Talk:Christian era

Common era/Anno Domini
I have re-established "Common Era" as a redirect page for this article (and the article "Christian Era") for reasons specifically mentioned in the edit summary. Since the actual article "Common Era" cannot be named both "Common" and "Christian" era, we must at least redirect these articles to that article. Currently, at Common Era, the intro. states that the Era is equally notable as "Christian era" and "Current era", per Google hits.

Additionally, the article Anno Domini specifically represents the implication "Year of Our Lord", not the actual "Christian Era", thus this new redirect seems to fit better. Though the "CE" terminology seems to be an effort to avoid Christian connotations, for many (non-Christians alike) this complete avoidance is not necessary, they only want to avoid saying "2007 in the year of the Lord Jesus Christ", and don't mind "2007 of the Christian Era", as the term "Common" is somewhat ambiguous. If there are any problems with the redirect, please discuss.&mdash; OLP1999 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this change. Christian era is very nearly a synonym for anno Domini because it refers to the same year numbering system (i.e. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in AD 1969, and also 1969 of the Christian era) and has nearly the same religious connotations. The only subtle distinction is that "anno Domini" is a direct reference to Christ, while "Christian era" is a reference to people who believe in Christ.


 * The article anno Domini actually discusses the creation and dissemination of the era, while the Common era primarily discusses what the era should be named. --Gerry Ashton 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

--Gerry Ashton 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * QUOTE: "Christian era is a reference to people who believe in Christ".


 * In 5000 years do you think they'll refer to this time period as the "Common era"? No. It's the "Christian era" because Christianity has great influences on our society and the year 1|AD 1 starts at the year Jesus Christ is believed to have been born. You need not be a Christian to refer to a "Christian era". This redirect should be discussed only after more people join our discussion at Talk:Common Era for the equal due weight of the term "Christian era" there.&mdash; OLP1999 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that there is an era created by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century which has become the dominant era in international affairs, and in many countries. This era has many names, including "Anno Domini", "Christian Era", and "Common Era". When a reader enters a name into the search box, they should usually be directed to a page that discusses the substance of the topic, not to a page such as Common Era that discusses terminology related to the topic.
 * I think the real question is, what does the reader most likely want? If the reader enters "Common Era", is the reader probably interested in how the Common Era was created and diseminated, or in the relative merits of the various terms for the era; in the case of "Common Era" I suspect the reader is most likely interested in terminology. If the reader enters "Christian Era" in the box, is he most likely interested in substance or terminology? I suspect the reader is most likely interested in substance. That is why I think a redirect to "Anno Domini" is more appropriate. --Gerry Ashton 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and maybe this brings up an issue that the articles of Anno Domini and Common Era should be changed or merged. Since "Common era" is more of a neologism, and has the exact same, identical dividing point as Anno Domini and the Christian era, perhaps it should be merged into Anno Domini? Or maybe both Anno Domini and Common Era should be merged into an article called "Christian era" or someother? I know it would be controversial but the current two articles aren't really satisfactory to me in explaining that they are essentially one in the same and that Common Era is just a recent euphemism for AD altogether.


 * For me, pardon this silly example, it's similar to having two articles: one for Christmas and one called Holiday (holiday) (if you are familiar with the American "war on Christmas" claim that "holiday" replaces "Christmas"; see Christmas controversy). The "Holiday (holiday)" article would explain that this is a holiday "involving Santa Claus and presents", but nowhere does it mention Jesus. Then Christmas would be the exact same, but would mention the Jesus/Christian aspect. I feel this is what's going on with Common Era, it's an unneccesary, non-notable euphemism and neologism for "Anno Domini" or "Christian Era", which deserves mention but not in a separate article pretending to be impartial to AD/Christian era. Hope you understand what I'm getting at, I find it hard to write out my thoughts on this clearly. What are your thoughts?&mdash; OLP1999 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article structure is flawed. I suspect that the "Common era" article was split off so those who think the terminology is important could fight among themselves, and the historical information about the era could remain relatively undisturbed, but that's just a guess. I wasn't there. --Gerry Ashton 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much correct. Note that Anno Domini has FA status. The first priority here should be to clean up Common Era, but since OLP1999 is expressing rather strong views on this subject I don't think he'd be very succesful. I note that an "unnecessary euphemism" is still highly wikipedia-material if it is verifiable and can be presented in a NPOV, so that argument must be soundly rejected. If a lot of people would celebrate "Holiday", we would have to have an article on it. squell 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, certainly possible. I've just requested a move of "Anno Domini" to "Christian Era" at Talk:Anno Domini per the structure concerns mentioned, I've presented an argument for the move there and I hope you can check it. I think this is a first step in the right direction, and if successful, a merge of Common Era to the newly formed Christian Era article may be possible. I just don't think people need to be jumping back and forth between this two inherently identical articles, as this adds confusion to the already confusing matter. Also, Common Era is mostly an article concerning semantics anyway, or "terminology of the subject" as you suggest above. Although many people are going to disagree with the "Christian Era" overseeing title, I think calling it "Common Era" if there was to be a merge would be dishonest and overt political correctness. I am thinking that a sub-section of the new "Christian Era" could contain extensive detail to the "Common era" terminology, including the bolding of phrases like Before the Common Era, etc. In conclusion, I just think these two "articles" are too identical to merit pretending a substantial difference between them actually exists. I'm not sure if you'll agree with my merging suggestions, but hopefully since you say the article structure is flawed, you can at least make additional suggestions at Talk:Anno Domini. In either case, thank you for your contribution on the matter.&mdash; OLP1999 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)