Talk:Pontius Pilate/Archive 2

Articles weird use of BCE and CE
In an article that gains essentially all of its relevance from its connection to the bible and Jesus Christ, it is odd to see the overt use of BCE and CE. Even in sentences entirely connected to christian literature and christian playwrighting. I doubt that without its connection to Christianity, that Joespheus would even mention him, or if he would that we would even care about a random roman official from judea. In such an overtly christian article, I really cannot see the utility in the secularization of the article. If anything, the reference to the date of Christ's birth is even more relevant to be used. - AH (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pontius Pilate was a Roman governor. It is pretty normal to use CE and BCE to refer to Roman topics. Pilate is not generally (or is only marginally) a religious figure.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I think most Roman topics use BC. But this was started as BCE 18 years ago, & per WP:ERA, so it remains unless we agree otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a Roman Governor but his only historical relevance comes from his connection to christ. WP:ERA states "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content" and i think a strong case could be made for this article's content. I will also say that, this article is the exception to all other |prefect of judea articles and for all articles pertaining to |ancient roman governors. Which seem to, without exception, use BC/AD - AH (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the exceptionally large seasonal variations in pageviews show what readers are interested in here. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BCE/CE is the academic standard nowadays. It's not an attack on religion to use it: there's not really any reason to change it.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * AD/BC is the normal way for most people, it's not an attack on religion to use it: there's not really any reason to change it.  – interesting, though I wonder why there are smaller peaks at Christmas? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that argument doesn't work in this case: the article has always been BCE/CE, so there's really no reason to change it (in this article). We have WP:ERA for a reason, because people become irrationally angry about the use of these date systems.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has not "always" used BCE/CE. It used BC/AD fairly consistently until July 27, 2019. —ADavidB 17:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article began CE/BCE but was changed without discussion. This has been discussed before.—Ermenrich (talk)
 * It had BC/AD from April 2004 to July 2019. —ADavidB 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why you argued that it was always BCE/CE when you made the |edit less than a year ago. Also, The guidelines say to not change from an 'established' style, which i think after 15 years of being the same format, can be considered to be 'established'. Even if the user who in 2004 broke the guidelines, the fact that it remained so long until your edit, suggests an established format for this article. - AH (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The MOS guideline for dates and numbers, to which WP:ERA now redirects, was much different in April 2004, without even any mention of BCE/CE. If there was any guideline about which style to use or keep, it wasn't evident then. —ADavidB 02:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that matters - WP:ERA can and should be applied retrospectively. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that the change then wasn't a flaunting of "the rules". —ADavidB 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich, as i said in a previous post, WP:ERA states that it should not be changed from his original aside from reasons to its contents. I think for reasons of consistency in the similar articles and its strong relationship to Christianity, that the category is fulfilled. - AH (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the previous discussion. This should really be a non-issue. It's not like we're arguing about whether to use the Islamic calendar or something. There is no reason for a change at this point besides the fact that some overly sensitive conservative Christian person might be offended. Doug Weller has already pointed to Christian scholars using CE/BCE. I am a Christian and I use it.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What I find annoying is the rather patronizing, and incorrect, assumption that CE/BCE is the right way to go. You don't help your case by starting with the incorrect statement (as far as WP goes) that it "is pretty normal to use CE and BCE to refer to Roman topics". The last discussion was inconclusive, as this one may well be, but doesn't seem at all to altered your believe that what you were "taught at grad school" is invariably the right way for WP to go.  You haven't addressed my point bwelow, any more than than you did my points last time. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Base your argument on WP:ERA for this article and I'll agree with you.  Base your argument on a claimed academic standard to be applied generally and I'll disagree. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have a guideline saying that all Christian related articles should be AD. This book uses CE and is part of a series from the Society of New Testament Studies, an an international society of New Testament scholars. It's author is Helen Bond, a Christian academic. This one is a Liturgical Press book by Warren Carter, a Baptist academic. The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus uses CE. I know that when I did ask about using religion as a reason the response I got was mainly no. If Christian scholars use CE for Jesus related material I think we can and that so far I haven't seen a good reason for changing.  Doug Weller  talk 17:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think BCE/CE is the academic standard. Both are used, sometimes it is imposed by the editor, and perhaps the journal. It would have been easier if the Wikipedia board had chosen one format over another though. T8612  (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was and you seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. I'm not sure what you mean by Wikipedia board but the guideline was made by ordinary editors and to choose only one would be a huge violation of our NPOV policy. Doug Weller  talk 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be so touchy - it was Ermenrich who said it was. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I mentioned two academic sources so don't be surprised that I misunderstood someone who seems confused about how we work. I really thought it was a response to my comments. Doug Weller  talk 17:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I said I believe it's the academic standard. This was at least the impression I got in grad school. Other people's experience may differ, and I specialize in the medieval period, meaning I don't typically have to use either one.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an academic project. We like academic material for sources, but our policies for the presentation and style of material are very different from academic ones in many respects. I personally find the policies of major museums more appropriate models for us. Doug, where was the last big discussion on this?  Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ERA
I think it is unncessary to use era designations in this article. His BC date-of-birth is not mentioned, and every other date is in A.D., so for the sake of uniformity, we should leave it off altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree. In fact the article had a period, around 2008-9, with no ERA given but, inevitably, someone changed it. The article began as AD, kept that for many years, then nothing, then back to AD, then changed to CE around 2011, no doubt without discussion. I think we need something at a couple of places, but would support a reaffirmation of AD per WP:ERA, on priority. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a section above, & one in the archive, but these I think were not related to the actual shifts in styles. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This edit is not the way to do it (by "majority"). I think there are only 4 era styles in total. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The era-style must be consistent in an article per MOS:ERA. There was no consensus to change the era-style from the Common Era to Anno Domini as the article was created with CE. Jerm (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So it was, but it was AD by early 2004 (probably before WP:ERA was in place). CE supporters like User:Doug Weller usually like to ignore changes that early, and would regard AD as the established style. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would? If it's been CE from 2011, I'd say that was the established style. Lack of discussion is a shame perhaps but that long ago not relevant.  Doug Weller  talk 17:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it hasn't - by this 2012 (and also this 2015) version it was back to AD, as it has been for most of its history, and for most of the last couple of years has been mixed. I can't be bothered to trace all the changes through a long history. It would be better to start an actual discussion now.  There is a long discussion a few sections up, which didn't have any voting, & came to no conclusion; it shows the difficulties of using priority or established style arguments in an article with thousands of diffs and several undiscussed and mostly un-noted (in edit summaries) changes of era style.  Better to start from scratch.  Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, CE was not added after the article was created. The article was created with CE (Common Era) in it. There was no consensus to change it to Anno Domini. It needs to be restored back to Common Era-style. Jerm (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first bit is what I'm saying. You'll see Doug discounts an undiscussed change as late 2011. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As the unwitting author of the current era style, I believe we should keep it as is, as I can see no compelling reason to change it (or ever to change an era, for that matter). There's no reason to import the culture wars to Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich, this makes no sense at all. You changed it, but see " no compelling reason ... ever to change an era" style. How did you change it "unwittingly"?  If you don't care, why do you always pop up in these discussions? Johnbod (talk)
 * I didn't realize anyone would care when I rewrote the whole article, and, as has been pointed out, the article started out in CE. It didn't occur to me that every few months someone was going to complain about how we can't have a "Christian subject" like the pagan Roman who executed Jesus use the heathen CE/BCE system, because I don't see why anyone should care.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

& IP 205.178.108.84 had changed it from the Common Era to Anno Domini without consensus here:  &. Ermenrich reverted most of it but missed a few. Jerm (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely this is easy to resolve. I can't see an instance of BCE/BC in the text, and years in the Common Era are, to a large extent, self explanatory; neither AD nor CE is needed. Perhaps "the year" would be needed to clarify some of the prose, but why not just remove CE and AD completely? Arcturus (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , OP here - good idea, I wish I'd had it - objected but did not really say why, which makes me wonder if he understood the suggestion as we've made it here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a good idea. As I said above " In fact the article had a period, around 2008-9, with no ERA given but, inevitably, someone changed it." PP was born BC & died AD, even if we don't have either date.  In fact, even around gospel events, readers get uncertain about the era, and for that reason, we always specify a BC/E date at least once in an article, even if it is in the Bronze Age etc, and do the same for AD/CE dates up to 300 or more - many editors do this into Early Medieval times, which I think excessive. But if these are left out, someone will add one in no time.  I thought that was generally understood by experienced editors, but apparently I was wrong. Just adding "the year" may help those of our readers who are 19th-century vicars, but not many others.  I do agree nothing needs to be given for the burst of gospel dates. You missed the infobox, btw.  Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the changes after 2011 that Johnbod points out, this is a mess and I'm not convinced it can be solved without a discussion as to the merits of either one for this article. Doug Weller  talk 14:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I think my position is clear. This has been discussed several times and not changed to BC/AD now, I’m not sure why it needs to be discussed yet again.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version (no use of either notation) is not ideal, and would perhaps fall if there was a need for a BC/BCE date. However, it is a compromise, and as such I recommend it stands. Arcturus (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I think the Johnbod objection is immaterial, because there would be objections to AD and CE just the same. It's my proposed compromise, which has been endorsed, and if the article is going to be so contentious back-and-forth about the era then perhaps we should consider that a compromise is the best we're going to get. Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version is to use CE (in the infobox), as Elizium23 presumably forgot to remove that. His "compomise" has been mostly rejected. The only way to stop "contentious back-and-forth" is to have a discussion & clearly establish a consensus that can be referred back to if (when) people do changes in future.  Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

,, please revert your revert. You have the support of only one other person in this discussion for the change. I Johnbod, and Doug Weller have all said we need to indicate era in some way.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, so let's see if anyone else offers an opinion. So far only five editors have done so. Arcturus (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A formal vote is what we need, not to continue this rambling discussion, from which all sorts of conclusions can be drawn. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "formal vote". You mean something not at all like an RfC or AfD where the decision should be made on the strength of arguments backed by policy and guideline? Not !votes? I can't agree with that at all. Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , let's all stop reverting until we can come to an agreement here, is that fair enough? Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to revert but it's too late, many small intervening edits have been made. It would be tedious to undo at this point, sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ERA RFC
Per WP:ERA, can the era style (AD/CE) be safely removed from this article? If not, which uniform style should be used in the article: "AD" or "CE"? Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:ERA specified that the discussion needs to focus on "reasons specific to its content. I'm not happy with the two part question, which seems to require consensus on the first question before discussing the second. Doug Weller  talk 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Christian date may be anachronistic to some editors, in which case the article could simply say he was in office from Ab urbe condita 779–789, or "from the year of Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus' consulship to the year of Sextus Papinius Allenius' consulship". This might prove a bit recondite, though; I think that giving dates as "AD" makes the most sense here, in light of the specific incident for which the man is most widely known. Indeed, it's difficult to think of any person more closely related to said incident; it's not exactly a piece of historical trivia in this context. jp×g 11:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC


 * Although we don't have a birth date for him, it would obviously be BCE. I think an era style is is sensible given that, and as he is best known for the trial of Jesus, it seems appropriate to use BC/AD. Doug Weller  talk 12:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The era should be stated clearly, at least once in the lead and once in the infobox, since we're dealing with classical antiquity, and close to the division between the two eras. No need to hammer on it beyond that—in a long article it might be appropriate to mention it again once per major section, as needed, but it doesn't need to be repeated before every date or once per paragraph.  As it's a topic within the purview of CGR, I think that BC/AD would be preferable—although that's also my personal preference.  I'm not a Christian, never have been, and don't want to promote religion via the era—but I find "CE" and "BCE" artificial, pedantic, and potentially hypocritical, since they're based on the same reference point, and "CE" is frequently understood to mean "Christian Era" rather than "Common Era" (I wouldn't really mind if we all switched to AUC, but that's never gonna happen!).  I realize that's just my opinion, but if we can achieve consensus on one style on the talk page, then WP:ERA says the article text can correspond with that consensus.   P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Per my comments above, and the others just above: yes we need an era in a couple of places here, & BC/AD is best. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, Doug, all I can say is that I foresee no consensus on AD vs. CE, as usual, so it makes sense to resolve the more interesting and compelling question before devolving into meaningless religious vs. secular bickering. Elizium23 (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you did ask for opinions—and so far four seven people have responded, all agreeing on BC/AD. If nobody weighs in opposed to that, that's a pretty clear consensus.  Of course, I expect there will be more opinions, and at least some of them will be opposed, but consensus doesn't mean unanimity.  Let's see where subsequent opinions come down on the issue, and decide which style to use based on the end result of the discussion.  If we agree that some era should be used, then we have to pick one, and one side or the other will present A) the majority of opinions, and B) the more cogent argument.  If both of these correspond, then we have our answer.  They may not, making the resolution of the question more difficult, but let's see how things go before deciding that no consensus is possible.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If we must have an era notation in this article - and I acknowledge above, it possibly creates problems not using one - then my view is that BC/AD should be used. Pilate, whilst not himself Christian, is a leading character in Christian history. Note that the majority of articles covering Roman history seem to use the BC/AD notation (see Julius Caesar, for example), so in using BC/AD this article would not be at odds with related articles. Arcturus (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They do—most of us classicists are old fuddy-duddies (even those of us who aren't that old), and prefer that style because it's comfortable, traditional, or familiar, not out of any misguided sense of religious zeal. It doesn't require any explanation for people to know what it means, and most people don't even think about the original meaning.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The era style (CE) is indicated but a single time in the article, so was a RfC even necessary here? Perhaps mentioning it once is necessary to clarify which dates we're actually talking about, but I usually just omit the AD or CE notations for any post-1 BC date for the sake of (1) conciseness and (2) avoiding the AD vs. CE discussion altogether. Since the system in use is a fundamentally Christian one however you call it, using the names given by the Christians themselves (BC/AD) seems the most natural and preferable thing to do; "Common Era" implies a degree of universality which doesn't exist. Avis11 (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the importance of the subject in Christianity, BC/AD seem the most relevant here. No need to add it to every date in the text body though, only dates in the lede and titles. T8612  (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone so far that we need to use some style of era. I disagree with the essentially conservative position that this should be AD/BC, however. BCE is an old convention, see . Pontius was a governor of Judaea and thus an important figure not only in Christian, but also Jewish history, see, ,  CE/BCE is gaining ground in classical scholarship, and is even found in Helen Bond's book on Pilate  and other explicitly scholarship on Christianity and Christian-adjacent scholarship , ,  , , and Christian non-scholarly works , , . It is pretty much standard in religious studies . This is a snippet of what I could bring to bear on this discussion. In my opinion the pro-BC/AD votes amount to "I like this system better." There is no reason to use a sectarian dating system in this article just because the subject is connected to that sect. Perhaps I am the youngest person contributing here, and an academic, so I have a slightly different perspective, but I do not see any necessity to make the change. The article began as CE/BCE, someone posted about how it should stay that way in 2011 Talk:Pontius Pilate/Archive 1 and ever since I returned it to the original notation people have tried to change it to BC/AD several times in spite of previous discussions deciding to keep it the way it is Talk:Pontius Pilate/Archive 1, Talk:Pontius Pilate. This is unnecessary and a distraction.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tangential issue - I can't view any of those Google Book references. It states that "either the page is not available for viewing or I've reached my viewing limit for the book". The latter reason seems implausible. The page appears to be visible, greyed out, behind the large message from Google. Any ideas? Arcturus (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're in a different country I assume, and that's a common issue. Doug Weller  talk 13:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first book is from 1892, so I’m at a loss as to why it wouldn’t be viewable.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I'm in the UK, but I've managed to sort out the issue, which does appear to be country-related. If I start from the Google Books main page and do a search for the book, and then do my own "within the book" search for the relevant terms I do get the results. Use of CE/BCE noted in the publications. Thanks. Arcturus (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Include era, CE/BCE. The era is required here, and using AD is anachronistic.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The concept of "anachronism" doesn't apply here—either literally, since "using" an era on Wikipedia refers to current practice, not what people living at the time of Pontius Pilate would have done—or figuratively, since we're not discussing a system of chronology that isn't in current use; BC/AD remain in common use, both in popular culture (used in mainstream media) and the field of archaeology. And even if they weren't, it still wouldn't be "anachronism", since the chronology still applies to this particular time period, or any time period.  Indeed, by the very nature of chronology, it's difficult to see how any era, however malapropos, would be "anachronistic", since you can date past or future events by reference to pretty much any fixed reference point—it might not be convenient or popular, but there's no reason you can't date Pontius Pilate by reference to the accession of Elizabeth I, or the death of Nabopolassar, or the invention of the telephone.  Now, if Pontius Pilate looked at his cell phone, and texted his secretary, "set the crucifixion for Friday at 11:45 a.m.", that would be an anachronism.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I presume he means "old-fashioned" or "out of date". This is simply wrong as has been shown many times.  My objection to this creeping Californication of the wiki is far, far stronger than any preference I have for BC/AD, which is what I use most of the time in a new article.  Don't impose what your professor told you on the rest of the world. Unless he actually means we should be using years from the foundation of Rome, or imperial regnal years, which I rather doubt.  Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish Wikipedia had chosen a house style from the beginning, eg. BC/BCE, British/American English, and a citation style. It would have saved us a lot of work and drama. T8612  (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If we need to mark the era, I would prefer the CE/BCE style. He is an important figure in Jewish history, as covered by Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. We use the BCE style in Category:1st-century BCE Jews and other categories on Jewish history. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "an important figure in Jewish history" is greatly overstating things. Apart from his interactions with Jesus, what is he known for in Jewish history? The article covers relatively minor, if bloody, incidents that were pretty typical for Roman provincial administration. The 2 lines he gets in the long list at "Procurators" in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia hardly suggests an "important figure".  Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He gets significant coverage in Josephus and Philo, two Jewish figures, and is the Roman governor of Judaea (not “Christinaea”) that we know the most about. The fact that he had Jesus executed is undoubtedly what he’s remembered for today, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was evidently an important governor so that Joseph goes on about him at some length.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been a week, and there have been no new comments for a couple of days. There are two questions: A) should the era be specified, and B), do we want to use BC/AD or CE/BCE?  Here's a summary of the opinions so far:
 * Whether the era should be stated:
 * In favor of stating the era: Doug Weller, Me, Johnbod, Arcturus, Avis11, T8612, Ermenrich, Astral Leap
 * Uncertain/no opinion: JPxG, Elizium23, Dimadick
 * Opposed to having the era at all: none
 * Now, I know that establishing consensus isn't just a matter of counting votes, but if nobody is actually opposed to indicating what era the dates fall in, and a clear majority agree that some notation is necessary, we probably have consensus.
 * Which era to use:
 * In favor of BC/AD: JPxG, Doug Weller, Me, Johnbod, Arcturus, Avis11, T8612
 * In favor of CE/BCE: Ermenrich, Astral Leap, Dimadick, (probably) Elizium23
 * As consensus isn't determined simply by counting votes, and seven against four isn't really overwhelming, I suppose it comes down to the arguments. Some favor BC/AD because it's traditional/widely used, others because this is a topic important to Christianity.  Those supporting CE/BCE feel that this convention avoids the sectarian implications of BC/AD, and is more "modern".  To which the counter-arguments are that CE/BCE have also been given a sectarian gloss, while BC/AD remain in general use and are more familiar, and that the general public doesn't really associate them with religion, even though their literal meaning is of religious origin.  And that's where I get stuck—if the two sides dig in their heels and refuse to budge, how do we ever determine consensus?  Guess we might have to leave this open for more comments by other editors—or close as "no consensus" if nobody else joins in, leaving the era as it is—but including it in the lead or as necessary (but not excessively repeating it), either way.  Does anyone disagree with this?  P Aculeius (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that one of the pro-CE arguments is really just a bald and unelaborated "AD is anachronistic". Another says that he's "an important figure in Jewish history", which has been challenged and likewise not elaborated further. A more accurate assessment would be 7 in favor and 2 or 3 against. Whichever style is chosen, the only implication this will have for the article (as it stands now, at least) is the lone "CE" on the infobox. Perhaps a could be added next to his name on the lead, but the other dates throughout the text needn't have an era indication at all. Avilich (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely agree that "anachronistic" is wrong. Whether he's an important figure in Jewish history is debatable—I would say he's a minor figure in both Jewish and Christian history, but he's an important figure in one of the founding episodes of Christianity, which is pretty much the only reason that anyone other than classical scholars has heard of him today.  But his importance can be argued; the fact that advocates of both of these positions don't want to use BC/AD can't.  Even assuming we can agree that the traditional era is not anachronistic and that Pontius Pilate is probably better known because of his brief association with Jesus of Nazareth (and perhaps for setting a good example for today's pandemic by washing his hands), at most we have around a 2–1 majority in favour of BC/AD (if anyone is confused by the change of names during this discussion, Avis11 and Avilich are the same editor).  Anyway, as an involved participant who has already stated a clear preference, I leave it to someone more neutral to determine the result of the discussion.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * without consensus the article should stay where it began and was before the latest unproductive discussion: CE/BCE.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * For once, I would argue to use BC/AD, since this topic has a clear connection to Christianity. And, yes, do use era designations for years within the first century, at least at first occurrence.  PS: The fact that MOS:DATE tells us not to get in editwars over this is in no way ever a discouragement to discuss the matter and come to a contextual consensus. Like DATEVAR, ENGVAR, CITEVAR, etc., a "use whatever was used in the first non-stub version" default only applies after discussion to reach a consensus has failed; it is not a substitute for a prevention of consensus discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)