Talk:3rd millennium

Archives: /Archive 1

Years in the future

Most of the 3rd millennium lies in the future. So I think this article belongs to that above-named category.

Brianjd 04:24, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

---

For the calendar senses I added go to the link below to get proof. Heegoop, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

December 31st 1999

It was widely publisised that the "Second" millennium ended on December 31st 1999. And we all know that the "Last" millennium ended 6 days after "Jesus Christ" was born... 1 B.C. So then on A.D. 0 on the first day of the year the "First" millennium came into contact with reality. QED

(Further proof our educational system is lacking.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.229.212 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Decade and Milleniums match up, so 2000 was the first year of the millennium (BBC: note the date the article was written: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/586197.stm). The new millenium was celebrated across the world on midnight of December 31st 1999/January 1st 2000. In reality there probably should have been a year 0 (0 is as much a number as any other number), meaning the current year should be 2009. In the same way an hour does not start one second after a minute, a millennium does not start one year after a decade.

At midnight 31st December 1999, every degree of time changed, so there was new second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade. Why should millennium be any different. seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years and decades do not have a 0 value, eg seconds/mins/hrs is 1-59, days is 1-365, months is 1-21 and years start at 1, so everything that started at 1 changed to a new degree of time, therefore is makes sense that both decades and milleniums (which also both start at 1 not 0) would also start anew.

It is only logical to have the discrepancy 2000-ish years ago(that fact there is no year 0) , rather than in the present which affects the people who are alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.93.252 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BCE/CE vs. astronomical systems: confusion about Year 0

This article has for some time implied that the Common Era system contains a Year 0, making it sensible to view the 3rd Millennium as starting on 1 January 2000, not 1 January 2001, if you use the Common Era system. An external link to an article by Peter Meyer has been supplied to justify this point.

It may be that Mr. Meyer is the only one who views the Common Era system this way. The other authorities I can find, including Wikipedia's own article on the topic, all maintain that 1 CE was immediately preceded by 1 BCE, and that (N) BC = (N) BCE, not (N-1) BCE. The original hyperlink to the Common Era article, therefore, refuted the very assertion it was included to support.

The astronomical year numbering system does include a Year 0, and for very good reason, because it's a system of time measurement, not a system of year counting. So the 3rd Millennium of the era beginning with astronomical Year 0 does begin on 1 January 2000. I have edited the article to reflect this and eliminate a misconception about the Common Era system.

The year 0 is either considered not a part of any millenium, or a part of the first millenium BCE (since year 0 CE is the same as year 1 BC). I have updated the article accordingly.

Those who want to debate this issue are directed to the talk pages for Common Era and Year 0, where various people have tried to find support for the concept of the year 0 CE, with little success except Peter Meyer's article. --Sharpner 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire history of IslamoJudaeoChristianity is relegated to the term Millennialists?!

I clicked on "3rd Millennium" to see what it would say about 65% of the world's population seeing it as a time of transition before the end of the world, and there was one line, saying "some millennialists and anarchists believe..." I'm sorry, but anyone who believes the Bible or the Torah or the Koran, even those who take them as 90% metaphor, generally believe that the history of man's consciousness on earth started "around" 4000 BC and will last 7000 years, with the Messiah, whoever he is, returning at the beginning of the 7th millennium, i.e. somewhere "around" 2000 BC. And IslamoJudaeoChristianity covers 70% of the population of the earth! That surely deserves more than a passing sarcastic reference. --Mrcolj 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What a nut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.2.32 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're overstating the prevalence of this belief within these religions -- or at least within Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who don't necessarily believe that the 3rd millennium is when this transition will occur. Jesus himself was pretty explicit that the time cannot and should not be identified or predicted: See Matthew 24:36. --Sharpner 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar vs. "Common Era Calendar"

Note to the several editors who have tried to insert this inaccuracy in the article from time to time: the endpoints of the millennia do not change depending on whether you use the Gregorian Calendar or the "Common Era Calendar." Actually there is no such thing as a "Common Era Calendar." The Common Era is not a calendar but a calendar era, and the Gregorian Calendar actually uses it. Also -- see discussion above -- there is no Year 0 in the Common Era, so you don't get to claim that the "3rd Millennium" spans 2000-2999 provided you use this so-called "Common Era Calendar."

The years 2000 through 2999 do constitute a millennium, which you can call the "2000s" if you want. (You can even call it the "current millennium," as long as you recognize that the current millennium is any period of 1000 consecutive years that includes the present moment, including, for example, the one that started with April 1, 1657 and will end with March 31, 2657.) Just don't call it the "3rd Millennium" without further elaboration, because people will assume it's the 3rd millennium of some period they're interested in or familiar with. 2000-2999 is the 3rd millennium of the period that began on January 1, 1 BCE whether you reckon with the Gregorian Calendar, the Common Era, or (as everyone does these days) both. The problem is that most people will assume you mean the period that began on January 1, 1 CE. --Sharpner 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Significant people

Should there be a "Current Significant People" section on this page, like just the politicians, activists and such, or would it be too soon? I know a few celebrities might be okay, but I understand people might pile them on. It otherwise seems like a good idea to me, but I would respect your decision. --ChrisRJ (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't generally like the idea of listing celebrities, but I think Time's Person of the Year might be a good place to start

• 2001 Rudolph Giuliani b. 1944
• 2002 The Whistleblowers Represented by Cynthia Cooper, WorldCom; Coleen Rowley, FBI; and Sherron Watkins, Enron
• 2003 The American Soldier Abstract choice; 2nd time chosen
• 2004 George W. Bush b. 1946 2nd time chosen, 11th president chosen
• 2005 The Good Samaritans Represented by Bono, Bill Gates, and Melinda Gates
• 2006 You [8] Abstract choice; A salute to the individual content creator on the World Wide Web
• 2007 Vladimir Putin[9] b. 1952
• 2008 Barack Obama[10] b. 1961 12th president chosen;first African American U.S president

--ErinHowarth (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article is contradicted by an article it has a link to. It lists the decades in the 3rd millennium as:

21st century 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s 2090s

But, in the article for 2000s, it says that it is the decade that spans from 1-Jan-2000 to 31-Dec-2009.

That is a contradiction with this article that says that the 3rd millennium starts on 1-Jan-2001, not 2000.

So, which is it? 2001 or 2000? If it's 2001, then the article for 2000s should be changed to note the decade is from 2001 to 2010. Ciderbarrel (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The 2000s is mostly in the 3rd millennium and the 21st century. No contradiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is using the word 'nonsense' to mean 'correct'? The decade and the millenium started on 1 January 2001. If you struggle with that, try learning to count. Sam1930 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still nonsense, and not correct, as you should know by now. The 2000s started on 1 January 2000. The 201st decade of the Common Era would start on 1 January 2001, if anyone used that terminology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for wanting articles to have correct information. I tried to edit the box here with the years in it, but it's just some code, "l3d|2" 2000 shouldn't be in the box but 3000 should.Ciderbarrel (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a macro/template expert. {{L3d}} transcludes {{L2d}} which transcludes {{Ld}}, none of which are used anywhere else. There's probably a way to handle it using arithmetic operations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see two solutions:

Change Template:ld from

[[{{{1}}}0]] [[{{{1}}}1]] [[{{{1}}}2]] [[{{{1}}}3]] [[{{{1}}}4]] [[{{{1}}}5]] [[{{{1}}}6]] [[{{{1}}}7]] [[{{{1}}}8]] [[{{{1}}}9]]

to

[[{{{1}}}1]] [[{{{1}}}2]] [[{{{1}}}3]] [[{{{1}}}4]] [[{{{1}}}5]] [[{{{1}}}6]] [[{{{1}}}7]] [[{{{1}}}8]] [[{{{1}}}9]] [[{{{2}}}0]]

and the corresponding changes to Template:l2d and Template:l3d, or replace the last change in Template:ld by an arithmetic calculation, with no change to l2d and l3d. I don't know if it's worth the trouble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed list of years, although it may be lousy code. I chose the first option, with checking whether the second parameter is present. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Years for study

Now that "the historian" has a wee bit of the 2010s decade to study, I think I'm going to add that to this page. Feel free to change if you have any objections. SenorCrunchy (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my edit.

I was talking about the beginning of the apocalypse, not the end. Therefore, I am indeed right.