Talk:Jesus/Archive 15

John's Gospel says Jesus said the Father is the one true God
John 17:3. Father is the one true God; Jesus is the one sent by God, the Messiah

Jesus didn't claim to be God; The Gospels don't claim Jesus is God; The Letters of Paul don't claim Jesus is God. It's a later proclamation of the Church of Rome, its source is the gnostics who where the first to claim that Jesus was God and the first to invent the extra-biblical concept of the Trinity


 * Sorry but you are mistaken. You need to look at all the verses that are pro and con "Jesus being God", then weigh it up. In some verses Jesus is subservient to the Father; in some verses he is equal with the Father e.g. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". RossNixon 10:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I did this once. It turned out to be inconclusive. What's more relevant is what his immediate followers taught, based upon their beliefs. It appears that their teachings were quickly obliterated by Paulinism, and that they were almost completely annihilated as a group during the destruction of Jerusalem. Later on, the increasingly organized adopted Trinitarianism and excommunicated anyone who disagreed with the doctrine of homoousis (see Nicaea).


 * I did this once. It turned out to be inconclusive.  What's more relevant is what his immediate followers taught, based upon their beliefs.  It appears that their teachings were quickly obliterated by Paulinism, and that they were almost completely annihilated as a group during the destruction of Jerusalem.  Later on, the increasingly organized adopted Trinitarianism and excommunicated anyone who disagreed with the doctrine of homoousis (see Nicene Creed).  The long and short of it is that the earliest extant writings of non-Paulinists do not contain any mention of Trinitarianism nor of Jesus' supposèd divinity.  Heavy tomes have been written, in fact, about the overwhelming evidence that the vaguely trinitarianist ideas in the earliest writings are actually later insertions.  If they are, I'm not of the school of thought that they are deliberate attempts to heavy-handedly alter the texts in order to enforce dogma, but rather that they were originally included as "notes" to assist the reader in understanding the "true meaning" of the text (obviously, according to the POV of the inserter of such notes).  This is seen in numerous places even in the 1611 Authorized Version, as well, where notes are inserted into the text in order to guide the reader to a Christian understanding of the text.  A subtler form of POVizing translations can be seen in the translation of certain names or words in some places, and not in others.  So, for example, in some places mashiach is translated as "annointed", and in other places it's simply transliterated as Messiah, all according to the Christian understanding of which is the appropriate reading.  That said, the idea that a poll of Jesus is God vs. Jesus is not God passages is going to leave you with a long list in both columns, and ultimately you'll figure out, some writers have a clear bias one way, and others have a clear bias the other way...and then you're going to eventually realize that you've wasted your time, because (1) your lists ultimately prove nothing relevant to your original query and (2) the whole thing is a matter of interpretations:  yours, the writers, the witnesses, etc.  Have fun tho.  It's a good way to spend a few weeks, and you may learn something you didn't know before.  :-)  Tomer TALK  21:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * One point to note. Where Jesus is shown to be subservient to the Father; this does not necessarily make him not equal to God. He accepted a different role. (Much like when a wife accepts a subservient role to a husband.) RossNixon 21:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is a pro list and a con list of such passages refutes your initial claim, "Jesus didn't claim to be God; The Gospels don't claim Jesus is God; The Letters of Paul don't claim Jesus is God." The idea that "Paulinism" is so different from what John, Peter, and Jesus' many other immediate followers taught seems to me to have very weak support. If you read these passages in the light of early Christian writings, support for Jesus' divinity is plain. Wesley 16:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Common Era v. Anno Domini
User:Arcturus objects to use use of Common Era


 * You keep reverting ALL changes I make to the Jesus article. Maybe some of these are reverted accidently in your attempts to replace AD with CE. Maybe you just want everything your way all the time - which is it?


 * Regarding the use of AD as against CE, if you can show me anywhere in the Wikipedia style guidelines that state AD notation is POV then I'll stop using it right now! If you can't, then please stop trying to push your agenda (whatever that might be) into the Jesus article. AD is not POV. To use non-christian dating systems in articles about christianity is nothing short of an insult to the followers of that religion. Have a look at Britannica. They have no problem with AD/BC in their article about Jesus, so why do you? Arcturus 23:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Arcturus has characterized his reverting of my use of Common Era as "reverting vandalism & minor edits". This is either total misunderstanding of Common Era, or an attempt to disguise his changes

I introduced Common Era on April 19 after discussion on this page (copied between lines below)


 * ... Now, if you want to propose changing all dates to CE/BCE, I have no objection, indeed, I would strongly support that. But if there is a consensus to use the conventional AD/BC, then we should follow that convention.  I see no point to adding a discussion of BC/CE in the introduction.  As I said, if you want to change all dates to BCE/CE I don't object but youshould see what other people think, first.  As for your other comments, some are reasonable and I will try to make changes, in the spirit of compromise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think JimWae's changes were generally for the better. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How about now? Why do you think it is better to have a discussion of CE dating system in the introdcution? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The dating system is the Anno Domini system, NOT the CE system! What is the problem with stating Anno Domini system (correctly)?

If dating system is irrelevant, fine, but if not, its the Anno Domini system, not the CE.


 * Hey, I am just replying to JimWae. But the argument against AD is that it violates our NPOV policy.  Many editors and readers of Wikipedia do not consider Jesus to be their "lord."  To use AD is to imply that according to Wikipedia Jesus really was/is the Lord -- a Christian POV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to do any editing of this article, but I'd like to say that it's POV and inappropriate to use BC/AD, because as Slrubenstein says, it implies that Jesus really was someone by whom dates ought to be set, whereas the Wikipedia article should only describe who says what about him, but should not take a side; using BC/AD not only takes a side, but does so in an implicit, almost structural way. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting using the AD dating system in the article, I am saying that the dating system which used the date arbitrarily assigned to Jesus' birth is the AD system. I agree that using the CE system for dates is preferable.  The Rev of Bru


 * I agree. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CE and AD are not really equivalent
On April 25 this was surreptitiously changed by an anonymous editor who also added clear proselytizations - which were later deleted, but not the AD/CE change until I redid that recently

CE & AD are not equivalent (as Arcturus has said in his edits) -- they may be the same in extension (semantics), but not in intension. JimWae 02:28, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The BC/AD system intends to inculate readers the beliefs that the Jewish rabbi Jesus is in fact Jesus the messiah, Jesus the Christ, Jesus the song of God, and Jesus a part of the Godhead itself.  That is why over the last fifty years an increasing number of Bible scholars - including many Christians - have stopped using this system when writing academic articles, but feel free to use it in articles written from a religious Christian point of view. RK 20:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus article is NOT an article about Christianity, it is an article about Jesus in as NPOV as possible. There are already numerous POV articles on Jesus: Christian views of Jesus, Religious perspectives on Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christianity and who knows how many other near-duplications. There is, it turns out, also a Jewish view of Jesus, but not yet an Atheist views of Jesus, Mormon view of Jesus, Unitarian views of Jesus :)

Why would use of Common Era be an insult to the followers of "that religion" - unless it offends them that not everyone worships Jesus as Lord? Consider how those (the majority) who do not take Jesus as "the Lord" must consider seeing Anno Domini every time they see a reference to the calendar.


 * I think it does offend some people in precisely this manner. There's probably no use in discussing things with such people. However, to be fair, I think that most Christians don't see the BC/AD dating system in this way at all.  It has been used so often that it is part of common English useage; therefore they don't see it as proselytizing or condescending.  Since they do not mean to insult, we should not take it as an insult.  Nonetheless, there is no compelling need to use the traditional Chrisitian AD/BC system, and a great many reasons to use the non-partisan BCE/CE system.  I think that many readers are angrilly reacting to this change not because they want to proselytize, but because they (incorrectly) see this change as being anti-Christian.  They would be wrong, but I do want to be sensitive to their feelings. RK 20:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Notice AD & BC are used when discussing the Anno Domini system developed by Dionysius Exiguus. It is particularly important in the Jesus article, perhaps more than in any other, to use Common Era to avoid the appearance of POV endorsement that Jesus is Lord.

To reiterate: The Jesus article is not an article about Christianity, it is an article about Jesus done as neutrally as possible.--JimWae 02:28, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Who cares! As long as the numbers coincide, there can be no confusion. Whoever is offended by either dating description is either very "thin skinned" or ultra-pedantic. As a born-again Christian, I concede that CE is superior to AD; as Jesus was probably born around 5 BCE anyway. RossNixon 04:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That is simply false, and dangerous close to an ad homenim criticism. We have explained in detail the reasons why the traditional Christian dating system is not a good idea, and your rejection of all these reasons as merely being "thin skinned" reveals that so far you refuse to even take the discussion seriously. RK 20:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW I vote in favor of keeping it AD for the simple reason that it's by far the more common of the two, and thus is familiar to more readers. Not everybody knows what CE refers to even if the dating systems are similar. The BC/AD system is well known though, and since this is an encyclopedia geared toward making information accessible to wide audiences, that's the system that should be used. As to JimWae's whines that AD is somehow a POV since it refers to Jesus, it's just plain silly. The months of July and August refer to Julius and Augustus Caesar yet nobody's demanding we change them for giving undue favoritism to their namesakes, so why change the BC/AD dating system due to its namesake being Jesus? In fact, one could reasonably argue that you are espousing a POV yourself that's aimed at singling out and excluding Jesus' name from a widely accepted and almost universally used dating system while not caring one wit about other dating systems that are based on other significant figures of history. Rangerdude 06:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * - RD, your continued use of ad hominems towards me, whenever we disagree, speaks volumes about your character--JimWae 04:35, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


 * I'm not one of the usual editors who hangs out here, but this is something important to me. BCE/CE is the current prefered notation for people doing academic writing in history, archaelogy, world literature, etc. I just proofread a book of Byzantine archaeology, a book about Christian churches, and everything was C.E. It just plain looks more professional. A.D. looks old-fashioned. If we want to be taken seriously, we should write to a professional standard. Zora 08:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Rangedude, for writings that violates our NPOV policy, being "more common" doesn't cut it as a reason. Many common beliefs and practices have no place in an encyclopedia. RK 20:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Intension: CE can stand for "Christian Era", BCE for "Before Christian Era" and AD for "After Dot".  The "new" abbreviations are simply a "politically correct" idea, just like GMT being called UTC (and yes I know there are subtle differences).

To me the solution is to extend the Wikimedia software so that it can display dates in the preferred format, including Islamic and Jewish years if required. Meanwhile the difference needs to be "not worried about" in the same way as color/colour. 217.146.109.253 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipwedia manual of style Eras
''Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE.''


 * No mention of POV there. Nor does it say either era is acceptable, except in articles about religion. CE/BCE is not well known outside of America, though it does get used in some non-American academic circles. To say that CE looks more professional than AD is a quite extraordinary claim, and as for writing a professional article, this current article is about as far from professional as you can get - at the moment. JimWae says this is not an article about Christianity. However, line one states Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure in Christianity and is considered an important prophet in Islam.. So it's an article about the central figure in Christianity then.


 * This article was commenced by a contributor who used BC/AD. This was used right up to a short time ago when someone unilaterally decided to change it. Of course we will never achieve agreement on this point - views are too entrenched. To state usage of AD/BC is POV shows a complete lack of understanding of what Wikipedia policy on POV is all about. Furthermore, to argue that AD and CE are diffent is also a strange claim; they are two names for the same thing. As I've noted earlier in this debate, it's like claiming Burma and Myanmar are two different countries.


 * The most disturbing thing about CE notation, from my point-of-view, is that it was brought in on the PC bandwagon.


 * Quote by JimWae It is particularly important in the Jesus article, perhaps more than in any other, to use Common Era to avoid the appearance of POV endorsement that Jesus is Lord.. Like I say, missing the point completely about POV/NPOV. Use of AD/BC endorses nothing. It is a worldwide date-naming standard that everyone understands. I vote to use it in this article. I also suggest that until the matter is finally resolved we revert to the status quo; AD/BC has been used in this article right up to a few days ago. Arcturus 09:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And another thing JimWae - you changed AD to CE after a "discussion" on 19 April lasting 29 minutes and involving yourself and about four other contributors. Hardly a consensus! For that reason alone it should be reverted. Arcturus 09:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Arcturus is being churlish. Although he defends BC and AD, he has not real criticism of BCE and CE. In any event, several people have agreed that BC and CE is more appropriate. Five people against one certainly is good reason to make a change. But even if there were no discussion, the change is fully justified because AD violates our NPOV policy. Earlier, Arcturtus wrote "if you can show me anywhere in the Wikipedia style guidelines that state AD notation is POV then I'll stop using it right now!" which is either woefully ignorant or disingenuous. Wikipedia has article on Naziism, Race, the Holocauts, Fascism -- and in each of these articles NPOV has been an issue at one point or another. An encyclopedia as expansive and inclusive as Wikipedia cannot have a specific policy on every specific phrase that comes up in Wikipedia. It is absurd to think that our NPOV policy has to catelogue all conceivable violations of NPOV. No, a policy is general so it can be applied to a variety of cases. AD reflects the views of a particular group, therefore it is POV, period. AD means Anno Domini means Our Lord means Jesus is our Lord. There are many people who do not consider Jesus their lord, do not use the terms BC and AD, and object to using BC and AD in secular works. Of course I fully understand why Christian works would use BC and AD. Earlier Arcturus claims that an article about Christianity should use AD &mdash; another patently absurd claim. First, this is not an article about Christianity, it is an article of Jesus, a character (real or fictional) of interest to Christians, Muslims, Jews, as well as secular/critical historians. Second, even if this were the article on Christianity (i.e., Christianity) I would argue that we should use NPOV terms like BCE and CE. Surely, you do not think that in the article on Hitler, we should take Hitler's point of view? Similarly, an article on Christianity should not take a Christian point of view &mdash; it should provide as many various views as are important, in an NPOV way. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  17:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. If he has substantial reasons with a logical argument, let him present this logic. RK 21:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Arcturus, first: stop ignoring the discussion on this page. Second: stop reverting when you are in the minority. See if you can change the minds of others. Also, familiarize yourself with our NPOV policy, as you keep violating it. Finally, do not claim I have provided no explanation when I have provided considerable explanation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  17:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Arcturus is correct. There was no legitimate basis per wikipedia policy or common usage for JimWae to change it from BC/AD to BCE/CE. When somebody makes a unilateral change like that it is incumbent upon them to justify it and make a solid case for doing so. JimWae simply did not do that and instead inserted his own personal belief that BC/AD was somehow POV even though Wikipedia policy clearly indicates that its use is perfectly fine. That policy is what we have to go by - not JimWae's POV opinion that AD is non-neutral. Not your POV opinion that AD is non-neutral. But wikipedia's policy, which says AD is just fine as it is. Nor is it "five people against one" as you claim. I have certainly weighed in favoring BC/AD, as have several others who have either commented on it or reverted JimWae's unnecessary edits. Rangerdude 17:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof for establishing good reason to make a change lies with the proponents of a change. That burden has not been met.  Gene Nygaard 18:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't have many edits on Wikipedia articles.  As for the "burden of proof", it would like on those people who claim that dating everything in history based on the idea that Jesus is God and the messiah is somehow not a Christian concept, which I would imagine is impossible.  Please re-read the reasons that scholars are no longer using the traditional Christian terminology. RK 21:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, This is not about JimWae's individual point of view. JimWae, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Rev of Bru, and I all agree that BCE/CE is better. Even if you agree with Arcturus, you are still in a minority. But this is not just about numbers, this is about reasons. I provided a lengthy explanation above, and you have not even responded to it. Please explain how calling 2005 or any other date "the year of our Lord" is neutral? As for Gene Nygaard, the "burden of proof" has been met, through the explanations provided by myself, JimWae, Jayjg, Slim Virgin, and Rev of Bru. Here you simply assert your own opinion. Don't use a "burden of proof" argument to excuse your own ignorance or laziness &mdash; if you have good reasons for using AD, and a response to my explanation above, provide it. If you do not, your case is weak. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - You and others may favor BCE/CE, but there are also persons who disagree with you and wikipedia's consensus policies oblige you to at minimum take that fact into consideration. One could also reasonably contest your characterization of the other position being in the minority when the entire history of changes to this article is taken into consideration. Just glancing over the last week or so I see at least four different editors who have attempted to restore part or all of the original BC/AD designation. Each time they have been reverted by one of only two people: you or JimWae. You are indeed correct that this is about reasons though, and as I have noted, none of the reasons given thus far rise to a sufficient level to merit your change. Why? Because your reasons all revolve around your belief that BCE/CE is more "neutral" than BC/AD, yet this finding is in conflict with Wikipedia's style guide that explicitly says "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable" so long as the same one is used throughout the article. IOW, this issue has already been decided elsewhere for wikipedia in general and that decision did not give any advantage or favor to one over the other. That you, JimWae, and a handful of others believe favor should be given to BCE/CE over BC/AD, thus justifying your proposed change, is in conflict with the remainder of wikipedia, which deems that no such preference should be given to one over the other. That fact deprives you of the dominant justification for your change, and since changes that are made without any legitimate reason are automatically subject to scrutiny, that defaults us back to the original use that existed in this article from its creation: BC/AD. Also, please be mindful of making an excessive number of reversions in 24 hours, Slrubenstein. I have made the limit and will not revert beyond that until after the proper time expires. You, OTOH, have made no less than four reversions between 17:00 and 20:00 today alone. You're currently in excess of wikipedia's reveresion policy, so I suggest that you cease and desist for the time being. Rangerdude 20:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC on AD/CE
Notice I have listed this debate on the Requests for Comment page. Summary of Debate (read this entire section for details):
 * Some people want to identify dates with BC/AD. One reason is that this is a page about Christianity and to use another way of identifying dates "is nothing short of an insult to the followers of that religion."  Another reason is that this system is common.
 * Some people want to identify dates with BCE/CE. They contend that BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini=Year of Our Lord) are POV, and that BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) are NPOV.  They also claim that this manner of identifying dates is becoming more and more common and has been embraced by many scholars and non-Christians.

Definitely use BCE. It's what historians use. --goethean 19:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually that generalization is far from accurate. Historians are known to use both so long as the same style is consistent throughout the article or book. When the sum of scholarly literature (and general literature at that) is examined, BC/AD is still more common than BCE/CE by a long shot. On an article by article basis, it all depends on the writer and source. This is also why Wikipedia's style guide says explicitly that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable" so long as it is consistent within the article. Since wikipedia itself explicitly gives no preference to one over the other, it is inescapably the insertion of a POV to make a change based on the belief that one should take dominance over the other (which is the reason used to justify the proposed change from AD to CE). Rangerdude 20:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, if as you say the policy allows either AD or CE, then you have no ground to stand on. Essentially, If Wikipedia policy accepts both, then there is no strict policy. Put another way, the policy supports JimWae and the rest of us at least as much as it supports you. That means that this dispute has to be decided on other grounds than Wikipedia's style guide. JimWae, I, and others have explained our reasons. You still have none. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  20:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The style guide accepts either. It's the same as with US/UK spellings.  That is to say, keep articles consistent and don't switch between systems.  As far as I can tell, this article has used BC/AD for most of its existence, so it will stay like that.  There is no good reason, based either in Wikipedia policy or in common sense, why the article should switch to the silly, politically correct BCE/CE system.  In addition, if we consider that the type of article in question has some bearing on the matter (and there is a precedent for this if we consider the similar US/UK spelling issue), then an article on Jesus obviously points to the BC/AD system being sensible.  Furthermore, as a non-Christian, I would find it kind of groovy if we went back to the ab urbe condita system, or something based on the age of the planet, but that is not happening any time soon; so as long as we use a system based on the birth of Jesus, we might as well call a spade a spade (BC/AD).  P.S. I take AD to stand for Anno Domini Christianorum, and don't worry myself any further.  ;) Chameleon 21:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein - you are incorrect about that. The Wikipedia style manual gives preference to neither, yet it is YOUR justification for the change that CE should take precedence over AD on this article, not mine. The argument you and JimWae give asserts and imposes non-neutrality between the two. That conflicts with the neutral treatment of the two given by the style manual. Therefore the justification you use to make your change is invalid. Furthermore, in conflict with your claim that I "still have none" in terms of reasons to keep it AD, I have given several:
 * 1. BC/AD is by far the most commonly used system of dating in the world.
 * 2. BC/AD is more familiar to the average reader of wikipedia and its general audience as an encyclopedia.
 * 3. BC/AD was the original dating system used from the beginning of this article several years ago until JimWae's proposed changes late last month(if it ain't broke, don't fix it).
 * 4. The reasons stated by JimWae and you for changing to BCE/CE endorse the POV that this alternative system is superior to BC/AD, and that is in conflict with the wikipedia style guide's explicit neutrality between the use of the two.
 * IOW, if you wish to make the change to BCE/CE you need to come up with an NPOV justification. Changing it because you personally think BC/AD is POV and thus inferior when Wikipedia's style guide explicitly treats the two as coequal synonyms is no justification at all. Rangerdude 20:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is the job of an encyclopedia to educate, and not merely make readers feel comfortable. Given this, your first and second reason do not seem to be compelling.  As for reason three, most of our articles started out with kind of formatting, dating system and logic, but over time were improved and refined.  In fact, if anything, earlier versions are often flawed. Look, I am not insulted by the BC/AD dating terminology, and if the article retained that system I would not be upset.  Nonetheless I feel that the reasons for adopting the newer, historical system are compelling. RK 21:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * The first and second reasons Rangerdude gives are very compelling. The job of an encyclopaedia to educate people about what they want to be educated about. It is not our job (particularly as we are NPOV) to educate them about anything any WPians thinks they should be educated about.


 * The reason they are compelling is because they think of the reader - by which I mean the WP reader (the general public). We are not writing for academics, so what style is or is not preferred by various academic journals (and there's a mixture of styles here) is irrelevant. We do ask ourselves what makes readers most comfortable.


 * BC/AD notation is, as noted above, by a long long way the most common way of referring to things. So much so, and particularly for this article, that people will wonder why it is not used. That is, using anything else would be tantamount to making a statement rejecting BC/AD - and it is there that we would have NPOV problems.


 * Also, the established WP practice is that we do not change from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation arbitrarily - which is what will have happened here. Kind regards, jguk 21:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

RK - It is our job to educate readers on factual information by facilitating their use through a format that is friendly and readable. It is NOT our job to encourage readers to adopt a less common dating system that a small fraction of WP editors believe to be superior to the standard one for whatever reasons you or anybody else may think. If we use BC/AD there's little doubt that 99.9% of readers who come along will comprehend exactly what it means. When they see the date 12 BC they know that it means 12 years before the year 1, which is traditionally considered the year of Christ's birth. The same cannot be said about the BCE/CE system, which is hardly even known of outside of scholarly circles, and even there its use is a modern phenomenon that's still in the minority. If they have to click on a link to figure out what "CE" means it distracts and detracts away from the ease with which the present article is understood. Seeing as wikipedia is official neutral over which of the two is appropriate, seeing as the original article used BC/AD, and seeing as this system is substantially more familiar to wikipedia's target audience, the concept of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. Right now I have seen little to no compelling reason exists to merit a change, and only blatant POV renderings aimed not at justifying BCE/CE per se but rather passing judgement in favor of its precedence over BC/AD, which as I noted conflicts with wikipedia's official neutrality on the two. Rangerdude 22:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As jayjg once said, "Wikipedia should call a spade a spade". Changing BC to BCE will not change the fact that the calender is based on the birth of christ (I have no belief in Jesus, God or any other deity by the way, so don't say I'm biased, as my bias would be to chuck the system and base the calender on the first civilization or something). Also, where does it stop? You do realise of course that every day of the week is named after a god? God of the moon, god of the sun, Thor, Saturn etc. Maybe wikipedia should change all the days of the week to something NPOV? What a great idea.  We could have day one, day two... Ok, back to reality.  I'm sure you already realise the majority of people use BC/AD, and will likely be confused if they see BCE/CE etc instead.  Not to mention, I didn't even know what AD meant until tonight, I did know what BC meant, but I've never cared. You are creating a mountain out of a molehill. I came accross CE earlier today and didn't know what it meant. I say until the norm changes, wikipedians shouldn't waste their time and confuse people. --Silversmith 21:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (after multiple edit conflicts)


 * 1) I doubt very much that BC/AD is the commonest system; check population distributions, and then look at those countries (and groups of countries) that use other systems. What are the grounds for your claim?
 * 2) Even if it were, your assumptions about what "the average reader" is familiar with is plucked out of the air; what is your evidence?
 * 3) What do you mean by "broke"? If enough people want to change it, that's evidence that it is "broke".
 * 4) When the style guide is neutral, then it's up to the editors on the article to make the choice; you can't use the neutrality of guide against those who want change.
 * 5) Whether the difference between the dating systems is PoV is in large part dependent upon the context; when the context is religious, as here, then the use of an explicitly religious dating system becomes an issue, even if it isn't in the context of an article on cars or the periodic table.
 * 6) I'd add that the BCE/CE system is in wide use in the academic and even the popular non-fiction worlds of publishing, so that changing to it need indicate nothing more than that we're following current trends. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is just one of the many google searches which shows a huge number of hits in favour of BC. | 3000 BC | 3000 BCE--Silversmith 22:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel Etitis - Though there's no completely accurate way of calculating use of the two, a simple informal google test indicates that BC/AD is more common by far. The search terms BC and AD get over 7.5 million hits versus about 1 million for CE and BCE. Spelled out, "Anno Domini" gets 268,000 hits and "Before Christ" gets 271,000 hits. "Before the Common Era" gets only 19,000 and "Common Era" gets 89,000, of which most have nothing to do with the dating system. Use a little common sense here. If you walked up to the average person on the street and said "X happened 366 million years before the common era" a good number of them would say "what the hell are you talking about?" If you asked the same thing saying "Before Christ" though, 99 out of 100 would comprehend. Since this encyclopedia is explicitly geared to the average person, that's the terminology we should probably use. Furthermore, that "enough people want to change it" is far from the case here. If you view the article's history you will quickly find that almost every single edit to insert or reinsert CE/BCE is made by one of two different editors. That's hardly a mandate by any means, and since both of those editors have been reinserting it by way of reversions that exceed 3, 4, or even 5 in less than 24 hours, it's probably a strong indicator that a very small number of people are trying to gatekeep this article at the expense of neutrality and wikipedia's open-edit policies in deference to their own personal points of view. Rangerdude 22:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Weighing in. I actually dislike the BCE/CE notation since, as was referred to obliquely earlier, by one of the more "churlish" chatters here, it is the result of an attempt at social engineering, specifically designed to de-Christianize the calendar, rather than an actual honest attempt at creating a universally unoffensive dating system.  Such a system does exist:  in the computer world, time began at midnight Jan. 1, 1970.  I'm surprised that nobody has yet bothered to threaten to make a point by redating everything using BTY/YFN notation, a much more NPOV, from the perspective of offending anyone, system.  For example, I was born April 15, in 33 BTY.  Computer time started at midnight Jan. 1, 35 BTY.  The next US presidential elections are slated for 3 YFN, and the Chinese are hoping to have the Olympics in Beijing in 3 YFN as well.  I'm not sure yet where they'll be in 7 YFN tho.  THAT SAID, I don't care one way or another whether BCE/CE or BC/AD is used, as long as it's done so consistently, especially within an article.  I do, however, think it's incredibly "bad foam" (cf. Cap'n Hook in the movie Hook) to go around from one article to the next changing back and forth between the two notations, as several users (usually anonymous cowards) seem to have a penchant for doing.  It does not "improve" the articles, all it does is demonstrate the POV of the person who does it.  As for whether either term is more or less scholarly, that's a matter of opinion; in my experience, people who use BCE/CE because they believe it to be more "scholarly" are generally vainglorious dweebs.  OTOH, people who insist that BC/AD is "better" are wrong as well.  Everyone should use the only relevant system:  that by which this year is 5765.  Now.  Stop calling each other names, shake hands, and make it all BCE/CE, since the only places in this article where such notation is used, either BC/AD or BCE/CE, it is nonsensical to use BC/AD.  Herod tried to kill Jesus, yet he died 4 years BC.  This makes no sense.  Tomer TALK  21:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion really belongs on the Talk:Political correctness page becauase it's too Christo-centric. Nobs 22:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Googling gives you a set of statistics heavily weighted by Internet use &mdash; thus neatly excluding vast areas of the world, with vast populations, inclusing most of Africa, China, India, the Middle East, etc. And Tomer makes a very good point about the internal absurdities caused by the "BC" system in this article. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see you propose a better means of estimating the use of varying dating systems. As for google's use as an informal measure, one thing that google does excel in is estimating use in English language speaking countries. BC/AD is overwhelmingly the preference for dates given in the English language and since this article is in the English section of wikipedia, it would make little sense to use a Chinese or Arabic language dating system. Rangerdude 22:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have made no showing of a significant different in usage outside the internet.
 * Why do you insist on a point of view that "Common Era" would be the proper terminology, yet on the other hand you seem hell-bent of proving that it is not a "common era" with your comments about "vast populations" in Africa and Asia not using it?
 * A great many people who use another calendar for some purposes also use the Gregorian/Julian calendar for other purposes. Gene Nygaard 04:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You guys are going over old ground. See Dechristenization Movement and the New Calender Nobs 22:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, well, actually that was exactly what I did in my first comment above. Why, though, have you suddenly switched to talking about English-speaking countries?  And are you including India in that category?  Also, why do you prefer the measure of Internet use rather than printed-book use?
 * 1) There are also the other, positive points, which you haven't addressed. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel - Actually, no. You didn't give us any better estimate of dating systems in your first comment. You simply asserted your position to be so and dismissed all others. Quod gratis asseritur, buddy. As for English speaking countries, their use of the English language is about as broad a measure as one can get for determining the most commonly used dating system in the English language for an encyclopedia written in English. If you're so keen on other dating systems, make your edits as appropriate on the Jesus article here Rangerdude 22:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see; so what does "check population distributions, and then look at those countries (and groups of countries) that use other systems" mean to you? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  And, looking on Italian google, searching only pages in Italian, you get thousands more for BC than BCE. | 3000 BC | 3000 BCE Also, as for books not internet, here are just a few I have looked at: Glass, 5,000 years - Hugh Tait. Glass Source Book - Jo Marshall. The Splendor of Ethnic Jewelry - France Borel. Quotes: I've yet to see any proof that BCE/CE is more common. --Silversmith 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So, I suppose it doesn't matter that the Encyclopedia Britannica uses BC/AD?
 * 1) "A group of early Mediterranean coreformed vessels...About 550-400 B.C."
 * 2) "All Ptolemaic period, about 1st cntury B.C."
 * 3) "Glass ear ornaments of New Kingdom date (about 1375-1150 B.C)."
 * It may not be more common (that would make sense, actually), however, it is now the prefered method in the professional scholarship. El_C 02:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It means a proposed yet unsubstantiated methodology with no validating test, Mel. As an aside, wouldn't your complaint against the use of BC/AD, viz. that other cultures don't use it, also exhibit a transitive relationship of application to BCE/CE, being that BCE/CE is substantially less common than BC/AD where it is used? IOW, you claim that BC/AD should be dropped due to lack of use in China etc. yet your proposed solution is even more obscure and less common. Strange. Rangerdude 23:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I pulled some books off my shelf to see which dating system is commonly used by scholars and historians who have written on the topic of Jesus. Geza Vermes, not a Christian, uses BC/AD. N.T. Wright, who is a Christian, also uses BC/AD, however, he has expressed that some editors of his books have required him to use BCE/CE and that he did not feel it was a big deal to do so. Personally, I prefer BCE/CE in most cases, as it sounds more neutral to my nonChristian ears. However, since both dating systems are acceptable to Wikipedia, and scholars do in fact use both, if any article is going to use BC/AD, this one on Jesus is probably the most appropriate place to use it. -- M P er el ( talk 03:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are 2 separate questions here--JimWae 04:21, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * Is Common Era preferable for all wikipedia articles?
 * Is Common Era preferable for the Jesus article?
 * For MOST articles it might make little significant difference, but to repeatedly use the system that takes Jesus to be "the Lord" undermines any attempt to be truly NPOV in the Jesus article.
 * It is obvious that it means a great deal to some people that this particular article use AD, many of these same people often anonymously, or without comment, or with offensive or misleading comments add additional obvious proselytizing at the same time (or more than one of the above). All the more reason to see that use of AD is part of an agenda that undermines NPOV on this particular article.
 * It does not matter which is more common -- What matters is that this particular article has special problems with appearing neutral.
 * For those unlearned in what Common Era is - a partial explanation & the appropriate links are already included in the same paragraph & even the same sentence in which it is introduced.
 * The article is for people of all religious & non-religious persuasions. How can non-Christians (the majority in the world) read the article & not conclude that allowing hidden references to statements that Jesus is Lord is a subtle way of presenting POV?
 * Obviously there are benefits to everyone using the same calendar. It should not be a requirement that non-Christain cultures accept having "Jesus is Lord" forced upon them simply because they desire to has a universal calendar. Those who desire to force this on others are reprehensible bullies in my book - and have a warped view of Jesus too, if they think he would condone such.


 * Because of actual usage, insisting on CE/BCE is much more a case of pushing a particular point of view than AD/BC is. Gene Nygaard 04:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that my first change to Common Era stood unmolested for a full week - until it was surreptitiously changed by an anonymouse proselytizer. My second edit to Common Era was changed by Arcturus under false pretenses of reverting vandalism --JimWae 05:31, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

There are several problems with your arguments, Jim. This is the exact same kind of nonsensical hairsplitting you attempted over on the articles pertaining to secession, Jim, not to mention the Morrill Tariff before that. In both cases you came along, saw something that evidently did not mesh well with your personal POV, and then attempted to expunge it by claiming that whatever you didn't like was not NPOV itself. In both cases, as with this one, your standard for NPOV was not one of wikipedia's policies on how articles should be written, but rather your own personal opinion. You didn't like the way that historians portrayed the Morrill Tariff, so you responded by trying to alter their views to suit your own opinion. You didn't like how the dictionary defined the word secession, so you responded by trying to change the definition to suit your own opinion. Now you don't like that wikipedia tolerates the traditional BC/AD date system, so you respond by trying to cast it as non-neutral even though wikipedia's policy finds nothing wrong with its use and gives no deferrence to the alternative you propose in its place. Wikipedia is not your personal playpen to bog down with JimWae's "opinion of the week" whatever it may be. If you want to make edits around here you need to grow up and start making constructive edits instead of the POV-driven censorship that characterizes your posting patterns. Rangerdude 07:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) First, contrary to your implication, a great many who have posted in favor of retaining AD are NOT anonymous, have NOT been proselytizing, and HAVE given material reasons for our position. Indeed, this likely constitutes the majority of us who have commented in favor of retaining AD. For you to impugn persons who oppose your view with these characteristics when in fact they are generally absent from our posts and arguments is dishonest to boot.
 * 2) Second, in addition to making no preference for either system, Wikipedia's style manual makes absolutely no distinctions whatsoever about the propriety/impropriety of using either AD or CE in certain circumstances over others. Given Wikipedia's policy, you have no more of a basis in asserting this to be a "special case" than you did when you implied that CE was somehow more neutral than AD.
 * 3) Including separate explanations and links to inform the readers what "Common Era" means is extraneous to the article itself and distracting from the text itself. It's also unnecessarily complicated when the alternative of AD works just fine.
 * 4) You're returning to a POV argument against using AD on the basis that it translates "the year of the Lord," yet as previously noted, Wikipedia's style guide does not share or sanction your view that this violates NPOV. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and sanction for the use of AD takes precedence over JimWae's personal viewpoints on what constitutes a POV violation.
 * 5) As Gen Nygaard succinctly pointed out, usage makes CE/BCE a much clearer case of POV pushing than AD/BC, which is in common use and has been for many centuries. This circumstance is further evidenced by the fact that the original use in this article that stood for many years was AD/BC. You came along and changed it, Jim, thus pushing a far less common and less popular dating system onto the article and on very flimsy ground at that.
 * 6) As for your change being "unmolested" for a week, you should note similarly that the original BC/AD designation stood unmolested for several years before you got here.

CE or not to CE
My 2c. I've never liked "Common era". Who has it in common with whom? Whatever we call the years, they're dated from the presumed birth of Jesus. I'm an atheist and I don't give a fig about AD meaning "anno domini". It's just a pair of letters. I don't see any great need to replace them, and I don't like the fabrication of a "common era" to do so. It does have some currency though, so it has to be considered. The stuff about offending the nonChristian is utter bollocks. You'd need a very thin skin to get offended at that! I don't see anyone agitating for dates to be given in other calendars.

But that's just my opinion. Had I seen it on the page when I came to it, I certainly wouldn't change it. My view is we should go with whichever was used first. There's precedent for that on Wikipedia and I think it's a good way to resolve what is otherwise an intractable argument. I'm not going to go back and look but my small voice is added to the clamour for whichever it was. Grace Note 04:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace Note - I concur that an anti-Christian POV is often driving the BCE/CE use, especially when it is being intentionally used to supplant an existing and long standing use of BC/AD. If JimWae was writing a new article and started out with the BCE dating system from the beginning I wouldn't be inclined to object as much, but here he is clearly imposing BCE/CE as a preferred alternative to BC/AD and in doing so giving deference to it on NPOV grounds that are inconsistent with wikipedia's official policy of neutrality between the use of AD and CE. Wikipedia says either is acceptable so long as it's consistent within the same article, thus when JimWae claims that CE is more neutral than AD he is asserting his own personal POV that conflicts with wikipedia's style manual. Rangerdude 07:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

-that's your opinion & you are of course entitled to it. It is not, however, about being offended; it is about being forced to accept (swallow) "Jesus is Lord" when there is a more neutral alternative.--JimWae 05:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it is neutral as it happens. It's defiantly antiChristian. It uses the Christian system of dating and pretends it is something else. I think I argued that you are not required to "swallow" Jesus is lord. It takes a special kind of mind to feel oppressed by the letters "AD", which, as I noted, are just letters for most of us. Grace Note 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it is purposely an attempt to be non-Christian, not anti-Christian - to not include acceptance of Jesus as Lord in the calendar. It's acceptable to have the years be based on the faulty reckoning (for want of a better, non-disruptive system) -- but that's quite enough. It is not acceptable (to me and to many anyway) to have to also (for all time) accept surreptitiously that Jesus is Lord. Do you not care about the attempts of some others to make a few improvements in the world? Are you content to also let all manner of cultural biases be permanently entrenched?--JimWae 05:48, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Morning Star & Evening Star have the same extension (semantics), but not the same intension. Ethnic & sexual slurs and more neutral terms also ... Humanity makes some rogress when this is realized and changes are made. Note the objections above that Common Era is more of that PC stuff - as though being "PC" were immediately an argument about eternal worthlessness --JimWae 06:01, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


 * The idea, which you imply, that to continue to use the BC/AD notation that we are all familiar rather than some new-fangled politically correct one makes us all bigoted Christian-POV-pushers is as offensive as it is crass. I'm not interested in your political theorising. I'm interested in NPOV - and that means using usual terms to discuss usual concepts. We don't then try to deconstruct the terms, feign offence and claim everyone should adhere to our politics if we don't want to slur you. Get real! And think outside America - where this terminology is very rarely used and little understood. Kind regards, jguk 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is true that Common Era is not understood outside America, then your argument is with wikipedia manual of style, not me. Btw, I am "outside America" myself. And AGAIN it is not about being offended, it is about insensitivity & could care-less-ness --JimWae 06:36, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


 * Then the important thing is to be sensitive to our readers - and they (as a whole) will be more familiar with BC/AD than anything else. I'm not interested in risking offending the majority for the sake of a few with political agendas, jguk 07:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The method of dating using Anno Domini is not, Western, Christian or Eurocentric; it is currently commonly used globally by all cultures and civilizations, Islamic, Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, etc. The United Nations, for example, all UN Resolutions are dated using Anno Domini calender, as do all UN NGO's conduct business as such. Jesus, what a sterile debate. Nobs 06:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is sterile because people are needlessly politicizing it. I am uninterested with these sort of religious/political or politically-correct explanations and considerations; I am uninterested with what people here like or dislike themsleves; I am even somewhat unintersted in what is common and even what is generally used in most highschools. The only tendency of use for AD/CE I'm interested in is that of the critical scholarship most applicable to the field/s in question, here, for this article's topic. That's for Wikipedia, in Simple Wikipedia, the standards may well shift in an oppositie direction. Also, there could and probably should be a footnote or something to that effect qualifying AD/CE either way (as opposed to just internally linking it); it seems very pertinent to such an article. El_C 07:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Style guides and Peer Review
--- El_C 13:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The policy is to go with the original style, in this case, for a very long time it was BC/AD.
 * 2) I have studied history at University, and did not know about CE/BCE until yesterday.
 * 3) All the history related text books I have use BC/AD.
 * 4) All the history documentaries I've watched have used BC/AD
 * 5) BCE/CE is highly uncommon and it's use at this time will generate confusion.
 * 6) If it's good enough for Encyclopedia Britannica, then I think it should be good enough for WP.
 * 7) I'm very anti-religious domination of the world, but unless the calender were to change, I think we should call a spade a spade. And I've never thought of AD/BC as meaning the birth of christ.
 * 8) Common Era is a stupid term that doesn't change the fact that the calender is based on the birth of christ.
 * None of the above matters though, as we have a policy, and going against that policy to put in BCE/CE is conforming to POV.--Silversmith 11:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) How is that the policy, I'm not sure I'm following you.
 * 2) I studied (and taught) history in university as well, and I encountered it many times.
 * 3) That may well be the case, but I'm interested more in the Peer work end of it by those scholars who author textbooks. It is my understanding that its increasing use among (though, yes, more so between) the experts in the field is what Wikipedia should strive towards, so long as it is qualified in simple and clear terms viz. BC/AD. I see no reason why it can't do that.
 * 4) See above.
 * 5) Britanica is often behind the times; and they lack the flexibility (in several important ways) that we have here.
 * 6) I never thought that either. Again, we can qualify it in relation to it.
 * 7) Sure, but I think that consideration i impertinent for our immediate purposes here.
 * Again, could you point me to that policy and how according to it BCE/CE is POV? And, of course, whether I support BCE/CE it, dislike it, or think it's relatively unimportant, is irrelavent. Some examples:
 * From the The Publications Committee of the Egyptian Studies Society new guidelines for their journal Ostracon.
 * From the Contributor Guidelines for editorial submission in The International Journal of Pagan Studies
 * From the American Journal of Philology
 * From the NSU Style Manual.
 * Submission Manuscript Guidelines for Sage Publications
 * Journal for the study of the historical Jesus
 * From The Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies Style Guide.
 * From the Continuum International Publishing Group Brief Style Guide for Contributors to JSHJ and JSHJSup
 * And I can keep going, but I'm afraid I must get going now.

It is also interesting to note that WikiProject Years has no mention of BCE/CE issue, but they do mention using BC. Yes, I admit that all the books I've refered to are pre 2000, so are less likely to have used this new system of BCE. The policy I was refering to was the one that suggests we go with what the original editors used. So if it was American spelling, don't change it to English. This article for a long time was BC/AD, so it is pushing a POV to change it to BCE/CE when there really is no need. Particularly when this will create double redirects as BCE is redirected to BC. And I'm not saying it is common because I hadn't heard of it, but from the fact that it is blatantly obvious on google, as pointed out above, and it has been the standard up until very recently as Mel pointed out. If no-one is going to be offended by the artilce having BC/AD, then why bother making it stand out as one of the few articles on Wikipedia to use it? Silversmith. --Chammy Koala 14:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Timeline standards only mentions BC.
 * I'm sorry, Silversmith, I can't see how we can infer (from the absence of) that a concrete policy. Note that I did not mention any books, I mentioned Peer Review publications. I also addressed the list of books you have presented bellow (in a subsection I titled 'Lovely little list' as per your 1st sentence), and as mentioned there, I think your list suffers from an inconsistent methodology: the books are undated, they tend to be older rather than newer, you have failed to identify newer editions for some of thesebooks which now employ BCE/CE, and you have failed to account how these (and others are prsented). As I demonstrated in my response to the list: Oxford Univ. Press, Columbia, Amazon, et cetera, etc. employ BCE/CE even whilst presenting books which use BC/AD, which I find very revealing as to its increasing (modern) use among the (authoritatice) experts. El_C 00:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's peculiar that someone who studied history should never have heard of BCE/CE; did you perhaps study modern history? If so, it's not common practice to use any suffix, so that your lack of experience is irrelevant here.  It's used extensively in modern publications, both academic and popular, across a range of disciplines.  Your claim that it's uncommon seems to be a generalisation from your own experience, which isn't a reliable method of argument.  Moreover, arguments have been offered concerning the usage in this article rather than generally, and you haven't mentioned those.
 * Incidentally, see below for your inadvertent, one hopes, deletion of a vote against your position. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Reversions & Consensus on BCE/AD
Given that extensive comments have been taken on this dispute, I think it's useful to remain cognizant of where we stand in obtaining a consensus. I noticed that JimWae recently reverted the article to include his proposed BCE/CE dating system that is the subject of this dispute. In doing so, he directed readers to this talk page and stated "note I am not hiding what I do, like others here" thus needlessly attacking the motives of people who disagree with him. Both of these comments are curious and the latter is IMHO inappropriate given that (1) the talk page consensus right now is NOT supportive of the reversion he made, citing it as his justification and (2) any attempt to restore the original BC/AD usage is easily viewed on the history page and is thus not hidden. Given this situation, I would ask that JimWae agree to restore the original and suspend his proposed change to the BCE/CE system pending further discussion lest we get into another reversion war. Another editor was suspended on this article earlier today after violating the 3RR rule by attempting to make the same changes JimWae just made, meaning we should seek to avoid a repeat. Rangerdude 07:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, listen. This is an unproductive discussion.  What we're doing here is ultimately going to end up being unsuccessful.  We've, as a group, lost sight of the problem and started arguing something else entirely.  The original debate was over a revert war using BC/AD vs. BCE/CE.  Thus far, neither group has brought forth any overriding authoritative rationale for using either.  Personally, I think both groups are wrong.  The BC/AD crowd is wrong because wrt Jesus, the dates have no meaning.  How can you honestly believe that saying Jesus was born in 4 BC makes any sense?  WRT to the BCE/CE crowd, you're equally wrong.  The calendar we use is quite clearly based upon the 6th century miscalculations of the year of Jesus' birth.  As has been said, Common Era?  Common among whom?  There's nothing whatsoever common about the "Common Era" except as a result of European Imperialism and Western domination of the political alliances of the planet.  Yes, the Chinese say it's 2005, eventhough on the Chinese calendar it's 5thousand something.  Today is May 9th, 2005 in Israel, eventhough on the Hebrew calendar it's 30 Nisan, 5765.  (And my birthday, on the Hebrew calendar, is in 2 days, bitches, so send me presents!!!)  On the Muslim calendar, my flimsy guess is that it's sometime in about the year 1350 or so, but I guarantee you, everyone in Mecca knows it's 2005.  In India, as well, they know it's 2005.  (The 3rd world may be less sophisicated, but the cultural arrogance that goes into the assumptions required to insist that the 3rd world is full of people who aren't aware that the rest of the world is going on, is unfathomably breathtaking.)  Now, getting back to the issue at hand.  The Christian years are misdated from a calendar developed in the 6th century (I believe), on the Christian calendar, which was, I believe, dated based on "the Xth year in the reign of Despot Y".  Since rules for figuring years were inconsistent over the centuries, it comes as no small surprise that, lo and behold, a millennium and a half later, mathematics and astronomy come together to figure out that there was a minor disparity between the number arrived at in the 6th century and "since we assume all things proceed predictably from one day to the next" retrograde astronomical calculations back into the past.  I personally think the unspeakable arrogance was done in the 6th century, in the flawed mathematics and unwarranted trust in faulty documents, that went into the calculation of Jesus' birth in year X of the reign of Y, when oops!  according to that calculation, Y died years before year X of his supposed reign-from-the-grave.  THAT MINOR POINT NOTWITHSTANDING...My previous point remains perhaps more poigniantly than ever:  to have an article that states that Jesus was born perhaps as early as 6 BC is flagrantly STUPID.  To have an article that states that Herod tried to kill Jesus, when the article as much as says that Herod could not possibly have died LATER than 4 years before Jesus was born, is, once again, flagrantly STUPID.  As much as I despise the idiotic-sounding BCE/CE system, I think this article is a poster child for using it.  I'm gonna be bold, and call for a vote. Tomer TALK  08:01, May 9, 2005 (UTC)