Talk:Common Era

(Before) the Christian Era?

Currently BCE\CE is defined as (Before the) Current or Common Era. Why is the (Before) the Christian Era definition not referenced? Seems like a curious oversight. Yes I'm aware AD is mentioned, but that is derived from the Latin term. Not sure if an amendment or an explanation is needed. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems the purpose (in part) was/is to avoid the appearance of promoting any specific religion. Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe this discussion has come up before, in fact earlier revisions of this article did mention "Christian Era", but a cabal of users decided it was somehow not notable or too closely affiliated with Anno Domini rather than "Common Era", so it was removed. Despite the fact that a copious amount of sources refer to "Christian Era" in tandem with the acronym "CE". So I'd certainly be in favor of re-adding it, I don't see a reason not to other than the subjective opinions of some who seem to believe that referencing the phrase "Christian" era somehow taints the supposed secular purpose of CE. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In these two edits 2a02:c7f:8634:8100:a419:fbec:fbb2:1ed added the term "Christian Era" to the lead. I reverted the edit because I feel it was premature; this discussion has not reached a consensus.

As for the substance of the discussion, I feel Crumpled Fire's claim that there are 'a copious amount of sources refer to "Christian Era" in tandem with the acronym "CE"' I'd like to see that list. When I've searched, I've found many sources that use "Christian Era" alone, in conjunction with "AD", or "Christian Era" just means the period of time that the Christian religion has existed, without specifically meaning the year numbering system that labels the year that Apollo 11 landed on the moon as 1969. There are so many such sources that I've been unable to weed out all the sources that are off-point and find reliable sources that actually say "CE" can stand for "Christian Era". User:Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2017‎

I agree with Jc3s5h. There is no reasonable basis to assert that "a cabal of users has conspired to exclude any mention of Christianity" (or words to that effect). I believe that frequent editors are entirely neutral on the subject. As is the case for all of Wikipedia, if a statement can be supported by a wp:notable source, then of course it should be and will be included. But the problem here, as Jc3s5h says, is that we haven't got a citation for Christian Era as a dating system. Has anyone ever written (for example) "2017 CE" and then gone on to explain that they meant "2017 Christian Era" rather than "2017 Common Era"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

I see that this talk page was archived in the past, but this is no longer being done. Do editors think archiving should resume? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of why CE and AD are equivalent

I consider it unnecessary. However, it is not related to Jesus's birth. The original source was unclear as to whether conception, birth, or resurrection was intended. Since he missed all of them by at least a few years, it seems inappropriate to speculate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does it benefit the reader not to know the real reason they are equivalent: the CE/BCE chose to use the dominant year-numbering system, which was and is AD/BC. Christ has nothing to do with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Our current year is 2018 and that is based upon BC/AD. Thus if you look at BCE you will see that it correlates to the dates of Jesus. Conception or resurrection are not what people typically go by when talking about birth.

The main idea here is that BCE is based upon Christ and thus it does the reader a disservice to ignore this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.166.113 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

CE is based on AD, without regard as to whether the latter is based on Christ. (Our sources say it is based on the Incarnation of Christ, not the birth of Christ. But it would take too much time to explain that term, for limited benefits to the reader.) One might say it is based on Christ, but I fail to see what benefit that provides to the reader. The real reason they are equivalent is that, whenever Common Era was used, it was chosen to be equivalent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The title Christ means "the anointed one". Use of this title in Wikipedia's voice is a violation of the neutral point of view policy.

The uncertainty is about birth (see "Nativity of Jesus") or conception [see "Incarnation (Christianity)"]. Christians think the "Resurrection of Jesus" occurred roughly thirty years after the incarnation; claiming AD is based on the year of the resurrection is clear error. The inventor of the Anno Domini year numbering system used the phrase "incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi, not "birth". Jc3s5h (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Both, "whenever Common Era was used, it was chosen to be equivalent" Thats my entire point. When we say 2018 we mean 2018 years from birth of Christ. Thus when we see 2018 BCE its the same system in place all based upon the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.166.113 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

173.17.166.113: Please ATTEMPT to use proper talk page conventions. And you've disproven your point. They were chosen to be equivalent. Period. There is no reason to bring Jesus (not Christ) into the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The source cited by 173.17.166.113, https://www.livescience.com/, is inferior to the sources already cited in this article such as Pedersen (contributor to The Gregorian Reform of the Calendar published by the Vatican Observatory) and Doggett (Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, published by University Science Books on behalf of the US Naval Observatory and Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office). Just because the general public is ignorant of subtle points does not mean Wikipedia should be dumbed down to echo ignorance. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC to remove the incorrect information from the lead? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Although the article is semiprotected, it might be best if consensus could be established that the information is unnecessary and/or incorrect. WP:BURDEN suggests it should be removed, anyway, but I've been accused of misinterpreting that guideline before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is really a branch of "Anno Domini", created to separate the bickering over notation from the historical issues of its creation and spread. The edit in question is largely a summary of what is already stated at the other article. Maybe there was an RfC at "Anno Domini" that would settle the issue. I don't have time to look for it at the moment. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the pov-pushing and restored the npov version that has stood here for many moons. If anyone wants to know the basis for AD, there is an article for that. This article says simply that CE/BCE is an alternative designation for our current era. Apart from everything else, going into the traditions of just one of the world's many faiths contravenes wp:fork and will not be accepted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Josh, how would you like to word the article to reflect that BCE is based upon Jesus Christ for the reader? I am not so concerned about the details such as is it his exact day of physical birth vs conception etc etc. Also I've removed the agenda pushing opening and replaced it with a neutral opening. Just b/c something has been incorrect for quite some time does not make it correct. SGT-Craig (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not without a source. CE is based on AD, not on what AD was based on. (Inconsistent tenses are somewhat intentional.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed opinionated statements, added back the basis for what the entire system is based upon. Please provide references going forward. SGT-Craig (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no source has ever been provided that CE/BCE is based on Jesus. CE/BCE years are equivalent to AD/BC years because they are, not because of Jesus or Christ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Authur, that is the entire point. CE/BCE is based upon AD/BC. AD/BC is based upon Jesus. Thus the dates correspond exactly since both are based upon the life events of one individual. We could create a system based upon the creation of cars and call it BC/AD (before car / After dominion) and then come up with another system based on the dates of the creation of cars and call its CE/BCE (car evolution / before car evolution). The net impact is you have 2 systems based upon the same world event. Now I'm curious, what do you think that the system is not based upon the life events of Jesus?SGT-Craig (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus was probably born 4 BC, though. BC/AD is based on an erroneous calculation of when Jesus was born. BC/CE is based on the system that everyone uses, with the mistaken reference to Jesus (mistaken in the sense that Jesus wasn't born 0 AD) removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Being based on" is not transitive, especially considering WP:SYNTH. We have multiple sources that CE/BCE is based on AD/BC, some of which also mention that AD/BC is based on Christ (Jesus would probably be incorrect in that context). However, CE/BCE is explicitly not based on Christ, although some sources (probably mistakenly) say it is based on Jesus. I think what we need to say in the article is that CE is based on AD, and that is all we should say about the basis of CE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Now at AN3. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's probably a good thing that the Jesus-based starting point wasn't officially determined to the second, otherwise the above-argued kind of "based on" would also have to be purged from non-Christian clocks. Debouch (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If one reads the whole article, rather than just the lead, one sees that it is explained that the numbers count years from the incarnation of Jesus, whatever label may be applied to the count. The lead is supposed to be a short summary. Explaining fine shades of meaning, about whether "based on" is transitive, or alternate linguistic paths for "Common Era", is not short and thus does not belong in the lead. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems evident that there is no consensus to include a wp:fork of the history of AD/BC in this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add my support for leaving the lead as it is (no claims about the system being based on the timeline of Jesus). The article explains the rationale reusing the same reference point. Meters (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you think it is based on then? A random number that just happens to coincide with BC/AD? Obviously it is based upon BC/AD and thus is derived from dates around Jesus. The real issue is not this but the fact that those w/ an agenda can't or won't accept that the system that tries to get away from Jesus can't since it is based upon dates that revolve around Jesus. Very ironic indeed. Still... I'll leave you alone b/c frankly I have a life and things to do. Can't prove a point against a legion of meat puppets no matter how much evidence you produce. SGT-Craig (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

BC/AD is based upon the life of Jesus (I'm using vague terms since some of you seems hung up that you do not know the exact second of birth / conception). CE / BCE is a system is is clearly based on BC/ AD and thus derived from Jesus life events. I would like to see someone here provide references they say otherwise rather than just deleting my references that support this. Show me how the systems are not based upon the same individual. SGT-Craig (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit said "The two notation systems are numerically equivalent since both are based upon the life events of Jesus." But that's not what the source you cited said. Your source said "The two dating schemes are identical and both use the birth of Christ as their starting points, but the secular version does not acknowledge this." That statement is patently untrue, as the starting point is based on the attempt of Dionysius Exiguus to determine the incarnation of Jesus. And it's well established that it's not accurate, and, as mentioned above, there's dispute whether it refers to the conception or birth of Jesus. But yes, the two era systems are equivalent and based on Dionysius' date. How many times does that need to be said? Mojoworker (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

SGT-Craig is currently on an edit warring block, and I don't see any other support for his or her position. Meters (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

... other than the citations that kept being deleted but if you guys want to keep pushing views in the fact of facts so be it. Best of luck. SGT-Craig (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in the article space

Fellow-editors, the talk page is where we debate which material is or is not appropriate to include in the article, and seek consensus. It is an abuse of privilege to tag as disputed material that is not disputed [in this case, that CE/BCE are numerically the same as AD/BC - no-one disputes that]. It is not productive nor professional to keep adding and subtracting disputed material. Otherwise we all get cited for edit warring and wp:3RR violations - and rightly so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)