Talk:Julius Caesar/Dates

BC v. BCE
Before we begin a revert war on it, does Wikipedia have a standard for this? I personally use B.C.E., partially because of my undergraduate experience, but others seem to prefer BC; if Wikipedia has a standard, it should be followed. If there isn't a standard, I think we should come up with a rationale for which we're going to use, and why we choose this over the other. My vote would be for B.C.E.; Julius Caesar has nothing to do with Christianity, and it is increasingly the standard in antiquity studies.---Mr. Nexx 00:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia standard is BCE Kuralyov 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC) comment restored after attempted vandalism by User:Jguk

No it isn't. We leave articles de standard understood amongst the general public, and is overwhelmingly preferred by the general public - and it is they who we are writing for. See false etymology - this is date notation, it has no other meaning, jguk 21:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the above user has been single handedly engaged in a year long campaign to remove BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has been the subject of an arbitration case. He has a history of vandalism and revert warring in his efforts to enforce his POV and to bully other editors into conforming with his views. The Wikipedia Manual of Style clearly states that both date notations are acceptable and leaves it up to the editors of an article to decide which to use. Please don't let User:Jguk bully you into using his preferred style. I believe a majority of editors prefer BCE/CE notation as it is culturally neutral, but this of course offends some fundamentalist Christians. I think it would be appropriate to use BCE/CE for this article. Sortan 22:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD is still the usual among classical scholars. Stan 13:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The first revision of this article used BCE. The very next edit changed it to BC, and it seems to have been that way ever since. As Sortan notes, both are acceptable. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I do think edit-warring over it is stupid, and calling it "vandalism" is doubly so. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The key point is that we convey our subject in a manner most likely to be understood and enjoyed by our readership. In this case we have one standard understood worldwide by the general public, and one not so understood, which has proved controversial where there have been attempts to introduce it to the general public. The question of what style we should use is a no-brainer - it should be BC, which is also the style this article has almost always used, jguk 18:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * While I sympathize with the rule of using the term most likely understood by the general public, there are standard exceptions to such a rule. Offensive terminology or (within Wikipedia) non-neutral terminology is avoided. There are many terms, that at one time were completely understood (and still are) but we now avoid them in polite company. My guess is that most would understand the use of "Jew" to mean, "deal sharply"; "white" to mean "fair", and hundreds of other terms. Well in some communities BC and AD raise similar hackles. Now I'm not arguing that we attempt to follow some politically-correct line -- but at the same time you should be able to recognize that we're right at the cusp historically, where these terms are becoming offensive, and we have the responsibilty to be progressive in our thinking, and think of the future and our readers. Mjchonoles 20:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never really understood who really does object to BC/AD notation - the arguments raised always seem to be that someone other than the person arguing against it, might be offended by it. I can't think why - many terms have come down to us from the past from many different religions, it seems silly to single this one out. One thing that is apparent is that changing from BC/AD notation has caused offence (as well as confusion and mockery). This has been shown in Canada, the United Kingdom and in Australia, where the offence caused by just a single change led to questions in parliament. Offence caused by this matter seems to be more as a result of changing from BC notation to BCE notation than the other way round. It's important to recognise what our readers understand and prefer - and if it's a question of not being able to phrase something without risking offending some, it's important to risk offending as few people as possible.

I live in a secular society, and to me that means accepting that there are people of many religions and denominations (all but one I disagree with - and atheists will disagree with them all!). This means accepting that there will be relics and images of different religions - and also that it is imperative to accept them all. My city was recently attacked by those who were so intolerant of a religious viewpoint other than their own that they sought to kill as many people as possible who disagreed with them - if we're really to promote religious tolerance we must avoid petty politically correct arguments that only obfuscate the real issues whilst offending large parts of the population.

Here the position is clear - WP accepts BC notation; this article has almost always had BC notation; our potential readership is most familiar with BC notation; even most classicists use BC notation - let's not stir up a hornet's nest here, jguk 20:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm offended by the terms. And because believers are threatened when their religion looses ground, doesn't mean that we need to cater to the religious-centric point of view. Mjchonoles 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I simply don't believe you're offended - if you genuinely thought this all was an intrusion of religion, then you would also object to the very numbering of the years and the use of various divinities' names for months and days, and yet I don't see you even mentioning those. So please spare us the fake outrage, this discussion has been beat to death elsewhere in WP. Stan 04:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I was mortally offended, just offended. Like I'm offended when I hear a mild sexist joke. I might even laugh, but I feel funny about it. I don't feel the same way about the names of the months and days, because (for the most part), their names are not part of a current campaign of dominant believers. I would certainly imagine that believing Christians in Roman times refused to swear by Jupiter and perhaps avoided saying his name. I simiarly feel put upon any time I'm obliged to write AD or BC in any document, such as legal documents, that I need to produce. When I edit Julius Caesar here on the WP, I likewise am offended that I would have to refer to the titles (Christ, Domini) of a diety that I don't believe in. It's really hard to explain the feeling, but unless you're a member of some minority group, that the day-to-day assumptions of the majority create an oppressive environment. Mjchonoles 05:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, call me nuts, but if there is a standard, either way, someone should be able to point to it. I don't have a lot of time for this (two jobs plus post-bacc studies), so if someone could point to where this standard is stated, I'd appreciate it.  Like I said, I prefer BCE/CE, but the more understood method is BC/AD, and my professor is fond of the statement "Medievalists are not PC; we use BC and AD, not BCE and CE."  ---Mr. Nexx 07:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The standard is to use either one, as long as it's used consistently within the article. There was a gigantic debate over this which came to no real conclusion, so every time someone changes an article from one style to another, we get a lot of repetitive and annoying squabbles like the one you see on this talk page and in the article history. Sorry. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 07:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that one of my particular arguments against BC/AD was not addressed in the debate... according to modern scholarship, BC/AD is also inaccurate, as Jesus was most likely born in 4-6 BC/E, not in the year 1, or at the tail end of 1 BC/E. ---Mr. Nexx 12:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We've already had long discussions on most aspects of this debate. The counter-argument to this is that, if anything, it is further evidence that BC and AD are just date notations, nothing more. They are not (and have never really been, except outside of when Anno Domini is mentioned in religious rites) statements of religious belief, they just serve as markers. I for one have no difficulty in saying (and see no particular problem in saying) that Jesus was probably born somewhere between 6 BC and 4 BC, jguk 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference, Charles, I knew it was there somewhere. The debate essentially left the de facto position as being that we don't go round changing the date notation in stable articles (which this is). In this instance that means we continue using BC notation, in others it means continuing to use BCE notation, jguk 12:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I can live with this, so long as we keep to a standard and maintain it. I'll work on an article header which makes it clear, without being offensive (as the current revert headline, calling BCE and CE "atheist bias" is).  ---Mr. Nexx 15:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Note to CDThieme: I am a non-Christian.  The Wikipedia policy does, indeed, seem to be to keep the original notation.  My note was not trolling; it was an attempt to stop a revert war which has been going on for the last several days.  Though I, personally, prefer the BCE/CE notation (as noted above), keeping with Wikipedia policies makes more sense than fighting about it.  If you have a good reason that has not yet been discussed for changing it, put it forward.  If you want to change Wikipedia policy, do it through channels... not through pointless reverts.  ---Mr. Nexx 05:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, you guys are about one revert away from having the page protected. As is well-known, it will inevitably be protected at The Wrong Version, so you'd better come to an agreement and stick with it. I don't care which way it goes, but I do insist that the revert-warring stop. Stan 13:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but all this reference to a Wikipedia policy seems to be incorrect. While the style says that BC and BCE are both acceptable, I see nothing that says that an article can't be changed. Please point to some specific authoritative place.


 * Indeed, the requirement to be NPOV should trump any style policy.


 * In any case, I'll leave this article alone (for now), because it seems pointless to change it when there are some who are so single-minded about this. Spending your time looking for articles that have moved from BC-->BCE seems sort of silly. On the other hand, I have no qualms in changing this or any article in the future, if I find some other reason to change the article. As I find it significantly uncomfortable in expressing a Christian POV in my work, I will correct articles whenever I'm making another substansive change.


 * Of course, I assume that User:Jguk will be following me around reverting things to his CPOV.

Mjchonoles 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what CPOV is - but my views are that we should put our readers first and where there is a single generally understood standard (as there is here), that should be the form we use. By the way, whether it is written explicitly somewhere or not, WP policy by practice is not to change the style in a stable article. I think the ArbCom stated that too (when they looked at the issue it was a complete wash), jguk 07:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion for a different dating system, first proposed by Calvin. By this dating system, we base everything off the first syndicated publication of Calvin and Hobbes.  Anything before that is refered to as B.C., for "Before Calvin."  Anything after that is refered to as C.E., for "Calvin's Era."  By my estimation, that should both satisfy and enrage the largest number of people possible.

(note to self: Do not make proposals at 2 in the morning).

---Mr. Nexx 06:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this for real? Are you honestly squabbling over whether or not you've got an 'atheist bias' or a 'Christian bias'? Like it or not, Western society has been using the 'BC/AD' system for fifteen hundred years and, like it or not, changing it to 'BCE/CE' does not remove the fact that the entire dating system is centered around the birth of Jesus Christ (however inaccurate that starting point may be). There is no such thing as a secular calendar. So spare the rest of us the pretentions of being offended. There is one good reason for using 'BC/AD' - it's well-known. When you say 'CE' to many people, you have to explain that it's just 'AD' with a different name. Because the vast majority of people who will read this article, actually looking for information, are not going to be experts on Julius Caesar, let alone have knowledge about how the 'CE/BCE' system works. --Kulindar 06:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Genius. CrazyInSane 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always disliked BCE for the simple reason that it's longer. If it's too biased to date everything in the conventional calendar, though, we can always use AUC. Josh


 * An objectively verifiable reason to use BC: All other articles on Roman history do. Therefore, I propose archiving (or striking) this section in a similar fashion to Talk:Hebrew calendar. If you want to voice your opinion about this in general, please do so at Eras not Talk:Julius Caesar. squell 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting the editing block. I reverted the page to BCE. I would like to present you with my credentials: I earned a degree in Philology from the University of Thessalonika in Greece. I am currently working on my PhD in Byzantine Studies.

Before you revert this page back to BC, please state YOUR credentials.

I'm a Christian but am not bothered by the use of BCE. To be honest, the use of BCE is more accurate. The fact is that Christ was almost certainly born in 6 BC(E). The year 0 was actually when the Emperor Augustus declared that the months in the year could never again be altered after he had added the month August to the calendar, just as Caesar had added July. It was only later that this year was proclaimed by the church to be the year of Christ's birth and so it was accepted that history was divided into BC and AD as it wasn't an adviseable idea to argue with the early Catholic Church...

BCE part 2
The BCE / BC debate has been resolved on most pages by using the rule: "retain the date format used by the page's original author." The date format used by this article's original author (User:TimShell)was BCE. Therefore, using the equitable solution adopted on other pages, this page will retain the BCE dating format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.78.240 (talk • contribs).
 * It was ironically settled before you started changing it? Don't you read the comments on the top?


 * Please refrain from using the "BCE" notation within this article without first discussing an era change at the talk page. Per consensus, users have decided that the anno Domini era of numbering is appropriate for this article. If adding a new section and you prefer to use "BCE", it will be reverted for consistency (see WP:MOS).


 * --Ddahlberg 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not consulted for this supposed "settling" of the BC/BCE problem. On other pages, this issue has been settled with an equitable solution: maintain the date format used by the page's original author.  If you would take the time to look at the original version of the Julius Caesar page, you would see that User:TimShell used the BCE format.  You are thus completely unjustified in converting this article to BC.  From now on, it will use the BCE format.  Thank you. 68.225.78.240 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're an anonymous user. Why should you be consulted? This has been discussed and discussed, and a consensus arrived at. There is no justification for you unilaterally deciding to reverse it. --Nicknack009 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The most important thing with BC/BCE is that a consensus should not be violated by unilateral action of one user. If there's never been a consensus, we go to the original editor, but if there has been one, we stick with whatever it was.  john k 13:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I'm not a registered user does not mean that I'm not a member of the wikipedia community. The consensus that was reached is: BCE should be used because the page's original author chose BCE.  Consuetudo pro lege servatur.   68.225.78.240 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." See Manual of Style (dates and numbers). There is a notice at the top of the article, as quoted by Ddahlberg above, asking editors not to ignore the consensus reached, but your indiscriminate search-and-replace function keeps changing it to say "Please refrain from using the "BCEE" notation". You're not even reading what you're changing! I note your IP number has been already warned for vandalism three times. I've just given you another one. Please stop it, or you can expect to be blocked. --Nicknack009 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your persistent vandalism has been reported to the admins. --Nicknack009 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your persistent complaining has been reported to the vandals. 209.173.133.41 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above commentator's contributions strongly suggest that he/she is a resurrection of User:68.225.78.240 and should be blocked indefinitely for violation of WP:SOCK. If he/she continues to use sockpuppets, semi-protection of Julius Caesar may be necessary. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have placed a request for semi-protection at Requests for page protection. This is getting out of hand. --Nicknack009 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth date
I thought Caesar's birthday was thought to have happened on the 12th of July... At least that's what I remember from my History books. -- Rune Welsh &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been bothered by the birth date listed for some time. Now, it is not wrong so much as it is not certain. I think this should be pointed out for the sake of accuracy. Caesar is also thought to have been born on the 13th of July (Quintilis) and possibly two full years earlier, in 102 BCE. I am not certain of the format for showing ambiguous birth dates, so I will refrain from editing for right now. My source for these alternate dates is Christian Meier's Caesar biography. But I know I have seen this elsewhere, I just have to do some research. --Cjcaesar 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although there are still some doubts on Caesar's birthday, most modern scholars agree on 12th July 100 BC. In particular Matthias Gelzer in his Caesar's biography (usually considered the most accurate biography of Caesar) (Caesar. Politician and stateman, Harvard University Press 1997, page 1, ISBN 0-674-09001-2) reports a detailed analysis of this problem. Briefly, in 42 BC the celebration of Caesar birthday were moved to July 12th because of the games on honor of Apollo (which occurred on July 13th). The doubts on his year of birth (100 vs 102 BC) comes from his age at the time of his consulate. Since the legal age to become consul was 42 years, Caesar had to be born in 102 BC to became consul in 59. Yet, scholars (including Gelzer) argue that Roman citizen who received the corona civica (which Caesar received in 80 BC) could stand for consulate earlier. Also patricians (as Caesar) could stand for consulate 2 years earlier (at age 40). Thus, the date of birth is likely to be July 13th 100 BC.--Calabrian 12:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And there is 12th July 100 everywhere in other language wikipedias so I will change the date to 13th. -nagytibi ! ? 13:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

protected
until the date style edit warriors find a more constructive use for their time. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected now. Hopefully three days was long enough to allow all involved to recover their sense of perspective.  Perhaps we should switch to Roman dates to avoid the dispute altogether (only half kidding). --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before "christ"
Why is the term BC (Before "christ") used on this page? "jesus christ" never existed and BC/AD are just the modern fundamentalist-"christian" replacement of our Common Era terms BCE/CE! 142.176.115.205 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming you to be asking a real question rather than just making a jejune point of some kind, Wikipedia has rolled this one around, as you might expect, in every direction, and the result was a policy to stick with the majority, traditional, viewpoint, except where it is very manifestly inappropriate, such as in articles on ancient rabbis.


 * While I agree in general, I actually think policy was to not bite the bullet and instead let the editors deal with the constant bickering. squell 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for BC/AD being a "modern replacement" of BCE/CE, it's been a long time since I've read something so silly, even in Wikipedia. The latter is the modern invention of a minority with an agenda, not coming into such currency as it has until about 1975 or so; the former is the traditional expression of date in the West, and for a thousand years, the only way of stating the same basic fact.


 * I'd add that it has always seemed to me that "Common Era" is even more Christianity-centered than BC/AD. People who write BC/AD are merely stating that some event was before or after the appearance of a person called Christ; people who write BCE/CE are actually acknowledging that the Common Era does indeed hinge on that person's birth. At any rate, the whole thing is egregiously silly; BC/AD is a custom, much like calling the President of the United States "Mr. President", or Rome "Rome" rather than "Roma", etc. Bill 11:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, AD means "Anno Domini" which is a Latin term for "in the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ", so I'd say AD/BC is more Christianity-centered. I assume you thought AD stood for "After Death" or something. CrazyInSane 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You missed the point of my argument, and my Latin is excellent thank you, at least as long as I don't have to write it (you're invited to look at my website in case you think I thought for a minute that "AD" was After the Deluge or About Dandruff). "AD" is more Christ-centric than "BC", I'll grant you, but the notion that "the common era" should have reference to Christ is far more Christian than a bald statement that something is before or after Christ: for most people, there is nothing "common" about Christ, and in large parts of the world it would be inaccurate to say that the "common" dating would be the Christian one; but it is always accurate to say that something is after or before Christ. The argument is a subtle one, but it doesn't mean it's wrongheaded. Anyway, for the matter at hand, the whole business is the usual crap round and round. Bill 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will forever think of AD as After Dandruff thanks to you 161.19.64.5 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you that whoever invented "Common Era" did so to elude connotations with Jesus Christ. Some even think to themselves that the "common era" is based on Julius Caesar (J.C.) simply to assure comfort that our calendar is not associated with Christ. The only reason the "Common era" has "reference" to Christ is because the atheists are too lazy to create their own seperate calendar based from a different time in history because it would cause mass confusion, therefore they simply use the Gregorian calendar and mask the Christian notations. If you were to say In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2006... I would find that to be quite more "Christian" than saying 2006 of the common era. The assertion that "CE" is more Christian-centric than "AD" is completely ridiculous, no matter the circumstances. CrazyInSane 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see Bill's point. BC/AD is explicitly Christian, but BCE/CE is exactly the same system under a different name. It's still based on Dionysius Exiguus's calculation of the birth of Christ. BCE/CE is just a euphemism. BC/AD is what it actually is. Other cultures have their own dating systems, but by calling ours the "common era" we are claiming that it's somehow a universal standard. It's not. It's the dating system used by the Christian-heritage west, and to claim it's "common" to everyone is to insist everyone follow the Christian standard. That's more Christianity-centric than to simply acknowledge that the dating system we use is Christian in origin. --Nicknack009 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Finding this discussion a year later while poking around for something else — Nick understood me exactly right, and wrote it more clearly than I did. Bill (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What the ... ???!!!
How is it that this article uses the Christian method of dating system BC/AD?!? The Gregorian calendar, that uses the Common era as its basis, was originally based on the date of death of Julius Caesar. BCE (Before Caeserian Era) and CE (Caeserian Era) were eventually turned to "common" to accustom to the alternative meaning of the common era, "Anno Domini". This "AD/BC" terminology was created by Christians as a conscious attempt at making us all talk about Jesus Christ, and it was easy since Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar have the same initials!!!! I demand that we start using Caeserian era terms now!!!!!!!!!142.176.117.16 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very confused. Caesar died in 44 BC(E) so the calendar is not in any sense based on the date of his death. Caesar did have some involvment in the modern calendar in that he established the 265-day, twelve month year with a leap day every four years, later adjusted somewhat under Gregory, who was a pope, but the numbering of the years is based on the estimation of the birth of Christ by Dionyisus Exiguus, who was a monk. The dating system we use, whether we're Christians or not (I'm not) and whether we call it BC/AD or BCE/CE, is a Christian one, like it or not. --Nicknack009 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The calendar dating time was a little off considering Caesar died in 44 BCE, but it was definitely based on Caesar. Christians didn't even exist until well into the 1st century CE, and Jesus was never even born, he never existed. Christians just want us to think that our dating system is based on their false god. Like it or not, this is 2006 of the Caesarian Era142.176.117.16 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The twelve month calendar was established by Caesar. The numbering of the years has nothing to do with him. If it was based on the date of Caesar's death it would be 2049, not 2006. Read some history, and try not to let your (perfectly understandable) dislike of Christianity get in the way of its historical importance. --Nicknack009 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Caesar's time, and afterwards, the principal calendar used was the Ab urbe condita ("From the Founding of the City" [of Rome]) calendar, for which the year 1 was what we call 753 BC. This was devised, I believe, around Caesar's time by the scholar Marcus Terentius Varro, and synchronized with the better established Greek Olympiad system, which dated from 776 BC. The BC/AD calendar system was first devised in the 6th century AD by Dionysius Exiguus, who miscalculated the death of Herod to 753 AUC, rather than 750 AUC, when it actually happened, and tied the birth of Jesus to the death of Herod, as I recall. Or something along those lines. At any rate, this calendar didn't come into common usage in the west until some centuries after Dionysius. It was not accepted in the east for much longer - the Eastern Church kept its dates from when they dated the beginning of the world to based on the (much longer) dates for the antediluvian patriarchs in the Septuagint. None of these systems has anything to do with Caesar, and it is uncontroversial that the BC/BCE-AD/CE system derives from Dionysius's miscalculation of the birth of Jesus. This also has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed - even if Jesus didn't exist, the Gospels most certainly did by Dionysius' time, and his work was based on cross-referencing the gospels with Josephus (or Eusebius' chronology based on Josephus), as I understand it. Anyway, nothing to do with Caesar. john k 11:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like noone understood 142.176.117.16 wanted to be funny, and succeeded.--Panairjdde 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth
I'm not registered, so I would just like to give you the info on the discussion page: Caesar was born on July 13. However, July 13 was the first day of the annual Apollo games in Rome, so the offical celebration of Caesar's birth was shifted to July 12. That's the reason why many still believe that he was born on July 12. 212.9.162.233 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the BC/BCE spam
Can we get rid of this from the discussion. They take up half of the discussions and make it difficult to read and have absolutly nothing to do with the article.

Thanks, --Firebird 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Caesar's dates of birth - and death - are "incorrect"
This is a problem that affects not only Caesar, but all Roman dates before AD 1 - and therefore the birth dates of Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, in addition to any other dates that we know.

The reason is simple - the calendar in use by the Romans, both before and after Caesar's reforms, does not correspond with what we now call the Julian calendar. Coincidentally (and it really is a pure coincidence), the two calendars run in sync only from AD 1 onwards - but not before. See this website for an extremely detailed analysis of the current academic discourse, plus comprehensive conversion tables.

In short, if Caesar was born on 12 or 13 Quintilis (i.e. July) 100 BC on the contemporary Roman calendar, this works out as 21 or 22 July on the proleptic Julian calendar for that particular year. Similarly, his death on the Roman date of 15 March 44 BC works out as 14 March 44 BC on the Julian calendar. Augustus's birth on 23 September 63 BC works out as 19 September 63 BC Julian, Tiberius's birth on 16 November 42 BC works out as 15 November 42 BC Julian, and Claudius's birth on 1 Sextilis (i.e. August) 10 BC works out as 3 August 10 BC Julian. All dates starting from 1 January AD 1 are the same, however.

Why is this important? Well, it may not be. What is Wikipedia's policy on dating? To use an example from later in history, when is it appropriate to use either the Julian or the Gregorian calendar? The date of death of William Shakespeare, for example, is given in both, though the Gregorian (which was not yet in use in England) is relegated to a footnote. But for these Roman statesmen the dates are simply given, and not flagged as a date on the Roman calendar. This could lead to serious confusion if, as is the convention amongst historians, it was simply assumed that the Julian calendar is being used. TharkunColl 11:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)