Talk:1 BC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Years (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

1[edit]

I'm not sure that's it's worth creating a separate article for every year back to 10,000 BC (which is as far as the millennia pages go).

Proposal: redirect every year 1 BC - 3000 BC to its relevant century. redirect every year/century 3000 BC - 10000 BC to its relevant millennium. what hapin din--66.213.126.68 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)--66.213.126.68 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

2[edit]

Now that I think about it, we really shouldn't say very much at all in the year pages. All of the interesting stuff is at Jesus Christ, which is the link that anybody will follow to find out more. So I'm going to make everything as simple as possible, here, at 4 BC, and at 1. -- Toby 04:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

User:Stephen C. Carlson is already doing this as well! -- Toby 04:52 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Why? I've been saying one to two sentences on year and day pages for months now and I'm not about to change. Without explanations these pages become little more than lists - I fail to see how that is useful. --mav

We shouldn't discuss the controversy surrounding Jesus' birth date here (and in 4 BC, and in 1), when it's already being discussed at the proper place: Jesus Christ. I'll look at some examples to see what you're talking about, but it was my impression that these pages were never meant to be anything more than lists, and they are useful as that. -- Toby 04:56 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I don't mind explanations that can be concisely given, but the birth year of Jesus Christ is not one of them, so the current "widely accepted date" and "date given by Dionysius Exiguus" are good, properly concise examples. Anything more detailed short of the article is liable to be incorrect in some way. Stephen C. Carlson 05:08 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
For example, the explanation "according to the Gospel of Matthew" is not quite correct since D. Exiguus also thought he was following Matthew, but he had the wrong date for Herod's death. Stephen C. Carlson 05:11 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
Not when they don't establish the context for the things being listed. Year and day pages are not just supposed to be lists. Adding a reasonable amount of info to them just makes them more useful - not less. --mav

Stephen's point is that a reasonable (that is, concise, for a list) amount of information is likely to be so in complete as to be misleading. Do you think that what used to be on 1 is of reasonable length? If (as Stephen and I seems to think) it is not, then how would you rewrite it to be both reasonably concise and accurate? As for the larger point (what should appear on year pages), I've looked at some more and am more inclined than I was for longer texts, although not as long as what 1 used to have. So I will go and see if I want to lenghten anything now, with that it mind, while I wait for further discussion to appear. -- Toby 06:35 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well I've only been concerned about the larger issue. The text at 1 wasn't great but somebody probably could create a sentence or two that would work. --mav
I'd like to know if you think that I ended up with something reasonable. -- Toby 07:18 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dionysius didn't determine a "traditional date", his date was accepted and became the "tradition". Dionysius assigned a date of birth, he didn't "calculate" it. In the Julian Calendar, the dates for Easter repeat every 532 years. Dionysius "assigned" a historically feasible birthyear to Jesus so that Dionysius's Easter tables could start in 532 AD, coinciding with the (2nd) repeating cycle of "Easter" dates. -- Someone else 06:57 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Toby, I'm reasonably happy with it as is, (with the addition of a comma, to which I think you'll not object) appreciating the difficulty of making any statement that is both concise and accurate. I (previously) excluded the other "estimated" dates because they don't mean much: yes, some would assign a historical date of 4BC; others 5BC, others 6BC, etc. and I don't know why we should choose any of these here rather than merely saying the date is in dispute? -- Someone else 07:33 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Should AFAIK be 4 BC or earlier, shouldn't it. Since 4 BC is the year Herod died. -- Egil 07:44 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the "or earlier" bit is the best idea yet. -- Toby 06:20 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Controversy continues[edit]

2+ years later... an anon is insisting that this page not mention Dionysius. Of course he isn't discussing it here (at the moment). The current wording isn't claiming Jesus was actually born in 1 BC, so I don't see what the problem is. Anyway to avoid a revert war I'm not going to keep reverting this tonight if the anon keeps reverting my edits. 3 is already probably too many reverts... sorry if I've bugged anyone. --W.marsh 06:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. Closed early Voortle 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1 BC to 0. Gets rid of the BC/BCE debate. Also gets rid of having to use initials after the year. Then move 0 to 0 (disambiguation) Voortle 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Per what I've written above. Voortle 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Question to Voortle: I'm assuming this was a good faith proposal on your part, so if we were to move 1 BC to 0, what would you suggest we do with 2 BC, 3 BC, etc? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the obvious is that 2BC becomes -1, 3BC becomes -2... FiggyBee 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - All conventions say it goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, thus the whole year 2001 being the start of the century bit. We shouldn't change it unless the calendars change it, and I don't think that's going to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wirbelwind (talkcontribs) on 20:48, 26 November 2006.
  • Strong Oppose - as above and 0 should stay as it is. -- Beardo 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per above. -AMK152 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose! This isn't simply convention; there is no year 0. 1 BC is followed by AD 1. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As mentioned above, there is no year zero; good planning meant a smooth changeover from BC to AD notation, thus avoiding the Y0K crisis (when it was predicted everyones abacuses would crash). Besides, if the year before 1 AD was 0, and not 1 BC, then what is the predecessor to 0? Will it be 2 BC (skipping 1) or will all events move up a year (i.e. Julius Caesar being assassinated in 43 BC)? If you're going to get rid of something from the calendar, why not abolish Mondays instead? :) -- SigPig |SEND - OVER 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
After 0, comes the year -1 then -2 then -3 etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voortle (talkcontribs) .
  • Oppose, naturally... this is just a strange suggestion. FiggyBee 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this wouldn't get rid of any debate, and is contrary to established usage for historians. Wikipedia cannot pioneer a change to dating systems - that would unquestionably be Original Research. AlexTiefling 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agreeing with all of the above statements, what does this change in the debate? Sure, we don't have to think about whether this particular year should be BC or BCE, but what about all the other years Before Christ/Before Common Era? There's still a debate about them. Secondly, if we move all events one year, that would mean (as stated above) that Caesar was murdered in 43 BC and that the city of Rome was founded in 752 BC, which isn't true. Besides, if we count 3 BC, 2 BC, 0... and don't have a 1 BC, then we shouldn't have a 1 AD either, which means all of the events AD would also have to be moved (just imagine the absurdity of WWII breaking out in 1938, the French Revolution starting in 1788 or the 9/11 WTC attack taking place in 2000). Who would consent to a time line like 3 BC - 2 BC - 0 - 2 AD - 3 AD or 3 BC - 2 BC - 0 - 1 AD - 2 AD - 3 AD? Ludde23 Talk Contrib 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Without considering the nominator's other contributions, I'd suspect a WP:POINT violation or that it was suggested by a sockpuppet of one or more indefiniately banned users. If he wishes to remain credible, I suggest he withdraw the nomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silly question[edit]

How could Herod be dead when Jesus was born? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.10.42 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

  • At least one of the two Biblical indications of the date of Christ's birth must be inaccurate - Quirinius was not governor in Syria until several years after the death of Herod the Great. AlexTiefling 09:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (snow closure after IP blocked at ANI) (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)



1 BC1 BCE – I propose that all the years, decades, centuries, and millennia should use the BCE/CE system instead of the BC/AD system. I don't want to do a move request for every single date because it is time consuming. The reson why I think the BCE/CE system should be used on Wikipedia is because the BC/AD system hold religious implications and more people use the non-religious BCE/CE system. This article supports my claim on why I think this change should occur. 2601:183:101:58D0:F48C:6B05:C8BB:CDA7 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is an ancient debate on Wikipedia. It has been discussed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate and its subpage /Discussion, for example, and probably many more places. It may be best to study previous consensus first before going over the same old arguments again. Gap9551 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The more recent consensus was established just a year ago. Indeed it is very time consuming to make such a change, as I can personally attest to. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move for beating a dead horse. Possible WP:SNOW close, unless someone has an argument for why this request might actually succeed...?  ONR  (talk)  07:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per wbm1058. Nothing has changed since earlier debates: "AD n" is still by far the most common usage in the English-speaking world. Whilst I understand the suggestion of pro-Christian bias, I think the initialism has all but lost its original meaning nowadays, in the same way that we talk of IBM and EMI without recalling their full names. Maybe in five or ten years the "politically correct" CE will become the norm, at which point we should revisit this question. Certes (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per previous consensus, this is suggesting a hugely disruptive and massive change in the spur of the moment.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.