Talk:Jesus/Archive 106

8 B.C.
First off this is a great article. I have one little nitpick: Aren't there some scholars who state that Jesus was born in 8 B.C.? They sight the Book of Luke, which says Jesus was born during a census, and that the last census in the reign of Herod the great would have been in 8 B.C. I believe Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ interviews one such scholar, but I don't have the book with me, so I can't provide a source. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernerd 10 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The census of 8 BC was restricted to Roman citizens, and Jesus and his family were not Roman citizens and would not have been covered. Most scholars assume Luke was referring to the Census of Quirinius of AD 4, though various attempts have been made to connect this to the reign of Herod.--Rbreen (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ref name="HC13"
Currently there is a citation error related to this reference ( ref #18 ) in the chronology section., (probably the parent ref tag was deleted). I am not sure where to find the ref contents., perhaps the editor who added this ref can rectify this problem., -- vineeth (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death
If the article clearly and very well talks about the different views of the death of Jesus then in the chart the cause of death should be rewritten. Maybe crucifixion (with ref->Christian), going directly to heaven (with ref->Islam). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.16.116 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the ref->Christian would only be necessary if we were to say "Crucifixion (followed by resurrection)". Do any secular scholars disagree that crucifixion was his cause of death? -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Every secular scholar I have read says he was killed by crucifixion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Islamic Scholars claim he was never crucified. Instead it was an illusion, he was actually raised to Heaven...or so they say. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore there is no Islamic opinion on Jesus' cause of death, since he did not die according to their belief. When asking for the cause of death, we are taking it from a scientific point of view, conforming with the majority of (if not all) scholars who assert that he died.  Gabr-  el  22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A good point! However, should their opinion not be noted in the infobox aswell? I imagine we could pull it off...just to stop the whole Christianity POV pushing that people like to accuse this article of. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if there is another reputable source to claim an alternative it should be cited as well. Perhaps another sentence saying "Islamic scholars say Isa was not crucified but..." Lihaas (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean Jesus - wikipedia convention demands the name Jesus be used for all other purposes. Furthermore, I don't this has got to do anything with it. First we say who believes Jesus died (non-Muslims) then we say what his cause of death was.  Gabr-  el  23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * However, we still have to represent Islamic Opinion. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is abotu the person, not the christian founder or christianity on itself. (could you point me to this convention for reference?). It's well and good saying the christian perspective and who believes he died. But that doesn't mean the muslim version should be included at ALL. Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I don't understand what you just said. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point Lihaas is that the Muslims don't have a perspective on how he died! I said we should include in a section before hand Muslim belief, not eliminate it. First we distinguish who believes he died. Then we say what the cause of death was most likely to be  Gabr-  el  23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. well, i agree with you then. Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fellas, the article does not say how Jesus died. It says that most critical scholars believe he died from crucifixion, which is true - but this is a statement about what most critical scholars believe, not about Jesus. For a verrrrrrrrrrry long time, the introduction has had the following points of view, in this order: the majority of critical scholars, then Christians, then Muslims. I see no reason to muck around with this order. An account of what modern scholars believe about his mortality belongs with other things modern scholars believe. An account of what Christians believe about his mortality belongs with other things Christians believe. And an account of what Muslims believe about his mortality belongs with other things Muslims believe. this makes perfect sense to me and it is just how the introduction is organized and has been for years. I see no debate here - the POV the original anonymous editor feels should be included is included. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the infobox? Gavin Scott (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "According to Muslims, he ascended to heaven without dying" after the statement about the resurrection? As for the simple date of death, I think it is safe to say that the date of his death reflects only the POV ov those who believed he died.  The key point here is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - any date, any claim about his death, is a statement about what some group of people believe. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the date of death/ascension the same? Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. They are different events that are believed to have occurred on different days. See Ascension of Jesus.-- Storm  Rider  00:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that opens up a whole new can of worms. I don't know if the infobox caters to both. Some mention may be appropriate. Lihaas (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Slrubenstein has the right idea; this belongs under Died, not under Cause of death. Place the phrase after the statement about Christians believing in Jesus's resurrection and ascension, and if we feel a date must accompany it, then place it in that area. -BaronGrackle (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate
If you look at WP:ERA on the WP:MOS (dates and numbers) it states:

"Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other (see WP:BCE for past debates on this)."

Thus this page should really choose to use either BC/AD or BCE/CE. It should be noted that the WP:Manual of Style states that neither system is favored over the other- thus it seems neither violate WP:NPOV.

I would be in favour of using BC/AD in this article considering Jesus is responsible for the BC/AD split. Gavin (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of those involved in the original debate over the date system, I'm very reluctant to move away from the compromise that has basically worked for several years now. Gavin, you're right that the guideline encourages one system to be used in articles, and I agree with that guideline in general.  But I think there's a good case to be made that contravening the guideline in this particular case is better for the article and the collegial atmosphere of the talk page.  The history of the debate shows that neither system has the support of a clear consensus of editors, and thus choosing one over the other will invite controversy and ill will.  Since the compromise of using both systems does not violate any core Wikipedia principles (even though it violates a style guide), I think we are justified in ignoring the guideline to achieve the more important goal of a continued collaborative atmosphere.  I don't lightly invoke WP:IAR, but I think it's warranted in this case. alanyst /talk/ 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This solution is far from ideal there must be a solution that is not so clumsy. It looks like BC/BCE are two separate things- they are just the same thing but with different names. I would support using BC/AD over the BCE/CE system however I would have no objections, should BCE/CE prove to be more popular in backing that consensus. However, what if there was a message at the start of the article to explain away the situation, something like:
 * "This article uses the BC/AD convention when discussing years, however it should be noted that BC/AD is synonymous with BCE/CE."
 * We should really use one or the other, it just looks real bad and I don't think there is real consensus for it. Gavin (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I say we use AD/BC. CE/BCE is the same exact thing, but without Jesus - why? If you don't believe in Jesus, why does one have to be intolerant about it and reject it? The AD/BC system is in my opinion pretty justified by the redundancy of the BCE/CE system and the fact that Jesus is a central figure to Christianity, only a Prophet in Islam and nothing in Judaism.  Gabr-  el  18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, AD/BC does not actually imply belief in Jesus, its just a set date. However, One user pointed out at the MOS discussion that we could say Jesus was born in the year 0000 and use the ISO Dating system...Gavin (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated up the wazoo, and obviously people on both sides of the debate think they have very convincing arguments as to why they are right. The status quo here is the only one that has been stable, and for several years - I would call that consensus, and however ugly you think it is, it is better than an unnecessary edit war.

We are here to write an encyclopedia and should all welcome a framework that has enabled people with strongly conflicting points of view to get along with each other - it is what gives us time to do really constructive things, like actually reading books on Jesus, on the Bible, on Roman occupied Judea and Galilee, etc, that help us make substantive improvements to articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I supose there is an argument for using BC/AD in article about the person the whole year system is based on. Though others might say that's a good reason for not using it in an article about Jesus due to sensitivity etc.. It's a hard one. I personally think AD/BC look nicer and are easier to distinguish, but it isn't much of a difference. I'm not sure I'm afraid. Just thought it looked worse mixing the notations up. Kingal86 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion should continue until a firm consensus is reached for only one dating system.  Gabr-  el  00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree- I also don't accept the argument that this is not important so it should be sidelined as we go on with other things, I think it is important and I honestly believe that we must choose one or the other...not just for the sake of the guideline but also because we have a duty to create a good encyclopedia- that is not achieved by this bizarre use of dating. I mean, where do we stop? Assuming the names of Days were changed to avoid religious connotations- would articles then have to put the traditional name of the day alongside its new name? I think we should go with AD/BC- if only because this is Jesus' article and he is the one responsible for the whole thing. We can even add a "disclaimer" note at the top concerning CE/BCE...Gavin (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For that matter, Jesus birth is also "the one responsible for the whole" CE/BCE thing. Because "AD" asserts "Jesus is Lord" and "BC" asserts "Jesus is the Christ/Messiah", there is MORE of a neutrality problem in using these titles in the article about Jesus than there is in any other article. As I view the MoS guideline, it is advising for consistency within the article - instead of switching back and forth between the 2 terminologies (similar to avoiding using the "theatre" and "theater" spellings in the same article). As it stands, the article is consistent in its usage. I agree it may be slightly jarring on first view, but wikipedia is not unique in this usage, and doing so actually educates the reader, and also makes it apparent that the article is attempting to write from a NPOV (choosing one over the other would not make that attempt at NPOV as apparent). There have been numerous votes on this issue & the split on preferences has always been very close to even. Nearly everyone who voted finds the compromise more acceptable than changing to the notation they did not want. The compromise has kept the peace & enabled people to work together without animosity. Maintaining this co-operation is more important than removing the slightly unusual notation.--JimWae (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is of course, your opinion and not the one held by me or Gavin. We are not saying "BC/AD or death", we are saying we must choose one over the other. I prefer the BC/AD system. So does Gavin. It is a disappointment for me that you support BCE/CE but hey all you need is an overwhelming consensus and you got it.  Gabr-  el  06:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I am saying we just do not "have" to choose - that not choosing is preferable for a host of reasons --JimWae (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion but it is not held by many editors who contribute to this article. Your point about neutrality is irrelevant because we still include the BC/AD convention now- even if the BCE/CE system is there it doesn't change the POV- of which there is none, wiki does not view either one as preferable to the other. Also AD/BC is used by people who do not believe in Jesus, BCE/CE is used by people who do believe in Jesus. However, this is about this article and improving its standards- it would improve if it had one system over the other. I mean, this is catering to peoples religious sensitivities- what if people don't think we should have pictures of Jesus like some people feel about the founder of the Baha'i faith. Do we then remove the images? If people don't believe dinosaurs existed should we change the start of the article to reflect that? This is an encyclopedia its editors shouldn't have to be restricted by the religious sensitives of others when it comes to improving the project, on this page we have numerous editors who wish for ONE dating system to be used, not two. Gavin (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We do indeed have numerous such editors. However, the problem has been, historically, that the number of editors who clearly prefer one system is approximately equal to the number who clearly prefer the other - as JimWae noted, no side has (to quote Gabr-el) "an overwhelming consensus".  Nor has one been reached in all the multiple times this issue has been discussed.  The closest we have ever got to consensus is the consensus by adherents of each system that keeping dual notation was better than switching to the other system.  That consensus is one which has been reached a large number of times. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet it is indeed being opposed now. Gavin (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, and it has been on and off since virtually the start of development. I'm not crazy about it myself, though I don't have a preference for one or the other alternative. My point was that neither alternative has ever had, nor appears likely ever to have, a clear majority; the closest (if one can call it "close") we've ever got to something that people can all live with is the current system. --MatthewDBA (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be, but perhaps by continual statements about "consensus" for the status quo we are missing a better solution to this situation, I really do think this one has to go. It just looks bad and is totally un-encyclopedic. Gavin (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How long has this article been listed as a "Good Article"? How long has it NOT been a featured article? Will spending days arguing something that will most likely again end in a stalemate move us one bit further towards feature status? IMHO, no! Please consider ways to improve the actual content of the article so we can reach FA one of these days, as opposed to worrying about a few silly letters after dates. (I also believe you are misunderstanding the intent of the MoS. It is saying that it is unprofessional to state something occurred in 537 BC, and then a few paragraphs down talk about 432 BCE. The MoS is concerned about consistency. Here, we consistently use a slightly unorthodox notation. But the point is we are consistent, we aren't switching back and forth between era notations in every paragraph.) -Andrew c [talk] 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is longstanding consensus for the dual dating system on this talk page, and it was a consensus reached via long discussion among editors who had put considerable work into the article.  JimWae was only one of those editors, by the way, but (1) certainly not the only one and (2) at least he is an editor who over the years has made significant contributions to this article.  Now comes Gavin pushing for AD/BC.  Gavin, how much content have you added to this article?  How many books and articles on Jesus have you read in your research?  I ask because I want to know whether you are here just to stir up needless conflict, or to contribute to writing a great encyclopedia?  I know I have added significant content including material that was spun off to a linked article.  I read several books published by academic presses and worked out a consensus with other diverse editors what material to add from those books and how.  That is how a great article gets written.  Not through ultimatums by people who have nothing better to do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't accept Andrew's argument that somehow what I have said is too trivial to warrant discussion- FYI we can discuss this BC/AD issue in tandem with discussing other things, contributing other parts to the article- production does not stop because a debate is going on, simultaneous debates can be had at once. Slrubenstein, feel free to look through my contributions to Wikipedia if you wish, however I am going to ignore the rest of your post because A) it is not on topic and B) it contravenes WP:OWN and if you ask me is an attempt to push newer editors off the article and establish control. (These examples on WP:OWN of comments which contravene the policy may interest you: "Are you qualified to edit this article?", "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality.",Gavin (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to own the article, and my insisting that good editing on an article like this is editing based on good research is I think sound. In the meantime, I assume good faith.  But when someone comes to an article and begins by getting involved in a long-standing controversy by trying to disrupt a longstanding NPOV consensus, and not by contributing substance to the article, I think it is perfectly fair to ask whether this person is here to push a POV rather than to help write a quality article. No one owns articles and anyone can edit - but honestly, who begins by arguing for controversial edits that are not about substance but only about a single POV?  WHy wouldn't someone who wants to work on an encyclopedia instead begin by making substantive research-based contributions? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look through the archives you will see this is not my first "push", anyway I am going to continue to ignore you will you stop attacking me and my actions and address the issue. Does noone think there is a better solution to this issue? Oh, also could it be noted that this discusion has NOT halted the editing of the article, it takes a few moments to post a reply to question noone can possibly feel that this discussion is impeding article improvement- we can discuss/edit/do other things at the same time. Gavin (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have a better solution: it should be BCE/CE. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer AD/BC, however I would rather have BCE/CE than BC/BCE...It represents a good compromise, because anyone who feels Jesus is being sidelined can just say it stands for Before Christian Era. Gavin (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Gavin, I am glad to see that you and I agree, or at least can compromise on this. But be warned: there are many many Wikipedians who would reject this, and over time people will come to this article, change it to BC/AD and argue why this is more appropriate.  It ends up taking a lot of energy for what is essentially an aesthetic point (what "looks good") that ought to be spent reading books and articles in peer-reviewed journals, and then writing about substance.  I am not right now referring to your bringing this up, I am warning you with a fair amount of confidence about the time that this would eventually take up arguing with different people, if we chose either of the two dating systems. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Gavin, I appreciate that you're looking for a better solution. But to paraphrase Churchill, the compromise we've got in place is the worst solution, except for all the others.  Indeed it's not the ideal solution, but is an ideal solution possible given the current circumstances?
 * Let's speculate on the possible outcomes of abandoning the current compromise, in favor of either the BCE/CE or BC/AD system:
 * Possibility 1: The system that is chosen, whichever one it is, is accepted by a clear consensus of editors. This would indeed be the ideal solution&mdash;but I think it's highly unlikely given past experience.  The archives show that there are many editors on both sides of the debate who would regard it as intolerable to let the system they oppose be the sole dating system in this article.  Perhaps the balance of editors who hold such feelings has changed over time, but I haven't seen any big cultural shift toward one or the other that would suggest that the Wikipedia community has similarly shifted.
 * Possibility 2: The system that is chosen is not accepted by a clear consensus of editors. I think this is the likely outcome.  But that means that someone would have pushed through a controversial change without consensus, and we all know that is an invitation to reversion and can easily lead to edit war, especially where strong feelings exist on both sides.  We'll basically see a repeat of the strife that occurred before the compromise was struck.
 * Do you see any other outcome, or think that I'm too pessimistic about the likelihood of the community to come to consensus in favor of one of the systems?
 * I really do sympathize with the stylistic argument, but I just can't give it more weight than the practical argument of keeping the peace. Until there's some evidence that the community is ready to accept (or reject) one system over the other, I don't see how we can avoid sticking with the compromise. alanyst /talk/ 16:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect Alanyst that you may be right- however that does not mean we should silence ourselves to discussion on this topic and continue to seek other solutions. Gavin (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We have been discussing this over and over again. As far as I see it, there are some substantial arguments for CE/BCE and some rather trivial arguments for AD/BC, and at least the last two debates, after enough hot air to elect three presidents and the House of Commons on it, concluded with "consensus that there is no consensus to change the status quo". Unless there are some really massive new arguments, this is unlikely to change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I would like to see one system used over the other, and I have no preference between the two. Each have pros and cons. But I would ask the questions, Why do we need to change how it is? This has been accepted for some time. WP:SEASON is a GUIDELINE, not a POLICY - I think that is a point worth making. Guidelines need not always be followed, and in this case, I think it is warranted to not follow them. Why no use the Jewish Calender? Or the Muslim Calender? Or the Chinese Calendar? You see were this is going. There is an argument for everything. We are better to leave well enough alone, rather than stir the pot. We are not breaking any rules by using both systems. I personally believe that using on system over the other, on this article, would be likely to be perceived as POV by a majority of the community. Let us not forget that while WP:Season is a guideline, WP:IGNORE is a policy. This article is fine as it is. Charles Edward 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was posted a new thread below before I realized that this one was already opened. :(. We need to pick one. The wording as it currently stands is weak and please-all. If we cannot make up our minds on what dating system to use, then WP has serious problems to work out. And we should choose BC/AD, after all, it is the Jesus article. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 03:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that one form or the other should be used, not a mixture of the two, but - like the Manual of Style - I have no preference for one over the other. Perhaps we should hold a vote? It could have four options: "BC/AD", "BCE/CE", "don't mind (but only use one)" and "leave as is". That way, people like myself with no particular preference for one form or the other, but who still think that one of the two should be chosen, could nevertheless contribute their vote to not wanting to leave the article as-is; then, if the "leave as is" vote is small enough, which form to use would be decided by the votes for the first two options. Robin S (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Before goingto that might I propse we remove all AD/CE notations anyway- unless there is a case like "Jesus lived from 4BC/BCE to 36 AD/CE" which might be appropriate. However, there is no need to say "Jesus crucifixion is thought to have occurred in 36 AD/CE.". If we get rid of that, there goes half the problem... Gavin (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think Jesus is the Messiah and your lord, go away to church. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Even scholarly Christian pulications use (B)CE now. How stupid is it to say that Jesus was born a few years before AD 1? The year of the lord is not the year of the birth of your god. How many more things have you got wrong? Or why don't you add Lord to every mention of Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.238.46 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what scholarly articles you are talking about, but the Catholic Church, which produces close to 90% of Church material out there always uses AD/BC, so that destroys your argument. How stupid is it for us to add in an extra "E"? How stupid is it to say he was born a few years before "Common Era"? What is the Common Era? Its a miscalculation on the part of a Monk, describing the conception of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. We have not got anything wrong, we are well aware of the fact that Jesus was born around 4 BC. Finally, you are the one who has gotten it wrong - there is no birth of God, ever!! God has existed, according to the Council of Nicaea, from the beginning. Jesus Christ was begotten, not made. I strongly recommend against using Christian ideas to fight Christians, since Christians would tend to know these things.  Gabr-  el  21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tourskin, using the word "stupid" is a sign that it is time for you to take a little break - I am sure that if you took just a moment to reflct you would regret having stopped to personal attacks, and had you paused before writing you perhaps would not have been so incivil. A good many well-intentioned, thoughtful people who have contributed to this article favor BCE and CE and some are offended by BC and AD. Erik the Red above sayd that using both is "weak and please-all" but I see nothing "weak" in doing something that will please everyone equally or displease everyone minimally if it requires very littel effort which is sure the case here.  Thank you for clarifying the Catholic Church view - but I am sure we all agree that privileging the view of the Catholic Church is a violation of NPOV.  In this case, recognizing multiple points of view seems to include views of dates.  I just do not see what is wrong with acknowledging that people who have an interest in Jesus have widely different views, even about which system of dating to use.  It is a big world. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, you need the break. I have made no personal attacks, show me where they are! I did not use the word stupid first, User 92 used it first and I recipricated as a mockery of his fallacious argument. I haven't called anyone stupid and have not made any personal attacks. You are the one who has made the personal attack by accusing me of such and asking me to "take a break". I'm not crazy to need a break, nor is it personal or offensive to reciprocate someone's words to show the fallacy in their argument. They said AD/BC was stupid, I say that it is not, and my reciprocation was that adding an extra E is stupid. Calling an action stupid is not personal and yes we do not need to criticize unnecessary actions. I have not expressed a Catholic POV, The Council of Nicaea was in 320 AD and is accepted by all mainstream Christians except Restorationists. I only mentioned the Catholic Church as a counter point to User:92's fallacious statement that Christians use CE when of course the vast majority of scholar;ly articles by Christians do not use CE but AD. Where is my personal attacks? What have I said, that was not in response or defense to something?  Gabr-  el  23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Tourskin. Thank you for pointing out that I should have faulted not only you but 92 for being uncivil.  Also, thank you for pointing out that BC/AD is a Christian and not solely Catholic point of view.  I am sorry you took my suggestion that you calm down as a personal attack, my intentions were good.  Obviously I disagree with your point of view, but I have never suggested you were wrong to express it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please understand that I am not unreasonable and that if I am defeated in an argument, I will accept it - but I had to respond to user 92, who later on in the page called me a "Christian fanatic". Whether or not wikipedia uses AD or CE does not destroy God in my belief, so I don't care for that matter. Let me make it more clear my point that I would rather have it CE/BCE alone than both together. My order of preference is the following:


 * AD/BC
 * No dating system (just leave it as +/-numbers, like 26 or -6)
 * CE/BCE system
 * Both systems.

This is my preference, not my unreasonable "this or death" request. Gabr-  el  04:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great to see this debate coming up again. I really hope this is the last time. I, for one, agree completely with Gavin, whereas I prefer AD/BC, but would rather see BCE/CE used alone if it came down to it. I think the clunkiness of the way "BC/BCE" reads completely misses the point of Wikipedia, which is to offer an easy and informative read to the average internet browser. Let's make a decision, damn it! My vote is for AD/BC. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 11:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 92's remarks were indeed unfortunate - I guess i overlooked them because I don't expect much from the average anonymous user (no offense - some continue to make great contributions). My preference is for BCE/CE because it accepts the fact that non-Christains share the Christian calendar (which is why it is "common" or even by some versions "Christian" era) without saying that everyone agrees Jesus was/is Christ or "our" Lord.  So this is why I prefer BCE/CE. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)