Talk:Jesus/Archive 70

Length
Is is me, or is this article a little bit too long? When i search up britanica of jesus, it does a good job of splitting up things more evenly. samphex 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) There will always be a tension between the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (which gives us the freedom to write much longer articles than conventional encyclopedias) and that most browsers can't handle very long pages. I am all for brevity, but I think when it comes to controversial articles we just have to accept that they will be longer than most uncontroversial articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think it is monstrously too long. It appears from my reading of the archives that every time fork is split off and the section summarized, and slow edit war commences and the "summary" ends up about the same length as the forked article. If you can find a solution to this one, I'd suggest taking a stab at Reimann zeta, EPP, peace in Middle east and, most challenging of all, the placement of templates and pictures in this article. Kevin/Last1in 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Summary style. 88 KB is a bit long. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, do not accept that articles, especially ones for controversial topics, should be long and unwieldy. A reader who is honestly curious about this subject is unlikely to finish the 23 pages this article comprises (using almost no margins and a smallish font). On the other hand, summary style conventions would make this a better, tighter, more Wikified article and, far from sacrificing quality, would allow editors with a passion for a certain segment of this topic to more fully explain the issues in the appropriate fork. Just MHO, as always. Kevin/Last1in 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We're starting to do so. See Project Trinity note at the bottom of the page. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

90 KB now? Things have gotten out of hand. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations, who has them?
I noticed several "citations needed" tag in the Jesus section. BTW, can't this section be shortened? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The following may be of use:


 * In the East the commemoration of Christ's nativity was January 6, the beginning of the solar year. This Feast of Epiphany celebrated especially Jesus' baptism. When Epiphany spread to the West, it celebrated the visit of the Magi to the Christ child (Matt 2). About 330 the Roman church assigned December 25 as the birth of Christ. By the turn of the fifth century, the Roman practice was gradually becoming universal. Where both December 25 and January 6 were observed, this created a season of 12 days. It has been thought that the Roman date of December 25 was chosen for the nativity of Christ to counter the festival of the Invincible Sun (Natale solis invicti), which Emperor Aurelian (269/70–75) established on December 25, 274, in honor of the Syrian sun god Emesa. It is more likely, however, that the December 25 date for the birth of Christ stems from the tradition of commemorating both the conception (annunciation) and death of Christ on March 25. (Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans;  Brill, 1999–2003], 1:455.) &mdash;Wayward Talk  05:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What about a cite for "Many scholars note that the accounts in the Gospels of the shepherds' activities suggest a spring or summer date."?Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I recently aquired copies of Meier's books, so later tonight I can see if he mentions anything about that. --Andrew c 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Meier doesn't mention the historical herding patterns or anything like that. I'll check the Acts of Jesus next time I'm at the library. --Andrew c 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But Porter does:

"The shepherds are described as living in the fields to guard their flocks at night (Luke 2.8). This was the usual practice in Palestine, where sheep were turned into the fields after the June wheat harvest to graze on the remains of the crops. If Luke's account has any historical basis, therefore, Jesus is likely to have been born in the summer"

Porter, J. R. Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith. Oxford University Press, 1999. Pg. 70. ISBN 0195214293 Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work finding that source!--Andrew c 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Project update regarding Jesus' NT bio
I have overhauled two articles: Christian views of Jesus and New Testament view on Jesus' life. I condensed the Christian view bio section. That article seriously needs a lot of work, but at least now it doesn't have a redundent Jesus' life section. I kept in the little bit of information that discusses Christian views, but removed the plot summary stuff. As for NT views, I combined the life sections of those two articles and the main Jesus article to create one long narrative. New Testament view on Jesus' life probably needs some going over and the reference combination idea that Aiden proposed, however, I believe we have a fairly beefy article now covering the narrative of Jesus' life in the gospels. So after other's get a chance to go over those two articles, we can begin talk on the next phase: seriously condensing the life section of this article. I think the pre-overhaul New Testament view on Jesus' life had some paragraphs that I wouldn't mind using for the condensed version. Anyway, I'm going to turn my User:Andrew c/Jesus page into the sandbox for the condesning. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free to edit there.--Andrew c 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * VERY nice. Really good job. The first thing I think that needs condensing in this article is the Chronology section. — Aiden 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. First thing, I've looked through the Chronology section a couple times before, and I just looked over it again, and its hard for me to pinpoint how we can condense it. I mean, maybe it isn't necessary to talk about the origin of AD and the history of dating Jesus' birth. That would be the paragraph I would vote to remove. Also, the info on Herod the great may be reduced to one sentence instead of 2, and we may not need the history of Christian celebration of Jesus' birth. However, I think its important to note that December 25th was not always recognized as Jesus' birthday. And I think the AD discussion, while unsourced, is fairly interesting and relevent. So yeah, like I said, I've had a hard time pinpointing what to condense. As for the life section, I ask editors to look at my proposal at User:Andrew c/Jesus (it may help to just view the diff). As you can see, I removed a bunch. I tried to keep each section about 2 paragraphs long. Keep in mind that all the information I deleted still exists in its full (and sometimes even more indepth) at New Testament view on Jesus' life, and also the subartices on each topic (such as Nativity of Jesus, Passion (Christianity), and Sayings of Jesus on the cross just for example).--Andrew c 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and done some condensing as well. Although it is somewhat different from Andrew's version in places, I mostly followed his example. You can see the diff between the current Jesus version and my version here and the difference between my version and Andrew's version here. As you can see, mine is just slightly longer, with an average of 2-3 paragraphs per section. — Aiden 14:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like what you have done with the ministry and passion sections, but I still stand by the handful of sentences I cut that you kept. Maybe the best thing to do is to simply rewrite certain sections in a more concise manner, so we can keep in the details that I cut, but in a less wordy matter? Anyway, I urge editors to compare Aiden's with mine by looking at this diff, especially taking note at the few sentences that I cut. Is it important to mention the Catholic annunciation? Is it important to mention the manger when we have wikilinks up the ying yang poiting to Nativity of Jesus and First Noel and such; do we need to mention all the extra details and differences in the synoptics when it comes to the baptism? what do the titles of jesus have to do with his ministry? do we need the detail about the guards at jesus' tomb? anyway, these are just minor things, and I totally appreciate Aiden's work (especially in the passion and ministry sections, look at the diff to see). --Andrew c 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think in many instances providing context is just as important as chronology. There is a big difference in describing Jesus' brith and highlighting what the Gospels describe as the birth of the Son of God. Yes the sentence on the Catholic Annunciation can be removed, but I think the fact that the Gospels describe an angel sent by God to inform Mary of her pregnancy is more fundamental than anything else in the paragraph. Likewise, the fact that Jesus was born in a humble manger foreshadows the Gospel account that Jesus had forsaken the riches of the world "come not to be served, but to serve." Honestly though, I think the section is short enough that these two sentences have little affect on the overall lenghth. On the Baptism section, you are 100% correct. I had originally intended on keeping your condensed version, but must have skipped over it, so I definitely agree with you there. About the titles, I think it is again important to provide context, that the gospels describe Jesus' life as more than just a "travelling Rabbi" but as the Messiah imparting the Word of God (or logos). Finally, on the Resurrection, same deal as the Baptism: I had orignally intended to use your condensed version for the first paragraph, but forgot to copy/paste it over the original. So thinnk our only sticking points are the two sentences in the Nativity and the first sentence of the Ministry section. — Aiden 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take a look now. I have inserted your version in the instances mentioned above. — Aiden 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! The only thing is I feel the discussion on Inn vs family room is too detailed for an overview (I can understand the discussion about brothers because it is important theologically, but inn vs. family room...). I think that's the only other thing I'd remove. Maybe our next step could be combining citations? Or maybe we should let it go live, but maybe we need more consensus. Anyway, thanks for working on this, and I'm excited that things are finally moving.--Andrew c 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should fully refine the sandbox version (including reference standardization) and then begin (with consultation) making the transfer to this article. The references need a lot of work, yes. About the inn vs. family room thing, I think we should simply include "what is traditionally referred to as an inn" or something like that to avoid the controversy. — Aiden 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As no objections were raised, I went ahead and implemented the version Andrew and I have been working on at his userpage. — Aiden 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Genealogy Text
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give opposing accounts of Jesus' genealogy, (, . Both trace the patrilineal line of his legal father Joseph back to Abraham through King David but via different sons of King David: King Solomon and Nathan, respectively. Thus, the lines differ between David and Joseph. Since antiquity, scholars have disagreed about the significance of two genealogies.

Matthew's genealogy involves Jesus's title "Christ", in the sense of an "anointed" king. It lists the succession of the kings of Judah, starting with David through Solomon and ending with Jeconiah. All of them belong to the Davidic Dynasty, which terminated when Babylon conquered Judah. The successors listed after Jeconiah are heirs for when a Neo-Davidic Dynasty is restored to Judah. At the conclusion, Jesus being identified as a new king is called "Christ".

Alternatively, Luke's genealogy descends through Nathan, who is an otherwise little-known son of King David (mentioned once in the Hebrew Bible, ) with only an indirect claim to the Davidic throne. Notably, because each generation averages about 25 years, including children who are not firstborn, Luke's list of 40 generations between David and Joseph approximates a realistic one thousand years. By contrast, Matthew's list of 25 generations is too short and can only represent a "telescoped", schematized or otherwise interrupted line.

Luke's genealogy involves Jesus's title "son of God", in the sense of descending from Adam who was created by God. Luke opens the genealogy with the heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism saying, "You are my son", and concludes it with the addition of earlier ancestors before Abraham back to Adam, who is called "son of God".

As requested, I add the above proposal for the text in the Genealogy section, contrasting the main features of the two genealogies. --Haldrik 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I cut this: "In sum, Matthew's genealogy seems more political, whereas Luke's seems more biological." Without a citation, it seems like this is an editor´s conclusion or interpretation - which violates NOR. If it is not NOR, please provide a verifiable source. Moreover, it seems like only one possible interpretation. Are there others? NPOV asks us to provide other interpretations or at least make clear whose interpretation this is. --Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I also cut the following "apparently to emphasize the international role of the Messiah as a liberator of all humans, beyond his national role as the king of the Jews" for the same reason.

I have generally found that when a sentence contains the words "seems" and "apparently" it is because an editor is inserting his or her own opinion, which is verboten. Better would be a sentence like, "According to Biblical critic x, Matthew´s genealogy ..." or "According to historian y, this geneaology emphasizes ..." Remember, if an editor has his or her own interpretation of the text, s/he needs to publish it in a verifiable source before we can include it here, no matter how reasonable it seems. --Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The cuts are fine. The intention is to summarize pertinent differences without committing to any particular scholar's interpretation. --Haldrik 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That entire group of edits goes against what we've been dicussing in condensing this section. There's little reason to divide the genealogy and family sections. — Aiden 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was Haldrik: Arch O. La  Grigory  Deepdelver  16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I havent read the earlier discussion yet. But Family seems more like biography than Genealogy, which is more like a pedigree certificate. --Haldrik 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean Aiden was not referring to my edits? Either way, I ask Aiden to be clearer. If Aiden is questioning my two cuts, all I can say is this: the need to condense never abrogates our core policies of NPOV, NOR, and verifiability. --Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Slrubenstein, I was referring to Haldrik's multiple additions (some of which you removed.) Sorry about that. — Aiden 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure. --Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's no small thing that two entirely different genealogies are ascribed to Jesus, and the reader may need a sense of what the differences mean. --Haldrik 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I also object to the wording "biological", especially since the reasoning following this does not warrant that. However, I have read countless times that Matthew focuses on the royal succession and hence includes the line of kings that according the attempts of harmonising the two lineages (Julius Africanus and others) are not biological ancestors of Jesus (basing that observation on a prophecy against King Jeconiah). Unfortunately I cannot give a reference for this (at least not right now). It is also clear that Matthew's genealogy contains gaps, as at least four kings are missing. This also makes sense since Matthew is adhering to a scheme of thrice fourteen names. Finally, I don't like Nathan being called obscure - "otherwise little known" or the like would be better. And I don't think we need to explain who Adam was. Str1977 (smile back) 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why an objection to "biological"? It just means that in comparison to Matthew's genealogy, Luke's reads like a straightforward genealogy tracking literal paternity, with minimal political claims or schematizing. --Haldrik 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that information isn't already included at Genealogy of Jesus, then I'd strongly urge a redirection of efforts to that page. I feel that because there is a spinout article on that topic already, this information is too indepth for a broad overview (i.e. this article). We don't want to give undue weight to any aspect of Jesus by giving it more space and detail. (also see the condensing efforts above).--Andrew c 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Haldrick, my objection is primarily against the current wording which might imply that Luke's is biological because of what follows but which really has nothing to do with that. Maybe a possibility would be to organize this not on a "first Matthew then Luke" but on a "difference by difference" scheme. Str1977 (smile back) 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the geneaologies are important, or whether differences between them are meaningful, or even whether we should include a discussion of their meaning. The issue is that we cannot violate NOR. It is not for any editor to explain what the geneaology means or why it is important. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is No-Original-Research in the text above. In fact, quite the opposite. Anyone familiar with the topic knows Matthew was taken for granted as presenting a kind of "Succession of Kings" since the earliest centuries. Haldrik 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring only to two sentences I cut on August 8. Both were suspect for violating NOR as they presented interpretatins without providing verifiable sources. Moreover, they raise NPOV qustions as one must ask, whose interpretation is this, and are there others who hold different interpretations. Rsponding to these concerns would improve the section. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, both of these sentences that you cut have remained cut, and havent been part of the above proposed text. Haldrik 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, in which case there is no argument between us. I merely wanted to be clear. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of condensing the Jesus article, I feel the first paragraph of the proposed text is sufficient to explain the main problematic of Jesus's genealogy:


 * The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give opposing accounts of Jesus' genealogy, (, . Both trace the patrilineal line of his legal father Joseph back to Abraham through King David but via different sons of King David: King Solomon and Nathan, respectively. Thus, the lines differ between David and Joseph. Since antiquity, scholars have disagreed about the significance of two genealogies.

I'll move the rest of the proposed text to the spinoff article Genealogy of Jesus. Readers wanting more info about the genealogies can link there. I feel strongly Genealogy and Family are different sections. The genealogy is a field of research that cant be separated from the more ancient related genealogical texts that also include numerous similar problems (like the opposing lineages of Shealtiel, not to mention the opposing lineages Pre-Flood). Genealogy has little to with Jesus's immediate family, whose problematics concern the manner Jesus relates to his father Joseph and siblings (or whether Jesus's brother Yaakov/Jacob/James, is identical with Yaakov Hatsadik/James the Just, and so on). Barring any concerns, I'll post the brief first paragraph only of the Genealogy, in a separate section in the Jesus article tomorrow. Haldrik 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your proposal dwells more on the Gospels than on Jesus. — Aiden 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point. For that reason the fuller text seems better as it conveys how the Gospels portray Jesus himself by describing his special status. Barring objection I'll post it when the time comes. Haldrik 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Posted. Haldrik 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Musical theatre characters
I have just added the category of musical theatre characters to this page. Before anyone gets offended let me remind them of musicals such as Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar. --kralahome 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology
Would this link be helpful in the article? Census of Quirinius Lostcaesar 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Diocletian Era/248th year
I apologize in advance if this has already been touched upon.

"In the 248th year of the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne),"

How does that work? Either it's in 248 AD (however screwed up that determination may be) or it's in the Diocletian Era. The above wording implies that there were at least 248 years in the Diocletian Era and that the event described took place in the 248th. I can tell you Diocletian did not rule for 248 years off the top of my head and that no Roman Imperial dynasty (at least in the west) extended for 248 years.

Didn't the writer mean to say rather this? "In the year 248 AD during the Diocletian Era ..."


 * Correction made. :) Haldrik 00:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Heritage
I think I read somewhere that Jesus O'Nazareth came from Irish stock - indeed, that his parents were both Irish-Americans. Can someone please add Jesus to the "Irish-American" category. Thanks. 195.92.40.49 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Har har :/ Homestarmy 02:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening era wikilinks
First of all, linking to BC is unacceptable under any circumstances because it is a disambig page. Second of all, I disagree with a) linking to redirect pages in general (i.e. Before Christ/Before the Common Era) and b) having wikilinks to the exact same page twice in the same sentence (it's the epitome of redundent. Either of the following solutions I would find acceptable:
 * (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE)
 * (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE)

I prefer the second one because the 'Before' pages do not exist, therefore forcing us to wikilink to a page that is counterintuitive of what a user may expect when they click on a link. Anyway, I feel strongly about making sure we aren't wikilinking to redirect pages, and that we do not have redundent wikilinks so close together. I do not think the era notations are so confusing that it would necessitate this redundency. People are smart enough to figure out what we are talking about. If not, they have the wikilinks already there. Including the actual years in question.--Andrew c 18:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always thought this myself as the BC/BCE pages redirect to AD/CE. Either solution is fine by me. — Aiden 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both solutions. I think AD, CE, BC, and BCE all need to be linked in order to clarify exactly what the supposed era notation compromise here is. Many, many people who visit this article have no interest whatsoever in the Talk page, or anything related to the Wikipedia community; they just want information. Providing the birth date of Jesus as "8–2 BC/BCE" is perhaps one of the most confusing dates I've ever seen. However, I'm completely familiar with the CE system &mdash; a lot of the English-speaking world is not. Linking all four abbreviations ensures that the general public understands what CE and BCE are representing and why we need both notations. One comprimise that I would be willing to accept, however, is:
 * (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE) &mdash; note that "BCE" and "CE" do not link to disambigs.

This compromise would link only CE/BCE, since everyone already understands the usage of AD/BC. Although it is redundant, rendundance is the price we should pay for public understanding. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` [discl.] 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But Before the Common Era simply redirects to Common Era. There isn't really a need to have duplicate links. — Aiden 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument is this: The dating styles used here are confusing enough, writing "BC/BCE" may give the impression that "BC/BCE" represents only one thing. Writing "BC/BCE", however, would solve that issue. It would also solve the confusion as to what "BCE" and "CE" actually are. Other than linking all four notations, this would be the only solution covering that issue. I feel that "BCE/CE" are not widespread enough (by far), and must be clarified, especially at an article like Jesus. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` [discl.] 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well maybe my first proposal would work then to fix your concern. When the user first encounters 'BC/BCE', they will have the links availble to click to learn more about the era systems (however, not specifically about the "before..." because those pages do not exist). The thing that confuses matters is that wikipedia does not have the articles for Before Christ or Before Common Era. I still would prefer my second proposal. Wikipedia DOES NOT have articles on BC/BCE, so therefore why link them? However, if editors think it is more important that the first instance of an era be wikilinked to the general page (even if its a matter of linking to Common Era from the text BCE (i.e. BCE ), then I think that is a solution we could all live with. Removing the redirects, and removing the redundency is my primary concern. (reminding everyone that the "before..." articles do not exist is only secondary to my 'mission')--Andrew c 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a compromise that might work. Instead of fussing over what to link and how to link it, we can simply eliminate any linking of the era notations, and simply provide a note/reference link that would direct them to the bottom of the page &mdash; much like when "CE" and "BCE" appear in school documents, etc. The comprimise would look like:
 * (8–2 BC/BCE[1] — 29–36 AD/CE[1])
 * (at the bottom of the page) 1 – "BCE" and "CE" represent "Before the Common era" and "Common Era". They are secular alternatives for AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ).
 * How is that??. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` [discl.] 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is getting a bit out of hand. Please review Manual of Style (dates and numbers). No where does it say that CE and BCE need to be explained further. I still stand by one of my two proposals, as a simple/elegant solution to this problem. If someone doesn't know was AD is, or what CE is, they can click on the wikilink and leave it at that. No need for redundency, no need for redirects or footnotes.--Andrew c 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read that same Manual of Style. Nowhere does it say that we can use both the CE and AD systems at the same time. It only says that either one is acceptable, based on concensus or first usage. I'm not trying to change that consensus, I just think that this unique, and possibly confusing way of referring to dates needs to be rationalized in some way. If not the footnote, I think we need to leave as is now with all four notations linked, or to link only "CE" and "BCE". It's not very difficult, I think we can sacrifice redundancy for this compromise. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` [discl.] 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CrazyInSane, but your suggestion provides 2 links to the same article and removes the link to AD. — Aiden 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we even need the links? Maybe we could use a link to BC and a link to AD once, after that it ought to be obvious, if it isn't already. In my understanding, the only point behind linking dates was to avoid edit wars over BC vs. BCE - if we use both then an edit war is unlikely. Lostcaesar 10:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's just finish this. I'd be fine with no era notation links at all, especially because there are already links to 0s BC and 30s for the "8–2" and "29–36". So, that leaves us with one of these possible selections, which I think would satisfy us all:
 * (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE)
 * (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE) &mdash; here the notations are simply linked with the years

Is this something we can agree on?. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` [discl.] 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not object to either one. It's a good compromise (though of course I still want my way because I'm selfish :P--Andrew c 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Given yours is the only interested response, I'll assume we can implement one of those selections. Personally, I prefer the second one that links the whole year/era notations, because it assures to the reader that "BC/BCE" is connected to "8–2". I'll put it in now &mdash; revert me and discuss here if you disagree. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` [discl.] 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why link the years at all? MoS recommends against linking solitary years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Partial_dates It is the era notation that needs the links --JimWae 08:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)