Talk:Jesus/Archive 17

?!
What the heck? There is no reason for this maddening debate. Silversmith offered a compromise, lets just use both dates. All this hysteria and theoretical offense is bordering on trolling. Frankly I find the idea that we'd use anything other than A.D. and B.C. on the Jesus page rather offensive.

Sam Spade 14:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you think that our NPOV policy should be suspended for the Jesus article? (But to reitterate, I do accept the "use both" compromise, which you seem to endorse, as long as the difference between the two systesm is explained). Slrubenstein  |  Talk  14:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I obviously don't think that, indeed if we were to follow NPOV we'd ignore the bizarre "I'm offended by A.D." POV, as being too small a minority view to include here, and discuss it on the Anno Domini article instead... Unfortunately NPOV is ignored early and often in favor of egocentrism on the wiki, much to our collective shame. If you want to see more of what I think, click here. Sam Spade 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you reall do accept that I find AD offensive &mdash; when some claim I am faking it, that is incredibly offensive. I am, however, disappointed that you think that my being offended is "bizarre."  That you do not share my reasons, or maybe do not underdstand my reasons, does not mean my views are irrational.  And to suggest so is not only offensive, it undermines our NPOV policy which requres that we do not judge (in articles, yes, I don't want to censor you on a talk page) views different from our own.  However, I take strong issues with your "too small a minority view."  Not only is it not as small as you think, but as I have explained many times, NPOV is not based on numbers. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  15:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your views are irrational, I think they are bizarre (extremely abnormal and shocking). NPOV is NPOV. Our opinions as editors are not encyclopedic. Cite someone being offended already! Sam Spade 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's a question of being offended, I and I believe a number of other wikipedians were offended when this page was renamed from Jesus Christ to just Jesus. Given that "Jesus Christ" is a well known appellation used extensively in literature and culture, to the point of even being used as a swear word, deleting "Christ" from the title still strikes me as an attack on Christianity, not a search for something more neutral. The disambiguation notice currently says that the article is about "Jesus of Nazareth", but I expect that to be challenged before long on the grounds that Nazareth supposedly didn't exist at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there. Asking that "AD" and "BC" be purged seems to be part of the same jihad crusade campaign. And some will probably interpret my comment here as more reason to keep the article named just Jesus and to strike AD and BC. Wesley 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Wesley, I do not remember what position I took on this but I certainly do not now object to this. I mildly prefer "Jesus of Nazareth." I do have qualms about "Jesus Christ" because many people, like Jews and Muslims, accept the existence of Jesus, and understand that Christians think he is Christ, but do not themselves think Jesus as Christ. Nevertheless, I think at the time I argued in your favor (I think my argument was, if we have an article on Queen Elizabeth, it doesn't mean we all consider her our sovereign). So I sympathize with you on the Christ as Title issue. I am, however, still strongly opposed to BC/AD. Sam asks me to cite someone offended. Here goes:

Sam, please keep in mind that many &mdash; over twenty – voted for BCE/CE above, and that I have written hundreds of words explaining my position, You don't need to read everything I wrote, but if you pick any big chunk of text you will get the idea. In the meantime, see for this:
 * [1] B.C. stands for "before Christ" and AD, stands for "Anno Domini": "in the year of the Lord." Both are references to Jesus. Because Jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, they use the abbreviations B.C.E., for "Before the Common Era" (that is, before the year 1), and C.E., for "Common Era" (that is, after the year 1).

See for this:
 * When religious Jews refer to the Christian calendar, they write the date as such, 1999 C.E., which stands for the Common Era. Similarly, B.C.E. stands for 'before the Common Era." This way of indicating that one is using the common calendar differentiates the dates from B.C. which is "before Christ," and A.C. which is "after Christ"or A.D., "Anno Domini."

See for this:
 * Q. Why do Jews use BCE and CE rather than BC and AD?
 * A. The BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, Year of our Lord) method of dating is clearly a Christian system. Jews, not recognizing Jesus as Messiah but cogniscent of the need to have a dating method that is in synch with the rest of the world's identify the period we call AD as the "Common Era" (CE), and the period before as "Before the Common Era" (BCE).

See for
 * Jews also do not use Christian terms when referring to the Western Calendar. The Western, or Christian, Calendar has B.C. or A.D. after a year in some cases. Since the Christian Calendar is centered on the birth of Jesus, Christianity's central figure, B.C. means "Before Christ" and A.D. means Anno Domini, which is Latin for "In the year of our Lord." Jewish people, on the other hand, uses the terms C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. ( Before the Common Era). The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history.

See for:
 * B.C.E., “Before the Common Era,” is a theologically neutral equivalent to B.C., “Before Christ;” just as C.E., “Common Era,” is a neutral equivalent to A.D. (anno domini), “the year of our Lord.”

See for
 * WHY B.C.E. AND C.E.?


 * Most Jewish historical and religious books use the designations B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) to indicate respectively the period before the birth of Jesus and the period after his birth. The explanation is simple. The authors do not wish to imply that they accept Jesus as the Christ and therefore dislike the designation B.C. (Before Christ); they do not wish to imply that they accept Jesus as Lord and therefore dislike the designation A.D. (Anno Domini - in the year of the Lord). The traditional Jewish calendar is often inadequate. Therefore the conventional calendar is accepted for practical purposes, with the designations B.C.E. and C.E.

See for
 * Q. In an earlier version of this issue, you used the abbreviations C.E. and B.C.E. What do they mean?


 * A. C.E. stands for the "common era" that Judaism and Christianity share. B.C.E. means "before the common era." Jews adopted the terms as alternatives to the widely used terms B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, or Year of the Lord), which both assume that Christ's birth is the central event of history. Since this publication is directed to Catholics, B.C. and A.D. are preferred.

See for
 * The term B.C. stands for "Before Christ" and A.D. stands for Anno Domini, Latin for the "Year of Our Lord". Because non-Christians do not consider Jesus to be their "Lord", scholars developed the non-religious term "the Common Era", abbreviated C.E. B.C.E. stands for "Before the Common Era."

I think these passages reveal three important things: first, there is no problem using BC and AD when addressing a Christian audience. Second, Jews are offended by BC and AD and use BCE and CE as a "non-denominationl" way to use the Gregorian calendar. Third, many Christians respect this. I want to remind you that BCE/CE is used by Jews but is not a Jewish dating system. The Jewish "POV" is that this is the year 5765. Most Jews are offended by saying this is the year AD 2005. But most Jews are content with saying it is 2005 CE as a compromise. As one of the sources above explains, "The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history." Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein: All good research, and I truelly appreciate it very much. Perhaps you and I can stand on common ground again if I can get you to agree with me on this one point: that the BCE/CE convention originated with religious scholars and not secular academia and there has been absolutely NO evidence brought forward on this extensive discussion page (or the CE talk page) to support the claim that BCE/CE originated in secular (rationalist) academia as an effort to be more "inclusive". Nobs 18:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While I think the idea of offensiveness if valid, it is secondary to the issue of NPOV. BC/AD is not NPOV.  Ad asserts that we are in the time of "our Lord".  Common usage does not trump NPOV.  Guettarda 16:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course BC/AD is NPOV. Many (and quite probably most) people do not know any other way of signifying dates. How can they possibly be POV if they are only using terms they have come across naturally? Also, what makes you think that those using BC/AD notation are doing anything other than providing information about years? Let me assure you, they are not.


 * Also you seem to ignore that the very act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is the expression of a POV. It is also creates an awful lot of offence. When one exam question in one exam changed BC to BCE there were questions raised in both chambers of the New South Wales parliament. When the teaching of BCE/CE notation was introduced into the National Curriculum in England and Wales, it generated angry letters in newspapers and confirmation from the government agency responsible that they would continue to use BC/AD notation and, whilst pupils were allowed to use BCE/CE notation if they chose, they most certainly would not be encouraged to do so.


 * None of this is surprising, many proponents of political correctness have tried to change language to suit their socio-political beliefs and caused a lot of offence as a result. This is no exception. Kind regards, jguk 17:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk has still not responded to my recent comments to him, above. Now he writes "Also you seem to ignore that the very act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is the expression of a POV." This is absurd. BCE/CE are neutral in that they take the view of no particular religion. You are saying "NPOV" is a "POV" and thus violates "NPOV." This is absurd on its face. NPOV is not a POV, it is a policy about not elevating any POV to dominance. This is exactly what BCE/CE does. It does not privilege the Christian point of view, because it avoides BC and AD. It does not privilege the Jewish point of view, because it does not accompany 5765. It is obvious to me why Jews are offended by using BC and AD in a non Christian context. You have yet to explain why BCE and CE offends you. So far, all your arguments amount to this: if it is different from what I am accustomed to, it is wrong. Jguk, I repeated my critique of your views above, and asked you for a second time to respond to them — and you barely responded. I expressed my reasons again (in the paragraph starting "Jguk, your hysterics do not help." and you haven't (cannot?) respond to that either. Instead, you just continue to protest that your point of view is the true point of view. Jguk, you must have a very small mind if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is faking it. What kind of world do you live in, where everyone has to agree with you? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have made it clear that it is the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE that is offensive. It is a deliberate attempt to whitewash Christianity out of the picture. It is also a complete nonsense as it mistakenly takes as its premise that "BC" and "AD" should be interpreted based on their etymology rather than on how they are being used in practice. The change is unnecessary. Unwanted. No-one wants to change the language they use to please the political whims of others.


 * It is clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to reason. You are unbending in your desire to interpret quite innocent statements in a way that offends you. Well that's up to you. If you wish to be offended by things which quite obviously are made without any intention to offend, then be so - but do not expect me to change what I do because you like to be offended by everyone.


 * It may be news to you, but there's a whole world out there outside American academia that disagrees with you - and yet you consider them bigoted because they do not share your desire to wipe out even the smallest possible sign of Christianity because you are not a Christian. What kind of world do you live in that you are so intolerant of anyone who agrees with you and your politics? jguk 18:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As I think has been stated - the use of BCE is limited to certain circles and it should be used in articles related to those circles. The change itself here experesses a POV. The term is not defined by its historical derivation but rather by its use which is to demark years in a certain "era". The proposal to limit the use of the terms BC/AD as little as possible seems rejected - and the compromise solution to use both is in place despite having not reached concensus - that is troubling.

Do you know what the use of BC/BCE tells informed readers - that on Wikipedia - even on the article about Jesus - there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history. Trödel| talk 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It now appears to me that both Jguk and Trodel are hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouths they insist that BC/AD are NPOV.  Out of the other side of their mouths, Jguk says "It is a deliberate attempt to whitewash Christianity out of the picture," which makes it clear that BC/AD do express the Christian POV and are thus POV; and Trodel says that using BCE/CE tells the world that "there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history" which again makes it clear that BC/AD do express the Christian POV and are thus POV.  Okay, at least now Jguk and Trodel admit that BC and AD are Christian terms representing a Christian view.  But why does using BCE and CE "whitewash Christianity out of the picture?"  Why does using BCE and CE "deny the importance of history?"  The words "Common Era" do not in any way imply that Christianity does not exist.  Indeed, if we use BCE and CE on this article, which very much explains events central to Christianity, I do not see how using these three little letters undoes the work of the whole article.  Let us be brutally frank.  The only think that the terms BCE and CE suggest concerning Christianity is this: not everyone believes that Jesus is Christ and Lord."  Jguk and others have written ad nauseum about how I am so easy to offend, and take offense at everything (and anyone who knows my work here knows this is not true).  But now I see that they are projecting.  Look, it does not offend me that some people believe that Jesus is Christ and Lord.  But it offends Jguk and Trodel that some people do not believe that Jesus is Christ and Lord.  How hypersensitive can one get?  You two must face facts: most human beings do not accept Jesus as Christ and Lord.  You are welcome to your beliefs, but most people do not share them.  If you find this offensive, too bad, you just are going to have to get used to it.  As I have said before, the end point of Jguk and Trodel's logic is this: anyone who does not share their faith, or their beliefs, is offensive.  And this, folks, is the most offensive thing of all.  Like the term "Common Era," Wikipedia's NPOV policy is all about recognizing that people do not all think alike.  It is almost terrifying, that Jguk and Trodel wish this weren't so. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You choose to read it that way - and do not follow the intent of the user. I have no intent to impose a POV. The intent of the change is to impose a POV. I am sorry that it offends you and when I edit articles on Judaism I will make the adjustment. Not every NPOV policy is to my liking but I accept them as compromise - even when I don't think they are NPOV. I proposed limiting the use of any term - but that is unacceptable to you. YOU ALSO MUST FACE FACTS - most people don't see BC/AD as imposing that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of Elohim upon them (like you apparantly do). Trödel| talk 21:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But Trodel, if this is so, why did you write that using BCE/CE tells the world that "there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history?" This statement proves that AD and BC serve to express a Christian POV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk
 * Because most people are going to go "BC/BCE" what's that - some will ignore - others will click and learn about "Common Era" and will be amazed that the entire purpose of the system is to avoid the mention of the word "Christ" or "Domini" (which they are also probably just learning about). Then they will rightfully wonder, "why on the page about Jesus can one not refer to him by a greek and roman word for him". You choose to be offended - there is no reference to Jesus being Mašíaḥ. They are just pagan words from another language. In short, in order to explain why you are offended you have to explain the history, the etymology, etc that most people don't give a damn about and then explain that by Christ and Lord they really mean Mašíaḥ which offends you. Trödel| talk 12:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * They just see it as a demarking of time periods. It is terrifying that you would write ad nauseum - so much so that no one can read it all because you can't just see BC and think "before common" and AD and think "after dude" or whatever - and must change the convention to one that is more awkward for the very purpose as you say to enforce the belief that "most human beings 'do not' believe Jesus as Christ and Lord" when all I see is symbols that mark time periods. Straw polls of intent don't impress you, failure of your idea to get consensus doesn't influence you. Trödel| talk 21:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I am somewhat torn here. I do not doubt that Slrubenstein and other non-Christians take genuine offense at BC/AD. I also do not doubt that some on the other side of the argument take genuine offense at BCE/CE. But, in my opinion, the mere fact that someone takes offense at a term is not sufficient to qualify the term as POV. If it were, there are many other terms used on Wikipedia that must by that standard be banned from use as POV, since one can find just about anyone who is willing and ready to take offense at just about anything.

It seems to me that Slrubenstein reads "500 AD" as the equivalent of "500 CE (Jesus is my Lord)". And others read "500 CE" as "500 AD (Jesus is not my Lord)". I view neither as a predicate; "500 AD" and "500 CE" make no statement of fact whatsoever in the English vernacular, which is the language of Wikipedia. Thus, to my mind, they are equally NPOV. I believe, without any evidence other than my own perception of general English usage, that most people regard both styles as neutral. I believe the fact that Slrubenstein is quite willing to type "BC" and "AD" when making his arguments shows that those terms can be used without implying that the person using them holds Christian beliefs. I likewise believe that those who use "BCE" and "CE" in arguing against them do so without expressing a non-Christian POV solely by virtue of that use. To me, these patterns of usage demonstrate that the use of the terms does not express a POV except in a forced, deliberate, unnatural interpretation of the text.

If one accepted the premise that BC/AD and BCE/CE were equally NPOV, then the choice would be purely a matter of style and readability. It is from this perspective that I argue for BC/AD, and from no desire to force a religious viewpoint upon anyone or to protect the traditions of Christianity from the atheist hordes.

If a compromise can be found that preserves readability and style sufficiently, I am in favor of it. The proposal to add the 'AD' or 'CE' (or 'AD/CE' or 'CE/AD', if you prefer) suffix to dates only to avoid ambiguity has considerable appeal to me. The 'BC' vs. 'BCE' problem is stickier, since a suffix is necessary in all cases to disambiguate the date from the AD/CE date. I'm not convinced that there's an easy way to achieve this without rendering such dates unreadable with a conglomeration of abbreviations following each one. Perhaps the best idea is that the date marker be user-configurable so that Slrubenstein sees BCE/CE and jguk sees BC/AD. This is the most difficult solution to implement though, since it cannot be achieved through convention alone.

I know this horse is in a terminal condition now, so I'll try to refrain from chiming in with any further restatement of my argument, unless someone asks for clarification on a particular point. Alanyst 19:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, folks, I haven't read all of your extensive debate in detail, but a few things are clear, at least, to me.
 * People aren't going to read diffs. They're reading the article. Arguing that the change itself is not NPOV is pointless, since NPOV applies to the article. As well argue that having a biased revision history is POV. WTF?
 * Given that this is the "Jesus" article, it seems to make sense that we should avoid saying "AD" in THIS context, for sure, since the 'D' in question is ostensibly J.C. himself. Makes sense, right?
 * My two bits. Graft 20:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Graft.
 * Alanyst, I know of no Jew who considers AD/BC NPOV in any way. Virtually all Jews I know are offended by it, although many accept it as just one of the petty humiliations that come from being a minority.  I appreciate your intent.  But I do not see how anyone can interpret BC as NPOV.  I do not see how anyone can interpret it as anything other than an acknowledgment of Christ.  "Christ" is in the very abbreviation!  Moreover, I truly do not understand how anyone can argue that CE is POV.  CE only suggests that today there is a calendar that Jews, Christians, and others have "in common."  It makes no claims at all about Christ.  There is nothing in the wording that states or even implies that Jesus was not Christ.  I know you mean well, but it sounds like you, Trodel, Rangerdude, and Silversmith are suggesting that to believe Jesus is Christ is NPOV and anyone who says "I do not believe in Christ" is somehow being offensive.  As I remarked to Jguk, how can you live in a world where you expect everyone to think like you.  I do not think like you.  You do not think like me.  Despite this, we can communicate, and have a calendar in common.  I honestly do not understand why anyone would be upset or offended that Jews share a calendar with Christians, without sharing their Christian beliefs.  But this is precisely what is implied when one insists that everyone use AD/BC.  You might find this interesting Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If it were true that use of BC necessitated the interpretation that Jesus is or must be acknowledged as Christ, then you have just made such an acknowledgement by writing BC. I reject that premise, which is why I can understand that your use of BC above is not inconsistent with your beliefs as a Jew.


 * I must apologize for having apparently left you under the impression that I take offense in your advocacy of BCE/CE. On the contrary, I perceive no threat to myself, my personal religious beliefs, or Christianity as a whole from the argument for BCE/CE; I quite happily regard BCE/CE to carry the same NPOV-ness as BC/AD.  Further, I do not expect everyone to think like me, and I do hope you will refrain from implying that I have such an expectation.  Those who take positions you cannot understand are not necessarily bigots, but you seem to imply so, and I would gently ask you to reconsider your attitude and/or phrasing in that regard.  It is precisely because I regard BC/AD as neutral that I am comfortable advocating for its use in Wikipedia; if I felt that it required the user to misrepresent their beliefs then I would advocate against it. I hope this clarifies my position sufficiently for you; I truly do not mean to extend this debate unnecessarily.  Alanyst 20:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I was about 10 years old when I figured out that AD was POV. That's when I found out what it stood for. My first thought was along the lines of, then if you aren't Christian you can't use that, can you? (I happened to live in a multi-religious society). "Anno Domini" - in the year of our Lord. Says it plainly enough. It took me a lot longer to figure out that BC was POV, because it isn't "before Jesus", it's "Before the Messiah". Jesus's being the Messiah is an opinion that is not universally recognised. So to say that something happened 4 years before the birth of the Messiah is POV. Choosing to abbreviate things doesn't change the meaning of the word. If I refer to the Queen as "Her Majesty" I am endorsing a POV. I might do it out of politeness were I ever in a position where it mattered. Similarly, I refuse to refer to the PM of my home country as "The Honourable" because I do not believe that he is. Sure, it's convention, but mouthing the words amounts to expressing a POV. I mumbled the Lords Prayer in school as a child long before I had any idea what it was about. Does that mean that as long as you don't know what you're saying it has no religious significance? Did prayers in Latin have no religious significance if the reader didn't speak Latin? Does the words of the Qu'ran be divorced from their religious connection if the reader doesn't speak Arabic, or reading from the Gita have no religious connection of the reader doesn't understand Sanskrit? Words have meaning even if you don't embrace the meaning as you speak them. The intent of the writer is immaterial - it's the way the reader interprets the words. BC/AD have a specific meaning. BCE/CE lack that meaning, they only have chronological significance. Guettarda 21:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you, User:Guettarda. When you, User:Graft, Mel Etitis, Zora, El_C, goethean, Jayjg, JimWae, Neutrality, Mackensen, Flyers13,  M P er el, BrandonYusufToropov, JFW, Leifern, Kuratowski's Ghost, Olve, PinchasC, Viriditas, SlimVirgin, Ambi, srs, Dittaeva,   , Switisweti, Mrfixter, Tomer, and SocratesJedi all agree with me (or I with you) &mdash; and we all understand one another – I just to not understand why User:Jguk, Trödel| talk  and others do not. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is disingenuous to refer to the discussion as only being supported by 2 people when 16 voted against the change - just becuase 14 are much smarter than User:Jguk and me - they realized this discussion would go nowhere - doesn't mean they support a change to BCE/CE. Trödel| talk 12:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not saying anyone is smarter than you, but I do think other people are better readers than you. I never, ever, stated that your view is held by only two people.  The reason I single out you and Jguk should be obvious: the two of you almost always respond to what I write, not to what the other twenty-seven write.  This is of course sill quite a bit more than the people who voted to keep AD/CE.  I will say, however, that your suggestion that I think og "BC" as "Before Common," and "AD" as "After dude" is idiotic.  I know what they mean, and they do not mean "Before Common" or "After Dude."  And you refuse to admit that many, many people know what they mean and are offended by it.  And I still do not understand how you could so carelessly disregard the feelings of so many &mdash; millions &ndah; of people who find this offensive.  And I still do not understand how you can reject an NPOV alternative.  You do not believe in NPOV.  You believe in your POV.  You claim it is NPOV only because you want everyone in the world to think like you.  And when someone says "I do not and will not think like you," when someone says "That is your POV" you think you have been insulted.  This is truly bizzare. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  14:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your position seems to be that you have chosen to take offence with something irrationally, therefore everyone else should change their usage of language to accommodate you. I say irrationally because you choose to take no offence at the names of the days of the week or the months of the year - which have etymologies as explicit as for "AD" and "BC" . Unfortunately, like most people who have convinced themselves thoroughly of an irrational and illogical position, you are unwilling to contemplate that you may be wrong - or indeed that anyone who disagrees with you has any sort of valid argument whatsoever.


 * I suggest you stand back. Ask yourself why 90%+ of the English-speaking population continue to use BC/AD? Why is it used almost exclusively in the UK - so much so that most do not even know what BCE/CE means? Why did changing BC to BCE in one exam question in one paper cause so much concern that there were questions to both houses of the New South Wales parliament? Why is BC/AD notation far more common than BCE/CE notation in India, which has only a small Christian minority? However, I fear you have lost all sense of perspective and are unable to ask yourself these sorts of question. I also fail to see what you intend to achieve by prolonging this campaign of yours - unless there really is some political motivation behind it all. Kind regards, jguk 22:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Probably because it's an old custom to use the old system. People are used to it (but that doesn't make it right). Gradually that custom will change as more people will understand it's not good to hold on to the domination of the world by Christians and Christian habits. Old habits won't change in just one day, but they will eventually! It's just common sence. Switisweti 22:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you singling out me for some reason, or are you addressing yourself to the twenty-seven other people who have openly disagreed with you? As for your questions, I answered them long ago. You ignored them, as you sim to ignore or have disdain for anyone who is not your clone. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I thing that the whole "compromise" looks quite ugly and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I would much rather one convention is used (my preference is BCE/CE), but would rather see BC/AD rather than BCE/BE / CE/AD. srs 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, I also think BCE/CE is the obvious way to go as it is the only NPOV way to handle dates. Moreover, there is a considerable majority that voted for BCE/CE.  I just got tired of Jguk and Trodel reverting every attempt to apply our NPOV policy, according to the majority.  Someone, I forget who, proposed this compromise and I accept it if it resolves the conflict agreeably.  But if we do follow our NPOV policy, and the majority vote, and use only BCE/CE, Jguk and Trodel will revert.  What do you want to do?  Take it to mediation or arbitration?  Jguk has made it explicitly clear he will never compromise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I will revert too.
 * You have never even established that the use of AD/BC is contrary to the Neutral point of view policy, in the terms in which that policy is stated, even if everything you have stated on this talk page (other that out-of-thin-air claims of violation of NPOV policy) is true. Gene Nygaard 19:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 28 people have agreed that it is NPOV, and have provided ample explanation of their reasons. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm only asking one person&mdash;that would be you, of course&mdash;to point out, using the specific language in which Neutral point of view policy is stated, where you see a violation of that policy. That can't really be so hard to do, is it?  Or are you just going to keep trying to bullshit us?  Have you ever read that policy? Gene Nygaard 01:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gene, That you claim I am bullshitting you is bullshit itself that reveals you to be a troll. I have explained this over and over and over again.  In several cases I have quoted the NPOV policy.  That you keep asking me to do it is rude.  I have explained it countless times on this page, and even in the most recently archived material.  Just reread what I have written. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  13:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, in about a zillion words on this talk page, you have quoted the NPOV policy twice, that I can see:
 * 1. On 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC) you argued that
 * "Jesus was born about 4 B.C." is a value or opinion as those terms are used in the policy.
 * "Jesus was born about 4 B.C.E." is a fact as that term is used in the policy.
 * 2. On 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC) you argued that "But it is a fact that BC stands for "before Christ" and that represents a point of view. As such it violates our NPOV policy."  In support of that, you cited:
 * First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.
 * But if it is in fact a "conflicting view" (an argument for which we do not have agreement here), then what it conflicts with is also a "conflicting view". If that were true, then this policy would require that both be presented.
 * I can say that this is year 5765 A.M without having to believe that Yahweh created the Earth 5765 years ago.
 * You are confusing "culturally neutral language" with "neutral point of view". Gene Nygaard 15:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The policy is not refering to conflicts between POV and NPOV. Also, you can believe whatever you want, I was simply stating that my own POV is that this year is 5765 and thus 5765 is POV. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse
It seems to me that there are a great many people in this world with a vested interest in ignorance. For example, they either were ignorant of or choose to ignore that "Christ" means "Messiah", and that "Anno Domini" means "Year of the/our Lord (Jesus Christ)". They then contend that their readers are similarly ignorant, and that thus wikipedia should simply pander to this continued ignorance. --JimWae 01:58, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


 * No! The point is that meaning changes over time and when the meaning is not offensive why bother to change convention. There are 9 references on the WikiEN-l Mailing list to calling a "spade a spade" quite frankly this is offensive to southerners since spade is a deragotory term for black people and that phrase was often used when an objection was raised to calling someone an N.(such an offensive word I won't even type it). However, I am assuming, that sinceno one has objected to it's use, it is the common meaning for most of the world is to "use blunt language" and few know of the recent offensive meaning. (By the way, I do not use the phrase out of respect for those whom I work around; just as I would not use AD/BC around Jews or on the Jewish articles on Wikiepdia.) However, since this article is about Jesus for whom the current year reckoning system is based it seem quite logical to use the terms that were used by the Romans (and an English translation of the Greek, i.e.  Christ) - to refer to that person Jesus. That the Romans meant Domini to mean Lord, and Christ to mean Messiah is of little concern because using the term to describe the man Jesus does not make him the Messiah or the Lord; it only reflects the view that the Romans thought of him as those things. Now wait -- isn't that NPOV? When there is dispute about something describe the viewpoint and attribute it. AD does this clearly by using an abbrievation for the Latin that describes the Roman view of Jesus. Sounds ok to me. Trödel| talk  02:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So I will also let you show us JimWae, in the specific language in which the Neutral point of view policy is stated, where the violation of that policy lies. I'm most interested in Slrubenstein doing so, of course. Why are you both having so much difficulty doing that? Gene Nygaard 03:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the introduction, Gene: -- "not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." This is why all articles that deal with Jesus have a potential POV issue. It likely is an issue with all articles on religious figures (excepting perhaps those numerous & repetitive ones that have "...perspective" or "... view" in title). --JimWae 03:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


 * no such implication is made since those willing to figure out what AD stands for will understand clearly it's historical usage and that it is a Roman viewpoint only, those that do not understand what it means will not ratify or insinuate anything. Trödel| talk 03:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed that I am ignoring you?--JimWae 03:30, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * No - but I have noticed that you have no cogent arguments to counter mine. Trödel| talk 04:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I read&mdash;
 * "The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."
 * No generalities about Jesus, or generalities about religious figures in general. Tell us how saying that "Jesus was born about 4 B.C." violates the policy in this specific statement.  And tell us how a change to reflect a different point of view would not be a case of stating, implying, or insinuating that the date as originally expressed is incorrect.
 * The point is, what you are really arguing is at best political correctness, not the specific meaning of the "neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 03:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) How is implying Jesus died in the year 29 of our lord jesus (christ), NPOV?
 * 2) How is implying Mohammed was born in the 7th(?) century of our lord jesus (christ), NPOV?
 * 3) How is implying Moses lived 5(?) centuries before the Messiah, NPOV?
 * 4) How is implying Socrates died 399 years before the birth of the Messiah, NPOV?
 * 5) *--JimWae 04:00, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


 * No, the questions are
 * How is saying Jesus died in the year 29 A.D. relevant to NPOV, a specific, stated policy on Wikipedia?
 * How is saying Mohammed was born in the 7th(?) A.D. relevant to NPOV?
 * How is saying Moses lived 5(?) centuries B.C. relevant to NPOV?
 * How is saying Socrates died 399 years B.C. relevant to NPOV?


 * To change the subject, if we want to talk about political correctness or whatever your real argument is, what are the "neutral" alternatives in which we all can express the years of the Hebrew calendar, or the Islamic calendar?
 * How would reading that Jesus was born 3,760 years after the beginning of the world (A.M.) force me not to believe that the Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old? Isn't that terminology every but as much the pushing of a particular point of view as what you've been complaining about?  Gene Nygaard 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

JimWae, Gene Nygaard is just a troll trying to waste your time. He is suggesting that the NPOV policy should state something specifically about AD &mdash; as if the NPOV should state something specifically about fascism, Hitler, Holocaust, Genocide, Feminism, and countless other objects of NPOV disputes. That is absurd and he either really means this, which means he has no clue as to what "policies" are, or he is just trying to waste your time. No one here has suggested that we should say that Jesus was born in 3,760, so that is just a red-herring he is making up in order to waste your time. But to ask, after kilobytes of explanation, why saying this is the year of "our" Lord is not a POV, is simply trollish behavior. Ignore it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  13:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Possible Origins of "Common Era"
According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "C.E." and "B.C.E." came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.

However, I believe that “CE” has earlier antecedents. In a 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux, we find, “The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation.” In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote “The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.”  In its article on "Chronology", the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."

This 1908 example from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the first use of “Common Era” I can find, and I believe it was used synonymously with, or to replace “Vulgar Era.” “Vulgar” comes from the Latin word vulgāaris (from vulgus, “the common people”), meant “of or belonging to the common people, everyday,” and I believe it was used by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries to mean “common.”  Why they used this, in addition to AD, I can only guess – I suspect it was to acknowledge that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was Lord.

The first Jewish use of this practice of which I know is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England:
 * "Here is buried his honour Judah ben his honour Joseph, a prince and honoured amongst philanthropists, who executed good deeds, died in his house in the City of Bath, Tuesday, and was buried here on Sunday, 19 Sivan in the year 5585. In memory of Lyon Joseph Esq (merchant of Falmouth, Cornwall). who died at Bath June AM 5585/VE 1825. Beloved and respected."

This inscription, like most, uses the Jewish calendar (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the “VE” means “Vulgar Era,” and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications.

It is true that scholars today – including Christian and secular scholars – often use “C.E.” and “B.C.E” because of its neutrality. It is true that most Jews use these abbreviations as well, for the same reason. I do think it is interesting, though, that the alternative to A.D. was first introduced by Protestant and Catholic clerics. I believe this shows that there was a time when Christians understood and respected the fact that many people do not share their faith. I know many Christians who today share this understanding and respect. I just think it is both puzzling and a shame that others so resist the idea, that there are people out there who have other beliefs. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you've done the best sourcing of anyone in this discussion and for now it is close to definitive. You almost have me convinced.  I hope you will bring some of your research over to CE and talk page. Looks like it will be badly needed.  Can we agree, evidence suggests it began with religious scholars (most likely Jewish) and is used by non-religious scholars (in other words, religious scholars & institutions provided the leadership in this landmark change & secular scholars & institutions followed). Nobs 01:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, it seems to me that CE began with Christian religious scholars -- the Catholic Encyclopedia. I am afraid I do not know much about the Jehovah's Witnesses; I gather they do not think of themselves as Christian, but they certainly are not Jewish. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have been using BCE/CE ever since they started as a Christian sect at the end of the 19th century CE... See the discussion on this matter. Switisweti 22:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW, although I voted for AD/BC, I really don't care. I'm a secularist and actually prefer "Common Era" on principle.  I was raised in a Catholic family, and it's possible that my experience led me to believe that "AD/BC" is the way it's been for centuries, and I never found it all that significant or offensive.  To me, it's just like A.M./P.M. Besides that, it's a little interesting to learn the history and the latin meaning of it, but mostly just the latin. (I find the history a little disturbing. - the idea that so many people could so loyally follow a single person gave my young mind visions much like the holocaust, and that was before i knew that there had ever been a holocaust) Kevin Baastalk: new 03:53, 2005 May 14 (UTC)


 * Then why aren't we using the term vulgar? Because although it "originally meant 'of the common people', from the Latin vulgus. The term is now commonly used to describe things that are, from the viewpoint of the person using the word, in bad taste, indecent, or profane." In other words we give words and symbols their common usage and don't use them if the common usage is offensive. We do not use their etymological meaning that some might find offensive or in the case of vulgar - a meaning that is not etymologically offensive- because we care about what it means now.


 * The arguments in favor boil down to: "it is offensive becuse of the derivation of the word," and the arguments against are "we should stick with convention because no one thinks of the derivation." Then the bad faith starts with the counter arguments being: "you don't really care about convention you want to impose your christian faith on me and everone else," and "you are feigning offense in order to push a POV." (close enough I hope) Look, I am sorry I participated in the accusations of bad faith. It really just comes down to this: Very few look at the symbols and think of the etymological history; therefore we should keep with the most widely understood convention. Trödel| talk 13:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is so screwed up I wonder if it is worth taking you seriously any more. When the word "vulgar" took on an offensive meaning, people switched to "common." "Common" has no such offensive meaning, so why abandon it? Conversely, AD was never rejected because it was vulgar, it was rejected because it was not inclusive. It is still not inclusive. Apology accepted, but you say "very few people think of the etymological history" and you are still mistaken. "Before Christ" is not the etymology of BC, it is what BC stands for. And although many people do not care, many do. You think that because many people do not care then there is no NPOV problem. But this has never been relevant to NPOV decisions, nor is it now. That many people do not care only means that that is one POV. It does not mean it is the only or best POV. It is a POV. That is enough to require us to find an NPOV alternative. 200 years ago, people, including Christians, thought VE was an NPOV alternative. By the late 1800s, people &mdah; including Christians – replaced VE with CE as an NPOV alternative. I see no reason to reject it now. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is screwed up how? The common meaning changed so people accomodated the change. The meaning of AD/BC has changed ovetime where people don't recognize the original etymology so it is no longer offensive - thus the term is used. They changed from VE (because it became offensive) back to an archaic term that everyone understood (and had lost its offensive meaning). If there was such huge support for BCE/CE then why is no one outside religious scholars using - because no one cares about it (the etymology). They are rational people that think it is stupid to use new abbreviations for demarking the beginning of a new era marked by the life of Jesus (who some believe is the Christ). You still have never addressed the point that these are words (Christ & Domini) that are greek and roman (supposed pagan civilizations anyway) that you choose to make equivilent to the hebrew Mašíaḥ. Why does what other people believe offend you anyway - if I choose to believe that Jguk is the reincarnation of Hades he would probably just laugh and say whatever, because what I believe doesn't affect him - he knows he is not Hades. He would probably just chuckle, since his superior intellect knows that I am just a heathen. But you insist that what others believe is offensive to you. Who cares what they believe. Trödel| talk 22:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The wiki definition at vulgar I beleive is dead on, i.e. correct; I would add sometime between Canterbury Tales and the Protestant Reformation the term even took on a racist connotation, ask anyone from Bulgaria, who of course are called "Bulgars" (pronounced "vulgar").


 * Not my words --ClemMcGann 19:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * --ClemMcGann 20:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you are even more confused than I thought. People switched from VE to CE, not from VE to AD. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  23:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is still going on in the year 2005. Most historians and archeologists switched to BCE and CE years ago. And not because they were Jewish, but because everyone isn't Christian. BC – Before Christ – contains an assumption that Jesus was the Christ, the messiah. That's a theological belief. And AD – anno domini means "year of God" – which asserts that Jesus was in fact God incarnate, a belief that even some Christians do not subscribe to. Any assertion that one religious belief is the correct one is POV, no matter what it is or what article it is in.

Problems with this article

 * Quickly, on the BCE/BC issue - I do not accept the proposed compromise because it does not put the reader first. We should not carry the heated discussions on the talk page over to the article. The proposed formulation is the one most likely to completely confuse the reader, it looks naff, and screams out the question - what is going on here? I have never seen both styles used simultaneously anywhere. Therefore I do not accept having BCE/BC notation. I have noted above that thinking of the reader means we use BC (as 90%+ of our readers will tend to use BC, and many will not understand BCE). I will continue to put readers first. Kind regards, jguk 16:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If you will not accept the compromise, then you must accept the vote, which was something like 28 to 18 in favor of BCE and CE. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not accept any dilution of the NPOV policy. You have not provided any justification for any change other than that it would reflect your socio-religio-political viewpoint. It is clear any change is highly controversial and POV. However, you continue to fail to recognise that change, unless gradual (which is most certainly not the case here), is POV.


 * Says, he, as he unilaterally decides to rewrite/restructure the entire article to conform to his own views. Sorry, just thought it was funny. srs 17:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Far from it - you're all welcome to come to Jesus/Rewrite to improve the article there. It is clear that Slrubenstein will not allow any views contrary to his own to be expressed here. This is a shame. It creates a great gulf - and it is always unfortunate when one of our academic contributors takes the stance that anything that contradicts his research or that goes against his personal socio-religio-political beliefs must be excluded. Our academic contributors have a lot to add, but too frequently are unwilling to have anything that goes against there own work on WP. We have already lost 172 as he was as unbending as Slrubenstein, jguk 17:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Now Neutrality has reverted my attempts to put the article in proper perspective, I am adding a NPOV notice. At present the article is not balanced, for the reasons discussed above. Kind regards, jguk 16:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As an aside...it says something about the power, significance, and influence of Jesus that 2000 years after he walked the earth, he still is one of the most controversial figures we know (throughout the culture; this page is simply an example of that). Kinda neat. At any rate, good luck sorting all this out. KHM03 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me concur with with Jguk opening post in this section. Two articles need to be written to make the Jesus article complete: Time of Christ and canon of scripture.  AD/BC and CE/BCE time reckoning is from the Time of Christ, not the birth of Christ (birth of Christ is of only interest to naive 1st grade elementary students who's teachers felt if they didn't explain it that way, the person probably never would have the opportunity in a lifetime to learn).  The article Intro falsely states that "outside of the canon of scritpure no contemporaneous documents exist to corrobate that Jesus ever lived", which is patently not true.  No contemporaneous canon of scripture existed at the Time of Christ outside the Torah and the Prophets.  This is a very sublte POV that needs to be eleminated.  Questioning whether or not Jesus ever existed is valid, and only needs to stated once.  And if enough evidence can be emassed to question the validity of all the documents that claim he existed, then we can either limit that to a separate section or separate article.  It serves no purpose in this article (or any wiki) article, to continuously second guess itself, if it seeks to any sort of source of authoritive information.  Nobs 17:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to see that this article is so PoV that it warrants the PoV template. That the article is unbalanced because it's too balanced isn't an absurd view in itself, but it's not clear to me that it's true here. That Jesus is most important to Christianity is probably true, but that most of what Christianity teaches is relevant to Jesus is much more debatable. Relatively little Christian teaching is derived from Christ's reprted words and actions, being, for example, derived from ancient Greek philosophers via the work of mediæval writes like Aquinas. Moreover, in causal terms at least, Islam is as influenced by Jesus as is Christianity, Islam being in large part a reaction to Christianity. As for Judaism:
 * A rabbi and a priest were discussing their careers, and the discussion turned to job prospects. "Well", said the priest, "I have a very good chance of making bishop when the current incumbent retires." "Very nice," replied the rabbi, "... and after that?" "Oh, well, said the priest, "I suppose that in theory I could become cardinal &mdash; not impossible I suppose." The rabbi was encouraging: "You'd look a treat in scarlet, I'm sure that you'll make it.  And after that?" "Oh, after that it's pope, of course.  I don't think of that; there hasn't been an English pope for centuries, and it'll probably be an African next." "Still, never say die" said the rabbi, "it's always possible.  And after that?" The priest looked puzzled: "There's nothing after that; I mean, above the pope, there's only god &mdash; I could hardly become god."  "Why not?" asked the rabbi, "one of our boys made it." Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty funny! Here is another joke: Jguk wrote "It is clear that Slrubenstein will not allow any views contrary to his own to be expressed here" &mdash; when he full knows that 27 other editors share my view about the necessity of NPOV (and I wasn't even the first to vote!), when after one round of reverting, I accepted his organization of the article, and also when I explicitly stated in this very section that I am willing to compromise on the dates, and he replied that he will not compromise.  Just some more evidence that Jguk wants to live in a world where everyone is just like him, and actually finds it offensive when he discovers that many people do not think like him.  Sad. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, you are good at jokes, Slrubenstein wrote "My point: the very claim that AD and BC are NPOV, which I do believe you sincerely believe, is actually just more evidence of how POV they are" Is it any wonder that Jguk can say "It is clear that Slrubenstein will not allow any views contrary to his own to be expressed here" --ClemMcGann 19:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As a newbie, let me see if I understand how to make the arguement : "It is my POV that your POV is POV; whereas it is my POV that my POV is NPOV." is that it? Nobs 19:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No Nobs. I'll give you my answer, but I think the best thing is for you to read our Neutral point of view policy carefully for the explanation that NPOV is not a POV.  But to answer your question (I am hoping you meant it seriously), my point of view is that this is the year 5765.  Christians believe it is AD 2005.  Muslims believe it is 1426 (I think, no disrespect if I am mistaken).  I think the Chinese year is 4703. These are all different points of view (but please remember, my POV is that it is 5765).  For Jews, Christians, Muslims, Chinese and others to be able to engage in commerce, share scholarly research, coordinate political activities, it is much more convenient to have one calendar.  European colonial expansion beginning in the 1500s and peaking in the early 1900s involved the deliberate attempt to spread Christianity, by the late 1800s capitalism, and the calendar used by most Europeans, that is, the Gregorian calendar.  Although the Gregorian calendar was created as a specifically Christian calendar, many non-Christians were forced to use it, and many more were encouraged to use it.  The Gregorian calendar is now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common."  That is why the terms "Before the Common Era" and "Common Era" are both accurate and neutral.  I will remind you once again, my point of view is that it is 5765.  I am willing to use the Christian calendar, as long as it is no longer strictly identified as "Christian."  saying that this year is  AD 2005 is the Christian point of view.  Saying it is 2005 CE is the neutral point of view.  Not my view (remember it is 5765) but a neutral point of view people all over the world can use to make commerce, politics, and other common activities easy to coordinate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

. Lucid and sound; if lucidity and soundness could overcome... well everything that they have to overcome, then there's be no more argument. Actually, my PoV is that it's the year 49 &mdash; I can't bring myself to believe all that tosh about anything existing before I did, but I go along with the Common Era system because I have to: the bank won't accept cheques with the real date. (That's a point; has anyone tried to write cheques using the Jewish, or Muslim, or other non-C.E. calendar? If so, what happens?) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 *  Lucidity and soundness ought to overcome and it's up to editors on this page to see that it does. Slrubenstein has laid out a solid argument, long recognized by academics, and agreed to by most of the editors who took part in the poll, so please let's stick to the dating convention that is neutral, scholarly, and wanted by the majority here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mel, and Slim. But what can we do? Trodel and Jguk, and perhaps a couple of others, will not listen to reason. People have written the equivalent of pages and pages and pages of explanation for why BCE/CE is NPOV and makes sense, but Trodel and Jguk will never listen to reason and never obey our NPOV policy. So what should we do? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  00:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've lost track of whether people have agreed to mention both systems (BCE/BC), which is what's currently there. If they have, I won't interfere, though I personally don't agree with it: there's one neutral, scholarly convention, and I see no reason to single WP out by not using it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, a vast majority of people voted for BCE/CE. It is just Trodel and Jguk and Gene who now refuse to accept the majority and our NPOV policy. A couple of people proposed using both BCE and BC as a compromise. I have stated that I am perfectly willing to accept this as a compromise, but Jguk stated that he refuses to accept this compromise (then, he accused me of being uncompromising). Slrubenstein  |  Talk  13:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)