indicate the naming of an "era" long before 87 BCE, and has been used many times since to mean exactly what "era" means in English --JimWae (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. That is the consistent advice we have been getting from Chinese-speaking editors over the years. Right now there is a "not in citation given" tag on the term (last paragraph of "Usage" section). The citation is a Chinese one, summarizing the history of the the First CPPCC Plenary Session in 1949. While the Chinese characters are not included, the term "common era" is clear. The purpose of the section, as I understand it, is to document usage of the term "common era." Shall we remove the citations, or the tag? BTW, since this discussion has morphed into discussion of the use of the term in Chinese, I've given it a new subsection name. Sunray (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The citation in question shows that the Chinese adopted an era that is numerically equivalent to that used in western nations. The citation, by itself, does not indicate what connotations or etymology the Chinese phrase has. The kind of publication that would properly discuss that would be a Chinese dictionary, written in Chinese, and written for a Chinese-speaking audience. Alternatively, there is a chance someone might have written a calendar-related book, comparable to Blackburn & Holford-Strevens but written in Chinese. The chance of finding an English-language work about Chinese etymology seems very slender. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't get your point. JimWae has confirmed that the Chinese characters mean "common era." The citation shows that Chinese authorities have adopted "common era" for their calendar. The section is about usage of the term "common era." What is the problem? Sunray (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
JimWae is a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source, so his conclusions can't be cited in the article. Not that it matters, but his contribution to this discussion is to cite a Wikipedia article to show 元 means era; that still leaves the question of the etymology and connotation of 公, and whether 公元 means what one would expect, or whether that combination of two words has an unexpected meaning. In any case, Wikipedia articles don't serve as sources for other Wikipedia articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The first thing I think we need to agree on is that the format of the sentence in question needs to be changed from what it is now. Currently, it reads: "In Asia, the Chinese use the term "Common Era (公元)", but I think this should be altered to reflect the Korean and Japanese etymologies that follow, i.e. "In Asia, the Chinese use gōngyuán (公元), which translates to "[X]". It is the value of "[X]" that we are deciding upon now. As per one of the links that JimWae has provided, gōngyuán is a compound of two words, gōng and yuán. According to that source, Gōng on its own can mean "fair or equitable; public; duke". Yuán can mean "first; dollar; origin; head". Should we use one of the words from each of these examples to fill the [X]? What about "public origin"? Thoughts?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 01:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand where you get the word "gōngyuán" and I haven't seen a coherent argument for changing the phrase. You surely aren't objecting to the Chinese characters, are you? If so, we can remove them. The fact that the Chinese use the term "common era" is well documented. Sunray (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Read the link again, and read JimWae's comments. 公元 = gōng​ yuán. — CIS (talk | stalk) 08:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Here and here are sources that 公元 is used to tag the year number as the same as used in Gregorian calendar. Here and here are 2 sources to indicate yuán​ (元) was used to mark era names in ancient times - so obviously the literal translation of 公元 (gōng​ yuán​) is not "Christian era". Perhaps a better literal translation, IF we were to take the characters separately, would be "common first" - but good translations are not made by simply compounding the literal elements. The "common" part seems to be pretty well supported, tho' more may yet be found This should be enough at least to show that translation of 公元 as "common era" is not wrong-headed & can likely to be further verified with further research. --JimWae (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, how about instead of focusing on the translation, we do a rewording something like this: "In Asia, the Chinese use gōngyuán (公元) to indicate the Common Era". — CIS (talk | stalk) 08:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought the point of the paragraph giving the Chinese information, as well as the paragraph before it, was to show examples of other languages that use a relatively non-religious term for the era. If we can't cite sources to show that a particular language uses a non-religious term, it shouldn't be in those paragraphs. If you think there is no reason to have such a list of languages, delete them all. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.worldlingo.com/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html when translating "公元" in simplified Chinese says A.D. Not sure if it's literal, but that's the direct translation from that site. I know it's not a reliable source, but I hope it helps. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The the two dissenting arguments regarding the wording of the relevant Chinese are not properly addressing each other. The claim that the prevailing Chinese is in support of the CE/BCE "common era terminology" is probably erroneous. This is evidenced by the english "CE" and "AD" both being translated into the same Chinese phrase gōngyuán. I recommend revising the sentence regarding the chinese convention to "...calendar without any direct religious connotation." To clarify that the debate between use of CE versus AD designations does not exist in Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.75 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This article use American English

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have marked this article as using American English because of the word "favor" in this early version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Christian Era" in lead

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This change reintroduces "Christian Era" to the lead, which now reads:

Common Era (sometimes Current Era or Christian Era) abbreviated as CE, is an alternative designation for the calendar era originally introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, traditionally identified with Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).

This creates two problems:

  1. Is "Christian Era" really an alternative designation, or should it be considered a synonym of "Anno Domini"? The only justification for not considering them synonyms is that Anno Domini implies that there is only one lord, the Christian's lord. "Christian Era" could be read to mean the era used by Christians, without implying an endorsement of Christian beliefs.
  2. If the sentence structure indicates the items inside the parentheses are also abbreviated CE, there is no source to show CE is an abbreviation for Christian Era. Conversely, if the items inside the parentheses are not necessarily abbreviated CE, then the abbreviation for Current Era is not stated. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
After some searching, I found http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-definitions.html which explicitly states that CE is an abbreviation for Christian Era, so my second point above is resolved. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


I have just used Wikipedia to find out what BCE means. I have seen it, along with CE several times in the past few years but simply pressumed it to be an abbreviated form of Before the Christian Era. I often wondered what AD (Anno Dominii) really meant and until adulthood (I'm mid 40s) thought of it as After Death. So my concept of BC and AD was equivalent to before christianity started and after chritianity started. My thinking being that christianity didn't start until after the death of Jesus. I now believe the changeover point was meant to refer to the birth of Jesus or shortly afterwards. I stray a little. My point being that I have never come across the phrase "Common Era" until this article. My assumtion was that the symbols BCE and CE had been recently adopted as alternatives to BC and AD to prevent insulting or causing offense to non-christians, whilst retaining the idea of when the focal point was. I am fully supportive of that concept. The article was very informative and to me seemed mostly balanced. On reflection, I find the lead very good. Hence this entry here. However, in later areas the article seems to imply that CE always means Common Era, the phrase repeated often and so projecting a secular bias. For example, the section that mentions Watchtower. I would expect this organisation in particular to think CE means Christian Era. I see that the phrase Common Era could be insulting to christians and non-christians alike. The first because it might debase their belief system, and the second because it might indicate christianity is the predominant belief system, ie. it is Common. This second use is probably the original source of the phrase as, where it was used in the form Vulgaris Aera, this was true. Though I'm more inclined to believe that the use of VA or VE was more to promote the idea that timescales should not be dominated by earthly, royal personalities. The talk page shows that most editors are far more educated than me, so I accept I may be wrong. I am a newbie after all. Huradon (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most era designations consist of only a two or three letter abbreviation, and it is impractical to interview each author and ask the authors what meaning they had in mind. So unless some organization of language scholars want to organize a massive opinion poll, I don't see how to resolve the question. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I used to think AD stood for "After the Day" where Day referred to the birth of Jesus. Not sure if there is any accuracy in this or it was just me making up a reason for the abbreviation.Spitzak (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the sentence I've copied below belong here, not in the article?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

" It is generally known, for example, that Britain and her colonies used the Julian calendar up to 1752, so it might be considered pedantic to mention this specifically." - that's a reflexive commentary, inappropriate in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe the sentence. Based on copies I've seen from Wikipedia to Wikidata, most people don't know this. Indeed, I'd say most people have no awareness of the Julian calendar at all. Wikipedia does not have an absolute requirement that a date be labelled with the calendar it is stated in, and even if it is labelled, the label may appear in a footnote rather than immediately adjacent to the date. Wikidata, on the other hand, always labels a date as Gregorian or Julian (although their whole date process is badly broken at this time). My observation is that most copies of non-Gregorian dates from Wikipedia to Wikidata get the date wrong, whether it is anywhere prior to 1582, or in Britain from 1583 through 1751. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of BC instead of BCE not decided for Wikipedia articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I learned the hard way (having my rename reverted for 6th millennium BC that it had already been decided (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on years, articles on numbers, article names containing non-date numbers, that BC is to be used instead of BCE within Wiki articles.

Maybe any discussion of which one (BC or BCE) should be used in Wikipedia should take place at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) and not here. PeterEdits (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not appear to be strictly true. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style says [correctly, IMO]
so what you fell foul of was the rule 'don't change what is there without discussion and justification'.
If one needs to wlink to, say, 6th millennium BC in an article that generally used BCE, then one should use the 'pipe' operator thus: [[6th millennium BC|6th millennium BCE]] (which produces 6th millennium BCE)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Common Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Section "Convention in Style Guides" is demonstrably incorrect

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some style guides have similarly erred when suggesting that AD *precede* the year. This is only the case when the written form "In the year of our Lord" is used. It is demonstrably evident that AD, like BC, is much more frequently used FOLLOWING the year number. EG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partridge_Family_2200_A.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2400_A.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2300_AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_AD_%28comics%29 Dfoofnik (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) dfoofnik not signed in

Anarchist publication, appropriate example?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This section the article notes that an anarchist publication entitled "Lucifer" used CE: [3]. I wonder if this is an appropriately balanced example, and I would like to remove it, along with the picture. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as a worthwhile source. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Not notable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV in "Opposition" section?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Common Era#Opposition includes a lot of liberals, non-theists, and non-conservative Christians giving non-theological arguments about how BCE/CE has problems, but how many of them are actually "opposed" to its usage, especially its usage over BC/AD?

I personally never use BCE/CE when talking to my Christian or non-theistic friends and family (or in fact in speech in general -- most of the talking I do is in Japanese anyway), and I know why -- either it's not familiar to the people I'm talking to, or it's not important to be careful about it and it's less common. If I wrote a style manual for use in non-academic publications, I might even point this out. But I'm not in "opposition" to the BCE/CE format, and would be horrified if Wikipedia classified me in that way.

Additionally, even if we used a lighter word like "disadvantages", a lot of them are not actually disadvantages relative to BC/AD -- they are disadvantages relative to some hypothetical purely secular dating method that has nothing to do with the traditional date of Jesus' birth.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You have much more interesting conversations with friends and family than I do. Really. I can't think of a time when I actually mentioned "BC" anything to my mother. Still, just as the Opposition section of this article mentions, some advocate for BC/AD not for clarity, but because they have a Christian agenda: "a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel". On wikipedia, I don't see many arbitrary (and unexplained) edits from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Usually, it is the other way around, and then often on articles that are more about Jewish history than anything. This is when things start to stink. Just my opinion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A lot of my friends were history majors in college, as is my brother, and I'm interested in history too, so it's not an uncommon topic of conversation. :P Anyway, I'm not talking about the bonafide opposition to BCE/CE from Christians, or anything on-wiki. I'm just saying that we shouldn't classify arguments for the use of BC/AD in certain circumstances and claims that the BCE/CE format is flawed or arbitrary from people who use it nonetheless as "opposition". Wilson clearly isn't "opposed" to the format per se -- he just says that BC/AD is more recognizable. Steel is (if we summarize his argument accurately; I haven't read his book) wrong in saying that the distinction is selective, since very few of the other aspects of the dating system he mentions are explicit confessions of faith in "pagan, ... Jewish, or Christian beliefs". Delaney is also wrong for the same reason. Citing authors who are wrong and whose views are not widely shared is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and citing authors as holding views they don't actually hold is even worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88, you are a very thoughtful and informed editor. Thank you for your contributions to Wiki. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move in unison with Anno Domini move

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Further information: Talk:Anno Domini § Requested move in unison with Common Era move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Simplified English Watchtower

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion

Is the usage of "after Christ" in the simplified English Watchtower" really encyclopedic, or is this just something that once had a purpose in the article that has taken on a life of its own? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Common Era → Gregorian and Julian calendar era (or Dionysius Exiguus' calendar era) – a move in unison with sister article Anno Domini to AD, BC, CE and BCE or Gregorian and Julian calendar era notations to change the focus of both articles. The article that is now Anno Domini would focus on the abbreviations, while the article that is now Common Era would focus on the era and link to the article about the abbreviations that are used (AD, BC, CE and BCE) to suffix the years after or prior to the era's epoch.

I don't see how we can determine from any reliable sources that "Common Era" is more popularly interpreted as the definition for the "CE" abbreviation than Current Era, or especially Christian Era, which, per sources, came about prior to 'Common Era'. It seems that Wikipedia itself is contributing to external sources' claims that CE is foremost meant as "Common Era", I don't see that claim being made in any reliable sources prior to the existence of this article under the title Common Era, and any recently-increased popularity of "Common" can be attributed to the name choice here on Wikipedia.

Can anyone provide an argument for why the abbreviations themselves (AD/BC and CE/BCE) should have separate articles both trying to summarize the era itself when they are all just abbreviations for the same era? It is redundant to have two full articles focusing on the same era, with the only difference being the semantics of the abbreviations used. This is certainly a convoluted and controversial issue, but the current title locations of Common Era and Anno Domini are too insufficient and biased in my view — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Anno Domini" article is about the era. Its title is a slight adaptation of the column heading found in the source that created the era, which reads "ANNI DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI". The "Common Era" article is about the alternate notation and abbreviations CE & BCE. It was felt that the article about the era, which applies to all countries, should not get bogged down with the history of some notation that is used only in English-speaking countries.
At the same time, Wikipedia should cover the controversy stirred up by the CE/BCE notation, and it was felt it would be less distracting to have that coverage in a separate article. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the 'controversy stirred up by CE/BCE' should be covered at an article about all (four?) notations, while the era for which these abbreviations are used should have a separate dedicated article. It doesn't really matter to me which article is moved to what, but the main point is that I think one article should be about the era itself, and the other about all of the abbreviations. At the very least, Common Era should be moved to CE and BCE to avoid biased favoritism of one interpretation of the abbreviation CE. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be covered at all. BCE/CE - used by Hitler and Communists - should be consigned to the dustbin and Wikipedia should stop following current fashions of political correctness. Until they do, I will not donate one penny to their fundraising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.38 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well a quick search gave me [4] where CE is used as an abbreviation for common era in 1916, so I don't think it is due to Wikipedia! 'Common era' has been used for nearly a century before that as well. I rally don't think much of this article using web pages with no provinance to bolster up things in the lead, references to books should be used for something like this. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be one article about the era (who created it, why, how it spread, etc.) and another about the notation controversy. Note that the notation article cannot be purely about abbreviations, because it is what the abbreviations are thought to represent that creates the controversy. Also, it is normal practice when there are two related articles for each to have a summary of the other. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood what I said, I wasn't claiming that Wikipedia is itself responsible for the term "Common Era", but rather that it may have contributed at least in part to "Common Era" being seen as foremost what the "C" represents in CE, relegating "Current" and "Christian" to being merely secondary definitions. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Christian era redirects to "Anno Domini", indicating it is a synonym for that era. Current Era redirects to "Common Era", indicating that it is nearly a synonym but, like "Common Era", has less obvious religious connotations. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
For now it does, but check out the history for that redirect and you'll see there's a long history of dispute as to the location of the redirect. I realize that "Current" and "Common" are both less explicitly religious than "Christian", but reliable sources indicate "Christian Era" as one of three notable meanings for the abbreviation CE, and perhaps most importantly, the first known historical usage of the abbreviations themselves (BCE and CE) was used by a Jewish academic who defined the abbreviations as "Christian Era", not "Common Era". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The terms "Gregorian" and "Julian" relate to the number of days in a year and the number of days in each month, not to the era issue. When Caesar introduced the Julian calender, I'm pretty sure no one referred to the year as "45 BC" (or 45 BCE). The anno Domini article should be moved to "Christian era". "anno Domini" is obviously not the English-language era name. Oxford redirects "common era" to "Christian era." "Common era" a euphemism that intentionally confuses the issue which era is common. If you date from the birth of Buddha, that's Buddhist era (B.E.). Kauffner (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. lists anno Domini with no note about being part of another language. By contrast, "et al." is noted as being latin. The Oxford link given by Kauffner also does not contain any note that anno Domini is non-English. It appears to me that anno Domini has become part of English. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, Kauffner is correct. "Christian era" is a noun while "anno Domini", according to all 3 dictionaries mentioned above, is an adverb. I don't quite understand why it's an adverb, since it usually modifies a year, which I guess would be a noun. In any case, I generally would rather see nouns as article titles rather than adverbs. But in this case, "Christian era" might refer to many things other than just the calendar era under discussion; "anno Domini" is more specific. I also think the article should be located at one of the most common terms for the era, rather than some location that is a politically correct compromise. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewriting History in the Name of Religious Neutrality

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion

Whether or not you care about religion, this article shows why wikipedia articles should be taken with a grain of salt. This article paints the picture that BCE/CE has always been widely used in conjunction with BC/AD, when in fact the term BCE was for all intents and purposes invented by the wikipedia community, in the name of religious neutrality.

This article is not an encyclopedia article. It does not explain the history of the usage of CE/BCE. To explain the history of CE/BCE, it should be explained that, in a contrived effort to make wikipedia religiously neutral, the wikipedia community started a movement to enforce the usage of CE/BCE.

This article is a rewrite of history, citing vague references to historical usage of the term "Common Era" in an attempt to make it seem as though BCE/CE has been used for more than a couple years.

If in five years, every book and article uses BCE instead of BC, then congratulations. But for the sake of historical accuracy, at least document the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.39.97 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And then it can explain how it managed, before it even existed, to persuade Christian theologians write scholarly books using BCE, I guess? Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree this article is unscientific, self-serving and completely underplays the role of Wikipedia in making this absurd notation of any interest to 99.99% of English speakers. Whatever the history of the notation, used by Jews and Nazis alike for politico-religious reasons, the ONLY reason I and millions of other people will encounter this notation and now need to look it up and learn its usage is because of Wikipedia's adoption, which is the de facto standard for factual information of our age (insert pageviews stats here).
So that is what this page should mostly be about. Wikipedia's attempt to twist the English language. I'm not a Christian but this use of CE is absurd and is obviously politically/religiously motivated, striking right at the heart of Wikipedia's claims of non-bias and balanced POV, and sets you guys up as totally untrustworthy hypocrites. Sorry for the strong words - please don't take offence, it's not meant to be insulting, but simply iterating a viewpoint that seems oddly underrepresented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.65.102 (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I'm an athiest, British and had never heard of this before reading it on wikipedia. This whole article is very bias. AD/BC is the most common. Signed Jimjams 19/10/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.18.217 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


I learned "BCE/CE" in school over 15 years ago.. I absolutely LOVE how Christians think they are being persecuted when they so clearly are not. Move to Egypt and then you can complain. 75.253.219.6 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

BCE/CE has been in use for at least 20 years. I recall when NOVA and other PBS specials began using the term. Personally, I think it's a bit silly, like saying "Thursday offends me because I don't worship Thor." Nonetheless, BCE/CE is much older than Wikipedia. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is much older. Even though I agree with Duncan Steel on the name change (to be honest, I don't care, I use both BCE/CE and BC/AD) in that it is silly to have changed something for the reasons they did, since BC and AD really have no religious meaning anymore (IE, much like the In God We Trust motto). However, it is much older than Wikipedia, but I do agree with the OP to a point: This wiki does make is seem as though people have been using it for years (commonly used, that is), when in fact it has only gaining momentum, if I remember correctly, in the late 90s. And 75.253.219.6, the poster didn't say he was religious, and whether or not he is is beside the point. And I think we all see your Egypt comment as a personal attack. I could easily say "I absolutly LOVE how you non-religious people think everyone thinks they are being persecuted. Go back to Russia." BTW, Some people here (ahem) are from Egypt, so I think that comment was prety nasty. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And by (ahem) I meant "mind your manner," not that I'm from Egypt. All the same though. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree that BCE/CE is ridiculous (in particular because of the difficulty of pronouncing "BCE" when reading dates), but you can't blame Wikipedia. This appearance of BCE/CE way predates Wikipedia and even the Internet.Spitzak (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
See "753 BCE" at Google Ngram Viewer.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Shows that BCE is used quite a bit in certain contexts, in this case history. The people above who have never run into before aren't terribly well read in the fields in which it's used, and I wouldn't expect to find it used, say, in Pop Music, etc. And I can't understand anyone having a problem pronouncing it. Sorry Spitzak, but there are a lot of words in English far more difficult to pronounce, 3 letters in a row should be easy. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the history of CE/BCE, it is nonsense and ridiculous. It still refers to the same event as BC/AD, so why not stay with that? Wikipedia is making a statement for reasons of political correctness, for fear of 'offending' non-Christians. I will not donate to Wikipedia until it abandons this kind of thing. In any case, why should Wikipedia try to be that religiously-neutral? No-one is forcing Moslems to read it. It is the product of the traditions of a Christian country. Try compiling something of this nature in Iran, China, North Korea or Indonesia, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.38 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

While I personally don't care whether BCE/CE or BC/AD is used, I would like to point out though that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased towards a particular group, meaning BC could be viewed as biased towards Christianity, using BCE/CE would be not be pandering to atheists but instead pandering less to Christianity(Of course you could argue that going out of your way to change it is biased towards all the others, but I believe that is much less biased compared to having it). Also your point about Wikipedia being built on a "Christian Country" doesn't apply as there is no american Wikipedia(and also america is secular not Christian), Wikipedia was built by the community which upholds the values of WP:NPOV -glove-(alt, public) (talk) (main account's talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of a detailed history of AD in this article.

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed material from the lead that gave theories about the derivation of the AD system since it is irrelevant to this article. CE takes the 'de facto' values presented by AD as a given, it has no interest in theoretical arguments about whether AD is well-founded or not. Such discussion may be appropriate in the AD article, it is just noise here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

B.P.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The guidelines source for this make it clear that B.P. Should not be converted when used (as in fact is its normal use) for radio metric dating. We already have enough editors who haven't a clue about this, I don't want to add to them, so this need an addendum. Doug Weller talk 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added to the footnote to explain the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) reserves "years B.P." for radiocarbon ages; they specifically state "Radiocarbon age determinations are not dates...The radiocarbon age is to be presented as years B.P. and not converted to calendric years B.C./A.D." The motivation for using B.P. as they do is quite clear; their motivation for preferring AD/BC over CE/BCE is not stated.
In section D 4 the SHA states

4. Eras
B.C. follows dates (2000 B.C.); A.D. precedes dates (A.D. 2000). There is no year 0. Do not use C.E. (common era), B.P. (before present), or B.C.E.; convert these expressions to A.D. and B.C.

(See below for use of B.P. in radiometric ages.) Abbreviate circa as ca. (ca. 1650).

I infer they consider it possible that others might use B.P. in connection with calendar dates rather than radiometric ages, and insist such dates be converted. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proper attribution of sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Jc3s5h: Re: this comment you left on my talkpage about this edit: In my version, the passage that was taken from the source was in quotation marks and appropriate attribution was given directly following the quotation: "...which distinguishes eras as AD (anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord")[5]..." (my emphasis added to relevant portion in bold). The source, Merriam-Webster, says:

Origin and Etymology of ANNO DOMINI

Medieval Latin, in the year of the Lord

First Known Use: 1512

Your edit translates the Latin as "[the] year of [the] Lord", which introduces brackets that don't appear in the cited source (or any other source that I've come across) and are unnecessarily distracting, taking away from the lead's readability. —PermStrump(talk) 03:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, when I looked earlier I didn't see that phrase, but now I do. Jc3s5h (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
A case of wp:verifiability not truth, since Anno Domini has no "in" and Latin does not have a definite article. The literal translation is "Year of Lord". But the citation trumps all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over unimportant stuff

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AD/BC is already commonly used and almost none any english speakers is unaware of these two term. Switching to BCE/CE is just plain inefficient, a movement which is clearly started by those who feels annoyed because of the root of BC/AD. Please don't do this, we have far more important stuffs to do, this is not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.253.207 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Common Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(Before) the Christian Era?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Currently BCE\CE is defined as (Before the) Current or Common Era. Why is the (Before) the Christian Era definition not referenced? Seems like a curious oversight. Yes I'm aware AD is mentioned, but that is derived from the Latin term. Not sure if an amendment or an explanation is needed. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems the purpose (in part) was/is to avoid the appearance of promoting any specific religion. Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe this discussion has come up before, in fact earlier revisions of this article did mention "Christian Era", but a cabal of users decided it was somehow not notable or too closely affiliated with Anno Domini rather than "Common Era", so it was removed. Despite the fact that a copious amount of sources refer to "Christian Era" in tandem with the acronym "CE". So I'd certainly be in favor of re-adding it, I don't see a reason not to other than the subjective opinions of some who seem to believe that referencing the phrase "Christian" era somehow taints the supposed secular purpose of CE. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In these two edits 2a02:c7f:8634:8100:a419:fbec:fbb2:1ed added the term "Christian Era" to the lead. I reverted the edit because I feel it was premature; this discussion has not reached a consensus.
As for the substance of the discussion, I feel Crumpled Fire's claim that there are 'a copious amount of sources refer to "Christian Era" in tandem with the acronym "CE"' I'd like to see that list. When I've searched, I've found many sources that use "Christian Era" alone, in conjunction with "AD", or "Christian Era" just means the period of time that the Christian religion has existed, without specifically meaning the year numbering system that labels the year that Apollo 11 landed on the moon as 1969. There are so many such sources that I've been unable to weed out all the sources that are off-point and find reliable sources that actually say "CE" can stand for "Christian Era". User:Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2017‎
I agree with Jc3s5h. There is no reasonable basis to assert that "a cabal of users has conspired to exclude any mention of Christianity" (or words to that effect). I believe that frequent editors are entirely neutral on the subject. As is the case for all of Wikipedia, if a statement can be supported by a wp:notable source, then of course it should be and will be included. But the problem here, as Jc3s5h says, is that we haven't got a citation for Christian Era as a dating system. Has anyone ever written (for example) "2017 CE" and then gone on to explain that they meant "2017 Christian Era" rather than "2017 Common Era"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I see that this talk page was archived in the past, but this is no longer being done. Do editors think archiving should resume? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of why CE and AD are equivalent

Latest comment: 6 years ago32 comments10 people in discussion

I consider it unnecessary. However, it is not related to Jesus's birth. The original source was unclear as to whether conception, birth, or resurrection was intended. Since he missed all of them by at least a few years, it seems inappropriate to speculate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does it benefit the reader not to know the real reason they are equivalent: the CE/BCE chose to use the dominant year-numbering system, which was and is AD/BC. Christ has nothing to do with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Our current year is 2018 and that is based upon BC/AD. Thus if you look at BCE you will see that it correlates to the dates of Jesus. Conception or resurrection are not what people typically go by when talking about birth.
The main idea here is that BCE is based upon Christ and thus it does the reader a disservice to ignore this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.166.113 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
CE is based on AD, without regard as to whether the latter is based on Christ. (Our sources say it is based on the Incarnation of Christ, not the birth of Christ. But it would take too much time to explain that term, for limited benefits to the reader.) One might say it is based on Christ, but I fail to see what benefit that provides to the reader. The real reason they are equivalent is that, whenever Common Era was used, it was chosen to be equivalent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The title Christ means "the anointed one". Use of this title in Wikipedia's voice is a violation of the neutral point of view policy.
The uncertainty is about birth (see "Nativity of Jesus") or conception [see "Incarnation (Christianity)"]. Christians think the "Resurrection of Jesus" occurred roughly thirty years after the incarnation; claiming AD is based on the year of the resurrection is clear error. The inventor of the Anno Domini year numbering system used the phrase "incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi, not "birth". Jc3s5h (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Both, "whenever Common Era was used, it was chosen to be equivalent" Thats my entire point. When we say 2018 we mean 2018 years from birth of Christ. Thus when we see 2018 BCE its the same system in place all based upon the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.166.113 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

173.17.166.113: Please ATTEMPT to use proper talk page conventions. And you've disproven your point. They were chosen to be equivalent. Period. There is no reason to bring Jesus (not Christ) into the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The source cited by 173.17.166.113, https://www.livescience.com/, is inferior to the sources already cited in this article such as Pedersen (contributor to The Gregorian Reform of the Calendar published by the Vatican Observatory) and Doggett (Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, published by University Science Books on behalf of the US Naval Observatory and Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office). Just because the general public is ignorant of subtle points does not mean Wikipedia should be dumbed down to echo ignorance. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we need an RfC to remove the incorrect information from the lead? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Although the article is semiprotected, it might be best if consensus could be established that the information is unnecessary and/or incorrect. WP:BURDEN suggests it should be removed, anyway, but I've been accused of misinterpreting that guideline before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is really a branch of "Anno Domini", created to separate the bickering over notation from the historical issues of its creation and spread. The edit in question is largely a summary of what is already stated at the other article. Maybe there was an RfC at "Anno Domini" that would settle the issue. I don't have time to look for it at the moment. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the pov-pushing and restored the npov version that has stood here for many moons. If anyone wants to know the basis for AD, there is an article for that. This article says simply that CE/BCE is an alternative designation for our current era. Apart from everything else, going into the traditions of just one of the world's many faiths contravenes wp:fork and will not be accepted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Josh, how would you like to word the article to reflect that BCE is based upon Jesus Christ for the reader? I am not so concerned about the details such as is it his exact day of physical birth vs conception etc etc. Also I've removed the agenda pushing opening and replaced it with a neutral opening. Just b/c something has been incorrect for quite some time does not make it correct. SGT-Craig (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not without a source. CE is based on AD, not on what AD was based on. (Inconsistent tenses are somewhat intentional.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed opinionated statements, added back the basis for what the entire system is based upon. Please provide references going forward. SGT-Craig (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no source has ever been provided that CE/BCE is based on Jesus. CE/BCE years are equivalent to AD/BC years because they are, not because of Jesus or Christ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Authur, that is the entire point. CE/BCE is based upon AD/BC. AD/BC is based upon Jesus. Thus the dates correspond exactly since both are based upon the life events of one individual. We could create a system based upon the creation of cars and call it BC/AD (before car / After dominion) and then come up with another system based on the dates of the creation of cars and call its CE/BCE (car evolution / before car evolution). The net impact is you have 2 systems based upon the same world event. Now I'm curious, what do you think that the system is not based upon the life events of Jesus?SGT-Craig (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus was probably born 4 BC, though. BC/AD is based on an erroneous calculation of when Jesus was born. BC/CE is based on the system that everyone uses, with the mistaken reference to Jesus (mistaken in the sense that Jesus wasn't born 0 AD) removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
"Being based on" is not transitive, especially considering WP:SYNTH. We have multiple sources that CE/BCE is based on AD/BC, some of which also mention that AD/BC is based on Christ (Jesus would probably be incorrect in that context). However, CE/BCE is explicitly not based on Christ, although some sources (probably mistakenly) say it is based on Jesus. I think what we need to say in the article is that CE is based on AD, and that is all we should say about the basis of CE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Now at AN3. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
It's probably a good thing that the Jesus-based starting point wasn't officially determined to the second, otherwise the above-argued kind of "based on" would also have to be purged from non-Christian clocks. Debouch (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If one reads the whole article, rather than just the lead, one sees that it is explained that the numbers count years from the incarnation of Jesus, whatever label may be applied to the count. The lead is supposed to be a short summary. Explaining fine shades of meaning, about whether "based on" is transitive, or alternate linguistic paths for "Common Era", is not short and thus does not belong in the lead. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems evident that there is no consensus to include a wp:fork of the history of AD/BC in this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll add my support for leaving the lead as it is (no claims about the system being based on the timeline of Jesus). The article explains the rationale reusing the same reference point. Meters (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you think it is based on then? A random number that just happens to coincide with BC/AD? Obviously it is based upon BC/AD and thus is derived from dates around Jesus. The real issue is not this but the fact that those w/ an agenda can't or won't accept that the system that tries to get away from Jesus can't since it is based upon dates that revolve around Jesus. Very ironic indeed. Still... I'll leave you alone b/c frankly I have a life and things to do. Can't prove a point against a legion of meat puppets no matter how much evidence you produce. SGT-Craig (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

BC/AD is based upon the life of Jesus (I'm using vague terms since some of you seems hung up that you do not know the exact second of birth / conception). CE / BCE is a system is is clearly based on BC/ AD and thus derived from Jesus life events. I would like to see someone here provide references they say otherwise rather than just deleting my references that support this. Show me how the systems are not based upon the same individual. SGT-Craig (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit said "The two notation systems are numerically equivalent since both are based upon the life events of Jesus." But that's not what the source you cited said. Your source said "The two dating schemes are identical and both use the birth of Christ as their starting points, but the secular version does not acknowledge this." That statement is patently untrue, as the starting point is based on the attempt of Dionysius Exiguus to determine the incarnation of Jesus. And it's well established that it's not accurate, and, as mentioned above, there's dispute whether it refers to the conception or birth of Jesus. But yes, the two era systems are equivalent and based on Dionysius' date. How many times does that need to be said? Mojoworker (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
SGT-Craig is currently on an edit warring block, and I don't see any other support for his or her position. Meters (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

... other than the citations that kept being deleted but if you guys want to keep pushing views in the fact of facts so be it. Best of luck. SGT-Craig (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed that SGT-Craig is blocked indefinitely - continued personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry, WP:NOTHERE basically. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in the article space

Fellow-editors, the talk page is where we debate which material is or is not appropriate to include in the article, and seek consensus. It is an abuse of privilege to tag as disputed material that is not disputed [in this case, that CE/BCE are numerically the same as AD/BC - no-one disputes that]. It is not productive nor professional to keep adding and subtracting disputed material. Otherwise we all get cited for edit warring and wp:3RR violations - and rightly so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I added the tag to dispute that CE/BCE is numerically the same as AD/BC because it is based on Christ or Jesus; they are numerically identical because CE/BCE was defined that way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Common_Era/Archive_10&oldid=1136630065"