Talk:Common Era/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers the dates of January to June 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Vulgar Era

When reading 18th and 19th century documents, in both English and French, I sometimes see the year referred to as being of the "Vulgar Era" (l'ère vulgaire). (Sources available upon request.) I don't see this mentioned in the article, but "vulgar" used to mean "common", rather than its modern meaning of "offensive", as in Vulgar Latin. Clearly this usage did not begin in the 20th century, so I wonder when "vulgar" got started and when it got changed to "common".

Also, "it has not entered into general use by the public", but I know a lot of Jews in the public who use it, and others, too. In spite of the statement, "Philosophical reasons for opposing the Common Era designation include...It preserves a Christian-centric worldview", Jews prefer CE/BCE to AD/BC, and point out that Y'shua bar Yosef was not born in 1 CE. Although I think that BCE is more common, since AD/CE may simply be ommitted after Year 1, whereas earlier years require the era to be specified. -- Nike 05:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Figured I'd do my own research. According to Merriam-Webster, Common Era dates to circa 1889, Christian era to 1657, and vulgar era to 1716. -- Nike 05:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of a generalisation to say "Jews prefer CE/BCE to AD/BC". No doubt some do, but certainly not all, jguk 22:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not say "all". Rarely does all of any group do anything. Jews live in New York, but that does not mean or imply that all of them do. However, when reading Jewish literature and whenever the subject has come up with my relatives and other Jews, I never encountered any who said that they preferred AD/BC. I'll admit that this is not a scientific poll, and I'm sure that some would prefer to assimilate, but others would prefer using AM. I did a search and found links, such as www.jewish.com and www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org, which state it clearly. -- Nike 03:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Usage

I'm removing the Guardian reference [1] on the grounds that it is misleading. The term "common era" is only kept in the article as that is what the (presumably guest) writer wrote. The Guardian clearly considered that many readers would not understand the terminology, and therefore used a footnote to explain it. This reference does not therefore indicate that the "common era" terminology is commonly used or understood in the UK. Incidentally, the Guardian's style guide makes it clear that AD/BC is to be used [2] [3].

I've removed this reference too [4]. It is written by a guy called Fred Espernak, and it appears to reflect his personal views rather than any particular US Government policy. Incidentally, of the webpages that he links to that show a preference, none of them follow Espernak's approach. One [5] appears to be a US military website. The other two are [6] and [7]/

I've also removed a reference to some jurisdictions requiring that school pupils use Common Era notation. Please provide a reference to which laws of which jurisdictions require this if you want to reinsert the reference, jguk 13:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not good enough, IMHO. I provided seven references to support the statement that the term Common Era is increasingly common in public usage. The references included churches, media and secular organizations. If you wish to maintain the previous assertion that "the term is not well understood by the public" it will be necessary to back that up. Judging by the debate I have seen in recent years, I think that the public, increasingly, understands the term very well, It is just that many don't like the term and (apparently like you) do not want to change. I will qualify my references, as necessary to reflect the points you have made above. However, they should stay, since they support what I am saying and others will need to judge. BTW, Espernak is the webmaster of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Sunray 16:10, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

I think you're arguing at cross purposes here. "Increasingly used" and "not widely used" are not opposites at all, and in fact I believe both are accurate. CE is increasingly used, but hasn't increased to the point of widespread usage yet. On the balance of things, though, I think the Jguk copy pre-revert was the better article. None of the changes by revert show great merit over the older version, and many — United States to U.S., for instance, and the badly constructed sentence "The adoption of the Common Era designation is most often used..." — are simply worse. -- Perey 21:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about "increasingly used" and "not widely used." I also think that both are true. However, that is not what the article said (check the Jan 11 version and then the 06:00, 2005 Jan 17 version). Both said that the term was "not generally understood by the public." That is a virtually unverifiable assertion. I simply amended that statement to note that the term is increasingly used. Then I provided data to support this. Jguk trashed some of my references and removed my statement about the term being increasingly used and re-inserted the statement about the term being not understood by the public. I would be happy to work on the article, building on and improving what others have said as long as it is factual information rather than merely opinion. Most of the points you raised about things that jguk added that are improvements can easily be fixed and I am prepared to work on that, beginning right now. Sunray 00:48, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

I read all the references with Sunray with a critical eye. The ones that appeared suspect I removed, the ones that seemed fair, I did not remove. The problem I have with "increasingly used" is that, by itself, it is pretty non-specific. Something that was used by 0.00001% of the population, but which is now used by 0.00002% is "increasingly used", but the difference is not significant. If the increase was from, say 1% 10 years ago, to 20% now - that would be significant. In short, I don't like the phrase "increasingly used", but would be happy to replace it with reliable information as to what that increase in use really is.

It's difficult to prove the phrase "not generally understood by the public". But there is evidence to suggest it is true. No doubt the phrase could be better worded to properly reflect the evidence. The evidence already cited (and there's lots more that hasn't been cited) is:

In Britain, the terminology was not in the school syllabus till 2002. Britons schooled before then would not have been taught it (certainly I wasn't). None of the main British media outlets (as far as I am aware) use the terminology. The one exception that I have seen is that some articles on Jewish history on the BBC website do adopt the terminology, though in the main the BBC does not adopt it. So, in short, most of the British public would have little reason to have come across the terminology.

The references cited by Sunray explain the terminology. Why would they explain the terminology if it was generally undersood? (or at least perceived by the authors not to be understood by a significant proportion of their readership)

There have been many queries received on Wikipedia asking for an explanation of the terminology

The terminology is not logical - why should the "Common Era" equate to the "Christian Era"? Personally, had their not been this specific meaning ascribed to the words "Common Era" by certain historians, I would have thought the "Common Era" would equate to the Modern Era - the era in which we currently live.

Now, I readily admit, this does not constitute proof that the term is "not generally understood", but it is evidence that many of those who do use the terminology perceive (for whatever reason) that many do not understand it. No doubt in many cases that perception has arisen because of letters and emails they received, jguk 21:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that whenever an article is written, whenever an e-mail is answered, more people understand the term. With it now being taught in many schools, the number of people who understand it is increasing exponentially. Therefore, we can say that the term is "increasingly understood." We can also say that it is "increasingly used." I agree that it is not in general use (as the current wording states) however, would like to add that it is increasingly used. There is a whole boatload of evidence of that.

What are your interests in this jguk? How could we collaborate in improving this article? With respect to usage, a number of authorative British and American style guides state that either format is acceptable. The Chicago Manual of Style states: "The choice between one or the other is up to the writer."

Here's what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

Could we simply agree to work on making this an interesting and informative article? Sunray 01:36, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Why make any reference to how much it is used or understood? It's all POV, unless someone has done a study. Most articles don't seem to make such statements, so why should this one? Just explain what CE is, without even mentioning how common it is, since that is controversial.

And as for why it's common, it's because it's the era most commonly used, of course. I don't know why anybody would assume anything else. I have never heard anyone mention which year it is of the "Modern Era", whatever that is. Which CE year did the Modern Era start in? The Common Era is only very recent, comprising only the last 0.000015% of the history of the universe, or the last 0.00004% of the history of the earth, or the last 1-2% of the history of modern humans. (I guess that's 33% if you're a creationist.) -- Nike 21:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion of a more neutral ground, Nike. In the case of a relatively new term, sometimes usage is important. For example, anthropologists study diffusion to determine the uptake or spread of a particular artifact, tool or idea in various cultures. Because many contest use of this term, its diffusion becomes an issue that is likely of interest to Wikipedia readers. And, due to the reach of the Internet, that is something that is possible to research fairly easily in the course of writing an article. Sunray 15:46, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

"New term"? The usage of this term is verified to be more than a century old. I've personally seen it used for decades, and was not even aware that it was controversial. OK, let's research it using the Internet. Using Google, I find 78,000 hits for "common era" and 271,000 for "anno domini". It's use is common enough to make the dictionaries. I can understand why some Christians don't like it, but I don't see how that matters. Maybe usage statistics would be helpful to the article, but if y'all cannot agree on it, then make it NPOV and move on. -- Nike 00:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that it has been in use by Jewish scholars and others for over a century, but compared to over a millenium for BC/AD, it is relatively new. Also, it has only had currency outside academia in recent years. That seems worthy of mention. Sometimes NPOV only happens when folks of different points of view work things out. Sunray 01:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "BCE/CE is used in National standards for the teaching of World History in the United States and it is also used in some schools in the UK (see External links, below)." The first clause is confusing - the term BCE/CE is used in the documents outlining the National standard for the teaching of World History in the United States, but (unless I've missed something - in which case correct me), the National standard is not that BCE/CE must, at all times, be used. The second clause is also confusing. What the notation BCE/CE means is now taught under the National Curriculum in the UK - this is different from some schools using it. Now, there have been a very small number of cases where "right-on" heads have insisted on its use, but these are too rare to be worth mentioning here - also they tend to just generate negative publicity for the school and confuse the hell out of the parents. Kind regards, jguk 10:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These facts seem important in communicating the usage of the term. I would prefer that you didn't simply remove something that, despite weaknesses in style, has obvious relevance to the article. Please reword the sentence as you deem best. Between us, I'm sure we can come up with wording that meets your concerns as noted above. Sunray 17:08, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

If I could think of a better way to word things, believe me, I would - only I find it difficult to get the right phrasing.

But I think the essence of what I removed is saying the same thing as the bit which is already in the article about some secular organisations using the style. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, let me know.

I think you are indeed correct that it is a further example of a secular organization using the term. It is usually a good idea to give examples of more than one type of organization, more than one country, etc., in describing usage. People who want to learn can pick an example that seems interesting to them. The U.S. National Standards for History seems to be a pretty important example because of its reach into the schools. I take your point that the standards do not require that courses be taught using BC/BCE notation. So I will just use it as an example of usage in a secular setting. I would also like to find an example of usage of the term in the U.K. It has been used in a variety of ways in media reports in several newspapers, including the Times and the Guardian. Sunray 09:49, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

I should also note by way of explanation that when I first read this article, it was incorrect. Indeed, the more digging I did into it, the more surprised I was at how incorrect it was. (I think there are a small number of Wikipedians who like to actively promote its usage (don't ask me why) and had somewhat over-egged it, though I may be wrong.) I too think that it is interesting to include something about the term's usage, only my past experience on this article makes me sceptical of anything not backed up by references.

While I don't think that the term should necessarily be promoted, clearly there are places where it is appropriate. The example that you and I first discussed was an article about a non-Christian historical subject in a non-Christian region of the world, where the writer chose to use the term. Writers will often do this out of courtesy to others. The role of this article, then, is to be as informative as possible about use and usage of the term so that people may learn. Sunray 09:49, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be helpful if you outlined on talk what the point is that you are trying to make - and then we could find a way to add it sensibly to the article (assuming, of course - and this applies to me equally - that what is added is supported by references). Kind regareds, jguk 19:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will make additions directly to the article according to wiki wiki custom (but always supported by references). We can continue to discuss any concerns here. Sunray 09:49, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

I think we're getting onto the same wavelength, which is good.

I don't understand what 12th grade is. Is it to age 18? If we're going to refer to it, I'd like to understand it.

The only examples I can think of about usage in the UK are that the Jewish history section of the BBC website uses BCE/CE notation (presumably because they chose not to change the original writer's text). Though if this is mentioned, it should be noted that it's only this bit of the BBC website that uses it (as far as I am aware). Also on an academic level, some UK university courses use the terminology (though this depends on subject area as well as university - as far as I can tell from what I've seen on the web, it really depends on the individuals/team running the courses). Kind regards, jguk 22:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed style change

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision 1) proposes "BC" and "AD" (in contrast with "BCE" and "CE") as standard for Wikipedia, 2) apparently encourages linking of years, and 3) encourages linking of units of measurement, among other changes. It also reverses the style of many of the dates used within the guide (such as "February 12" to "12 February"). See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for discussion. Maurreen 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what this has got to do with the article, but Maurreen has not provided an accurate summary of the proposed revision. However, anyone interested in it can go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) to discuss it, jguk 08:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Religious Tolerance website

Jguk removed this external link [8] stating that it contained a stale-dated reference to Wikipedia that was inaccurate. However, the reference does provide some useful information about the use of BCE/CE. I think it should remain with the article. The Wikipedia quote is pretty close to the current version--stating that the term is mostly used by non-Christian academics--so I think that it is o.k. If people cannot abide the slight inaccuracy, we can ask them to update the reference or omit it. Sunray 09:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

I've removed it again, so let me explain the reasons why.

1. The fact that it starts by quoting a Wikipedia article makes me question how well-written and researched it is. Also, by referring to it, we are essentially making a self-reference.

• What does quoting Wikipedia have to do with how well-researched an article is? I should think that W is a good place to start.
• What is wrong with making a self-reference? Is there a policy against this? Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

2. It refers to an outdated, and inaccurate version of this article. (I see this as a separate point from point 1.)

• Did you read what I said above? It is not significantly different in meaning from the text that appears now. Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

3. The conclusions it reaches are the exact opposite of those reached in the links it provides. The only 2 which refer to whether BC/AD or CE/BCE should be used (except for the Wikipedia reference, which we should ignore) quite clearly note that it is preferable to use BC/AD [9] [10]

• The idea behind including the reference (it wasn't me who did that initially) was surely to show that there is discussion of this topic and to give people a different frame of reference for thinking about the debate. Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

4. The website name religioustolerance.org makes it sound like an arbiter of what people who are religiously tolerant should use. In fact, it appears to be run by a group called "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" that consists of only 5 members! [11]

• How does the number of people who staff a website correlate with its worth?
• The Good Web Guide includes the Religous tolerance website in the category of Religious portals. Their description is as follows: "The selection of websites in this chapter contain some of the best belief-centred resources available online.[12]
• In 2003, the Religious Tolerance website got over 6.8 Million hits per week from 216,000 different sites. It was included in Hitbox.com's listing of top 1,000 religious web sites. It has been on the Internet for ten years.
• The Religious Tolerance webstite is well respected and achieves what it sets out to do (i.e. promote learning and tolerance with respect to religious matters. Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

5. It's not clear to me what the criteria are for someone writing an essay that gets published on their website, but this appears to be a very poorly written essay by someone called B.A. Robinson, who is the main architect of the site. It's not clear whether it's doing anything more than reporting B.A. Robinson's views. Looking at the info about him on the website, I seriously question that he is a quotable source, and it seems many visitors to the website share my concerns [13].

• Robinson's degree is in applied science (engineering physics). He makes no bones about the fact that he is not theologically trained. What sort of qualifications do you think are necessary to talk about religious tolerance? Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

6. In summary, I see no academic merit whatsoever in this website. It has done well because it has a nice name, but it appears to be no more than a mouthpiece for a group of 5 people, none of whom have academic credentials.

• Why do you think that only academic credentials are acceptable for inclusion as an external link? There are thousands of articles that don't meet this criterion. Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I therefore strongly oppose inclusion of this website as a source, jguk 21:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Someone thought that it should be included and I agree. There is a long-standing groundrule for wikis that when someone adds something to an article and there are views on both sides about its inclusion, but no consensus, there is a bias towards leaving it there. Sunray 23:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

As noted above, I am more than happy to have good references to reliable sources. But I am not happy to have references to low quality sources.

So the question is, is it a good quality source? (Answer: No) Or to put it another way, why should anyone take particular notice of what Bruce Robinson thinks about the issue? (Answer: there isn't any). There has to be a good reason to link to a site - perhaps it supports a fact stated in the article, perhaps it is a reference from a reliable source, or whatever. But because Bruce Robinson has a good name for his website is not one of those. Now, if we had an essay written by a Nobel laureate, or a President of the United States, or someone else particularly notable such as the Archbishop of Canterbury - fair enough, that would be of interest. But Bruce Robinson? No, jguk 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia policy? Could you please show me the reference? Sunray 16:18, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Jguk has *again* removed the External link to the Religious Tolerance website article about CE/BCE [14]. He has done this after failing, IMO, to support his contention that the reference is not "a good quality source." He states that a reference must be to a reliable source such as a Nobel laureate or the President of the United States or someone notable like the Archbishop of Canterbury. I pointed out that the website gets millions of hits per week and has been on the Internet for 10 years. I asked him to show where in Wikipedia policy it states that references or external links must be from sources such as he has described. He hasn't responded to this. Instead, on his own authority, he has removed the link. I think that the link is useful in that it describes a number of issues related to the use of BCE/CE and describes why a high volume website dealing with religious matters has chosen to use this notation. Also very importantly, a Wikipedia editor has included this link and JGUK has failed to present any compelling reason for excluding it. Sunray 02:21, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

I have noted very clearly above why this is a discredited source. The author, Bruce Robinson, has absolutely no academic or religious standing whatsoever. We might just as well include links to Joe Bloggs's weblog. There has to be a good reason to cite a source if it is to be included - and this source completely lacks any rigour whatsoever. If there was a reputable link saying similar things, I would let it stay - but I repeat again, Bruce Robinson is a nobody. Allowing this link to stand would be like saying that I could voice my personal opinion in an article by the mere device of having my own website, jguk 06:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Bruce Robinson is a nobody," were it true, would not be a reason to exclude this reference. Fact1: This website reached over 9 million hits in one week in 2004. Fact2: This site was rated by the Good Web Guide as the most popular religious website on the Internet. Fact 3: The article makes several interesting points on our topic. That is why it should be kept. You have failed to produce a policy that says that a reference must be "academic". Please stop with the reverts. Sunray 08:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Could anonymous user who removed the site explain objections further? Nobs 15:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for Opposing CE

I recently added the following reasons to this section:

• The labels AD and BC have lost their religious meaning; few even know what the abbreviations stand for.
• The BC/AD system is not even based on Christ because he was born around 5 BC.
• All older books and texts use AD and BC.
• The terms CE and BCE both contain the two letters "CE," making them more difficult to distinguish from each other.

Someone reverted it claiming "reasons are wrong or erroneously all encompassing." However, I contest that it's irrelevant if the reasons are logical and well thought out. This a list of reasons why people are opposed to it... not a list of reasons consensus deems are "correct." And I have heard/seen people use these reasons. Therefore, it would be un-encyclopedic to not include them. For an example of an article with lots of reasons, not all of which are correct, see Operating system advocacy. --Ctachme 18:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the main thrust of your argument (i.e., that not all reasons have to be logical). However, the first two do not appear to be reasons for opposing CE but rather the reverse--reasons that support the use of CE. How about a "Counter arguments" section? Sunray 19:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Use of BCE/CE in China

I've moved this text by an anon editor here so as not to lose it:

On the other hand, the Chinese equivalent of "Common Era" is universally adopted in China, whether in academic circles or among the general public, religious or secular.

It had been added at the end of the first paragraph. Jguk objects to this text being in the article, and has repeatedly removed it, saying that it is unsuported by references. I requested that he research this before removing it again. Aparently he is unwilling or unable to do that. I wonder if we could get some comment on this from someone familiar with calendrics in modern China. Is the statement accurate? Are there any references that would be helpful? Sunray 17:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

The text is generally correct. Common Era (公元, literally "common era") is universally adopted in China. When you say a number + nian (年 "year"), especially a four-digit number like "2005", it is basically assumed that you're referring to common era.

Traditionally, years were numbered according to the reigns of emperors: for example, "the fifteenth year of the Kangxi Emperor". Whenever a new emperor came to the throne the year is reset to "1". This is still done in Japan; in Taiwan, where the Republic of China is still in power (having lost the Mainland in 1949), a "modified" version is used: years are counted from the founding of the republic in 1912, so that 1912 is the "first year of the ROC", 2005 is the "94th year of the ROC". and so forth. This is done in official contexts in Taiwan; in everyday usage I get an impression that a mixture of ROC Era and Common Era is used. But this is the main exception to the use of Common Era.

In addition, there is the so called "Chinese Era", which counts years from some mythical founding date of the Chinese nation. There are several ways of doing this, and the current year is 47xx or 48xx or something along those lines. Western sources like to give these as the "current Chinese year", similar to the Islamic A.H. year or the Hebrew year, but the "Chinese Era" are, in reality, never used. (They seemed to have been used by revolutionaries at the end of the Qing Dynasty, but not ever since.) In any case, I'm Chinese and I have no inkling of what year it is in this era (and I suspect most Chinese people don't know that such an era even exists), so I suppose we can disregard it for now.

So, to get back from this overlong digression: in Mainland China, the Common Era is basically the only way of counting years in Mainland China, official or unofficial (if we discount Muslims using A.H., etc). In Taiwan, both Common Era and ROC Era are used, the latter in official contexts. -- ran (talk) 04:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

A digression: Kangxi is an era. It just so happens, in most cases since Hongwu, the each emperor just stuck with one era name during his entire reign and so the era name became associated with the emperor. Even then, the era is slightly off from the dates the emperor actually reigned. (Kangxi is technically not the name of the person, but the era he reigned over.)

My Chinese calendar (posted on my wall) mentions the "Chinese Era" as 黃帝紀年4703年 so I guess theyre measuring it from the reign of the Yellow Emperor. How they came up with that number, i am interested in knowing...

How is BCE indicated in Chinese? --Jiang 04:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

公元前 "common era before". ("before" is put after the noun in Chinese) -- ran (talk) 20:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Ran and Jiang for their comments—a valuable contribution to the discussion. Sunray 20:19, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

See Chinese calendar#History for my short discussion of the various "Chinese Eras" and their origin. However, I failed to mention there that the epoch 2698 BCE, the first year of the reign of Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor, from which 2005 becomes 4703, was assigned by the Liu family of the late Western Han dynasty, Liu Xiang (77-9 BCE) and his son Liu Xin (46 BCE to 23 CE). This is only one year of their complete traditional chronology, which sums up the years that they assigned to each ruler of the Five Emperors, and the Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, and Han dynasties. This year is much too early because they improperly counted the mourning period after a ruler died as a three year interregnum, rather than being contemporaneous with the initial years of the subsequent ruler's reign (at least before 841 BCE, the first firm year in Chinese history). Obviously, 2698 BCE has been converted from whatever year numbering method they used, but I don't know what that was. — Joe Kress 22:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

12th grade

What does 12th grade actually mean? Or, to put it another way, how old are children who are in 12th grade? jguk 22:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grade 12 or 12th Grade is the twelfth year of schooling in English-speaking world other than the U.K. School commences with Kindergarten at age 5. Grade 1 is the first year of primary school education. Secondary school begins with Grade 9 (Grade 8 in some jurisdictions) and successful completion of Grade 12 is called "high school graduation." Grade 12 students are usually 17 years old. Sunray 03:25, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

For the United States, this varies by school district and whether or not a particular school uses the traditional school year with no classes during summer or a year round schedule. A common rule is that a student enters the first grade at the end of summer of the calendar year (1 January to 31 December) during which he or she reaches age six. Thus that student enters the twelfth grade at the end of summer of the calendar year during which they reach age seventeen, and graduates from high school at the end of the following spring during the calendar year in which they reach age eighteen. Thus they are usually sixteen or seventeen when they enter the twelfth grade and seventeen or eighteen when the leave it. If they skipped or repeated a grade in between they would by younger or older, respectively. Before the first grade they may be in Kindergarten or Pre-school. After the twelfth grade they may enter a College or University. — Joe Kress 04:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Supplementary answer

I have removed the supplementary answer given by the NSW education minister - really because it does not add anything to the article. We quote the minister's first reply, which explains that she understands and has been advised that the terminology is used in museums and academic circles internationally. Her supplementary is just telling the Opposition member that she believes she has already answered his question - and then paraphrasing her more precise first answer in a less precise way - which is why I'm not sure it's useful to include it, jguk 20:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When the reference was first added, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing, because I actually followed the link and read the whole thing, and noticed that it actually contradicts what you have been attempting to impose upon this article. Obviously, you only want people to read the part that you think is favorable to your own POV, and not the rest of it. In fact, I do not think that it adds to the article at all, but if it is going to be in it, then it should not be redacted to favor your personal political bias. I can undestand that you would want to censor the part that says, "BCE is widely used", since it disproves what your own claims. Either the whole thing should be left in, or the whole thing should be removed. Quoting out of context is dishonest and innapropriate.

Since I encountered this article, I have been surprised and amused by your attempts to denigrate the subject, as though it were some sort of blasphemy. -- Nike 22:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Nike and would like Jguk to explain why he continually finds it necessary to remove material that other editors add to the article simply because it doesn't conform to his POV. Sunray 02:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

I'm only after an article which is supported by quoted sources. Nothing else. After all, please note that it was me who added the link to the NSW Hansard so people, such as Nike, could read for themselves what the exchange was.

I must say, however, that I don't quite know what Nike is on about - from Hansard, it is quite clear that by "widely used" the NSW education minister is referring to the terminology being used in museums and academic circles internationally. There's no need to refer to both phrases, and the more precise one is better and a lot more interesting (and I also note that it is entirely in accordance to what the article said before the NSW edits were made).

How do you know that the minister is referring to "the terminology being used in museums and academic circles internationally" when she says it is widely used? How do you know that she didn't miss the main point on the briefing note in the first answer and correct it in the second answer. Nike has suggested a reasonable choice for you: "Either the whole thing should be left in, or the whole thing should be removed." Which do you prefer? Sunray 10:05, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

If the minister had lots of personal experience of the issue, she no doubt would have mentioned it. So, instead, she would have mostly relied on the advice of her civil servants (as she herself indicates). Whilst sometimes ministers deliberately keep some info behind on some questions so they have more ammo for the supplementary, but this clearly isn't the case here.

Now the exchange is interesting, but it should not dominate the article - which is why just referring to the minister's first answer, and having a link to the full exchange, appears reasonable. Of course, we could have the full exchange - together with the Opposition's queries, which certainly suggest the terminology is not widely used in NSW. I think having the whole exchange is overkill - if you wish to remove all of it and reduce it to a link, I would not revert, but I think the minister's main answer is interesting in the context of this subject, jguk 11:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph and added the link under "External links." I don't think it adds anything new to the article. Sunray 16:08, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Another round on religious tolerance

I do, however, continue to object to the inclusion of the link to the religioustolerance.org website. I have noted my objections to it above, and it is as poor a source as a blog. I will remove it again. If the views expressed in it are widely held, it should be possible to get a proper reputable source for this - from notable interfaith groups, say. If anyone has such a source, I for one would most welcome its inclusion, jguk 22:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jguk: I am concerned about the way you frequently remove material contributed by other editors. That is not wiki practice. You have been given reasons for inclusion of each of the items you have removed, but you continue to revert others. NEWS FLASH: You are not the ultimate authority here. If you persist in this approach, I will start an RFC to get other folks opinion on this matter. Before I do that, I would like to have some further discussion here. Are there other views? Sunray 23:09, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Other views are on Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where there is a bedrock of opinion that queried information should be backed up by a reliable source. I would quite welcome proper academic input into whether the religioustolerance.org link should remain - but, quite honestly, I'd just prefer a better link to a more reliable source that makes a similar point (assuming there is one - which, from what you say, there should be), jguk 23:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've checked these articles you have cited on sources and it is apparent that you are confusing the term "source" with "external link." The Common Era article doesn't use the Religious Tolerance website as a source—there is nothing quoted or paraphrased from that website. It is used as an external link. The criteria for use of an external link are not as stringent as those for a source. They are simply:

1. Is it accessible?
2. Is it proper? (useful, tasteful, etc?)
3. Is it entered correctly?

We have gone over all the reasons for including (or excluding) this link. I've explained that it is there because: 1) an editor deemed it worthy, 2) it is from a high volume website that comments on issues related to religious tolerance, and 3) it adds information that is not in the article. You have not made a successful case for it being excluded. I will put it back and I trust that you will leave it there. Sunray 09:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

As noted above, we should not link to something that is little better as a source than a blog. I have already seen some people take the link from this page and quote it authoritatively. Yet it is not authoritative, it is suspect - it is poorly written, disagrees with its sources and written by someone who is not notable and is apparently of no academic or religious standing. Surely we should only make good links? Doing otherwise only drags down WP's good name. Maybe if you or other WPians are aware of a link to an organisation of some standing that makes similar comments to that website, you could add that instead, which should resolve this issue, jguk 11:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say that the link is to a website that is "poorly written," and "disagrees with its sources." You have not given evidence of this, so you need to do that now. You have, on the other hand, documented the fact that the main author of the website does not have a degree in theology. I have expressed my doubts that a degree in theology is needed in order to be able to talk about religious tolerance. Until others speak on that here, it's a saw off.

I have expressed concerns about your removal of material (including links) from this article on your own authority. Wikipedia operates on NPOV, verifiable fact and consensus. Editors are repeatedly asked to discuss items that they don't agree with (other than vandalism) on the discussion page before removing it. We are asked to "assume good faith" and "work toward an agreement." I am asking you to do that. The criteria for inclusion of a link are listed above. Your arguments seem to go to the second of these: "Is it proper?". I am asking you to document that before removing the link. Please do so. If we (editors who comment on this matter on this talk page) agree that the link is not proper then it should be removed. If we cannot resolve the matter here, we should follow other steps in the conflict resolution process. Sunray 06:43, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I've removed the disclaimer that followed this link. It was POV. I've left the dubious template on (moved it after the link so it looks pretty), and that contains a link to the talk page if the reader is interested in why the link's inclusion is being disputed. Personally, I agree with Sunray that the link should say. No one is trying to say that it is source material for the article. It's listed under External Links, not References or Bibliography (not that this article seems to actually have any real sources). It is a link to a page detailing an opinion of one side of the debate over using BCE/CE vs. BC/AD. There's nothing in that article that I think could be disputed on a factual basis, because it's primarily an opinion piece. --Azkar 19:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it's one man's opinion, a man who has absolutely no standing whatsoever (as far as I can see) in religious or inter-dominational spheres. It's no better than providing a link to someone's blog. I have already seen other Wikipedians cite that site as a reliable source based on its appearing on this page as a supposedly-reputable link. In a nutshell, that is the problem, and that is why the link should not be there, jguk 22:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the opinions of several people are on the page in question. It also lists references, and is obviously well-researched. In any event, the ad hominem against the author does not repudiate the text. Whether or not the site is reliable in other issues is irrelevant, as well. It contains valid information, which is the only issue. It does not matter that you don't like the information.

And there is nothing necessarily wrong with a blog, either; it all depends upon the quality of the blog. There are many blogs by experts and professionals. -- Nike 03:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org, once and for all

I have restored the link to religioustolerance.org. Of all the people who are currently contributing to this article, only jguk disagrees with this. He has set out his objections above, and they have been authoritatively and thoroughly refuted by Sunray and Nike. A look at the history page will also reveal that two other users, including myself, feel strongly enough that this link enhances this article that we have all restored it despite jguk's repeated reverts.

I have read these arguments, and have tried to meet him halfway. When organizing the external links section, I created a "Commentary" heading, so that readers could be sure that the links provided espoused a partisan point of view, as jguk continually complained. Yet even then, jguk continued to revert it.

It is obvious, then, that although several current contributors have provided the facts (and sheer numbers) to justify the inclusion of this link, jguk seems determined to continue his one-man campaign against this particular online resource.

Therefore, I will refer him and anyone else interested in this matter to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese), where jguk wrote the following about another user when opposing an action he felt went against a consensus of contributors:

How long will it take for [username] to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus? jguk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I invite jguk to ponder his own question before continuing his customary behavior regarding this topic.

--dablaze 18:18, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of "See also" section

Anno Domini and Gregorian calendar are both linked within the text, so I didn't think it was necessary to repeat here, but my main objection was to the inclusion of political correctness (which is also linked within the text, btw).

While I agree that CE/BCE can sometimes be used in a "politically correct" way, it is by no means used in that manner all the time -- or even the vast majority of the time, as any extended persual of scholarly texts will show.

So I deleted that section to avoid repetition, and also to avoid unduly magnifying the role of a hot-button topic. --dablaze 00:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment issue

I am placing this page on RfC to try to gain outside input on the dispute over the inclusion, or otherwise, of the Reglioustolerance.org website. Note, the issue under dispute is specifically whether we should provide a link to that website - it is accepted that if a website that is generally accepted as credible contains information coming to the same conclusion, it could be added to the article.

The point here is that, if Wikipedia is to have credibility we need to use credible sources and link only to credible website. I have seen the "Religious Tolerance" website quoted as authoritative based on it being quoted here as a link. It is therefore fair to ask, is it really authoritative? And if the answer is no, the link should be removed. I am put forward the case for removal by asking and answering some questions below. Please feel free to add more questions and answers, but please do not amend my text below. Kind regards, jguk 09:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"ReligiousTolerance.org" - some Q and As

Note: the link being objected to is this one:

• The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates (Religious Tolerance.org)

Let's ask some questions then:

Who runs the website?

Something called the "Ontario Consultants of Religious Tolerance". [15]

Who are the "Ontario Consultants of Religious Tolerance"?

It started as a group of 4 volunteers in 1995. But it has grown since then: it now has 5 voluteers. [16]. These are a retired electronics engineer with an interest in model railways; a registered nurse; a professor at the University of Toronto specialising in urban planning; an IT systems manager; and an unemployed waitress. They comprise an agnostic, an atheist, a Zen Buddhist, an unaffiliated Christiand and a wiccan.

So, they don't have any religious standing then?

Ummmm, no. Indeed, they freely admit "None of us has any formal education in theology". [17]

Who writes their articles?

Mostly Bruce A. Robinson, the retired electronics engineer. He describes himself as an agnostic. [18] It is Robinson who wrote the essay that is currently under dispute. The wesbite itself admits that "Almost all of the over 2,480 essays and menus on this web site were written by our main author, Bruce A Robinson." [19] Essentially the website is just Robinson's personal opinions on things.

So, in short, should anything written by Robinson be treated as authoritative?

Ummm, no. It's not clear whether what he writes is peer reviewed by the other 4 volunteers, but none of them have any religious standing either. It's not clear that Robinson has any contacts at all amongst the religious community that he seeks to write about.

What about the article itself?

Well, it's pretty poorly written, and it takes Wikipedia as it's main source. Robinson uses Wikipedia unquestioningly, despite its academic limitations. It's not clear whether he has actually read any books or performed any sort of research other than surfing the net to come up with his article. He also manages to come up with a conclusion that is the exact opposite of what his sources say.

The exact opposite?

Yes, Robinson's sources that discuss BC/AD vs BCE/CE notation all come down in favour of using the BC/AD notation.

Robinson claims that he (as we=he here) uses BCE/CE notation instead of BC/AD notation as it is hurtful to religious minorities to do otherwise. What evidence has he of this assertion?

Robinson has provided no evidence whatsoever to support his assertion. Since this is the central message of his conclusion, it seems surprising that he provides nothing in the way of research or discussion by non-Christian religious groups to back it up. He just asserts it.

So this is just an opinion piece by a guy with no standing?

That's right.

So Wikipedia should not link to it?

Of course not.

But isn't Robinson's view widely held?

That's not the point. The point is that Robinson has no standing, his article is poorly written, and that we shouldn't, if Wikipedia is going to be credible, link to what is effectively a blog.

Is this an attempt to suppress views such as those held by Robinson?

No. It is not disputed that, if there is a credible link coming to similar conclusions as Robinson, that that link could be added to the article. Indeed, if Robinson's view is widely held it should be possible to find a reliable website outlining that view. The issue here is very much that we should not link to Robinson's website.

Comments

The link should remain.

This subject has already been debated at great length on this page. Jguk has continually denigrated the authors of the Religious Tolerance website as not having theological training and therefore unworthy. Jguk has not explained why one would need such qualifications to discuss religious tolerance. He is alone in his view that the website should not be used as an external link.

Each of Jguk's arguments about the merits of the Religious Tolerance website has been refuted. However, for clarity's sake, I will reiterate what I think are the key reasons why the Religious Tolerance site should remain as an external link to this article:

1. This website reached over 9 million hits in one week in 2004.
2. It was rated by the Good Web Guide as the most popular religious website on the Internet.
3. The Religious Tolerance article makes several interesting points about our topic.
4. The link meets Wikipedia's suggested criteria for an external link.

Apart from Jguk, all those who have commented on the talk page thus far support its retention (i.e., there is consensus). Sunray 10:48, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

One correction to the above, for "authors" read "author" - virtually everything is a Bruce Robinson opinion piece! If the figures and Good Web Guide accolade are correct, it is about time the site was exposed and debunked (as shown above, it's very easy to do this if you look at the site for a few minutes). Yes, I do rubbish Robinson - who is he? A retired engineer. So why are we acting like he is a world-recognised expert in the field of religion?

Also, there have been few commentators on this issue above, certainly not enough to generate a consensus, which is why a wider airing of this discussion may help, 10:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I count three who have commented on the talk page: Nike, dablaze and me. At least two other editors Neutrality and Azkar have restored the link and been reverted by you, and then there is the editor who added the link in the first place. Are you unable to see that you are alone in this? Sunray 11:13, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

jguk, please review this Talk: section; perhaps you have forgotten about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And you seem to have forgotten that it is not appropriate to pretend a retired mechanical engineer with no religious training or position is an authoritative source of information about religion. If the views expressed are as common throughout the religious community as you say, it should be easy for you to replace the link with something much more appropriate. May I ask why you don't? jguk 21:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk pot kettle black. --Rakista 07:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Here from RfC ...

Following the invitation on WP:RFC, I've reviewed (some of) the comments on this talk page, and the article on the website in question. I find the Religious Tolerance website article to be very poor. I wouldn't choose to reference it from the Wikipedia article, except as an example of poor website design and wooly thinking. (I note that the citation of Wikipedia is not well formed, and is not to the Anno Domini article, but to this one. Also, the first usage of AD in the article puts the AD after the date, indicating that although the writer did his research, he never actually absorbed it.) I find that jguk's points above are well made.

Having said all that, I don't think that it's important enough to get in a dispute about, and I suggest that all participants find some other more deserving articles for a few weeks, and then come back and wonder what all the fuss was about. Noisy | Talk 11:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I would say not to include a link because the site cites Wikipedia as its main source. That would be effectively linking to our own content, which is pointless. Vacuum c 17:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it cites Wikipedia in only one paragraph (the fourth from the top), and does so only to provide a reference for the quote within the graf. This is standard in scholarly writing – which even non-scholars may emulate (even non-scholar ex-engineers!) – and in no way construes Wikipedia as its "main source." And since the reference to WP is only one of nine sourced references, I think we can let this minor reflexive linking slide.

And speaking of nine sourced references, there are nine sourced references! It doesn't matter what kind of "standing" you have – if you can back up what you're saying with primary sources, then you've successfully made your point, whether you're an engineer or a theologian. I will, however, discount the WP link, as well as the link to another article on the religioustolerance.org site, but that still leaves seven solid cites.

Also, the Common Era article is about a POV subject, the POV being that religiously neutral date notation is preferable to Christian-centric date notation. Of course, the article doesn't take a position on this (depending on who's editing), but I see nothing wrong with linking to someone who soberly espouses the point of view directly relevant to the article. The link is already listed under "Commentary," and I strongly doubt that the vast majority of readers believe that commentaries are "authoritative." It's just another word for "opinion," and anyone's welcome to put that in the place of "Commentary," if they believe that the current heading is ambiguous.

As for the author's "standing" – he runs a website that receives "600,000 page impressions a week from over 150,000 visitors." (I don't know where Sunray got his 9 million hit figure, but I'd love to see the source.) And even as far back as 2000, Robinson gained the notice of a print magazine with a circulation of 70,000 and a readership of 250,000 (PDF of Spirituality & Health media kit). Add to this the fact that religioustolerance.org is linked to or cited by at least 70,000 sites on the web according to Yahoo (~60,000 according to Google), and it becomes clear that religioustolerance.org is not just some obscure blog written by some nobody, but a widely used internet resource on religious tolerance.

The banner ads and the constant appeals for donations on the site also attest to the fact that it draws a great deal of visitors. Indeed, the home page announces that the site has even hired a part-time staff person to attend to the site – an extraordinary step for a previously all-volunteer staff of 5.

So who cares if it's a popular site? Well, that popularity helps create "standing." If it is already a widely used resource on the internet in the area of religous tolerance, and has stood the test of time to still be cited and linked to by 60,000-70,000 web sites,¹ then I (and just about any other academic researcher) would say that it is reliably representative of pro-religious tolerance POV – which, as you'll remember, underlies the use of the term "Common Era."

For these reasons, and others listed above, I support the inclusion of this link. –dablaze 19:35, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Notes

^1 To be sure, not all of the 60,000-70,000 sites support the mission of religioustolerance.org, though scrolling through the search results pages, they appear to be a minority. The site reports that hacking and vandalism are common there, yet I wonder if that would happen so much if the site were as obscure as jguk claims. Interestingly, it also reports that "[w]e probably get more critical E-mails about the use of CE & BCE than about any other single topic, other than homosexuality, abortion in the Bible, and whether Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses are actually Christians," so perhaps it's understandable that the subject is also controversial on Wikipedia. –dablaze

I've never claimed the site is "obscure" - Robinson got a very good name for it, which has raised its profile far far higher than it deserves. In fact, Robinson proves how far a good website name can take a pretty crap website!

If you have found, in your searches, a credible source that reaches the same conclusion, can you provide it? Replacing this very poor link with a credible one that has the same conclusions would be a good way of bringing this content dispute to an end, jguk 20:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merely repeating your claims that the site is "poor," "crap," and not "credible," is insufficient to counter the many well-thought out responses others have continually provided for you on this page. Disputes are resolved by addressing the claims of one's opponents, not by restating one's own.

Also, we are all painfully aware that "[r]eplacing this...link...would be a good way of bringing this content dispute to an end." Of course it would! Because then you, as the sole instigator of the dispute, would consequently end it! Again, suggesting that you get your way – i.e. that this link disappear from the article – is also insufficient to justify your position. Besides, I thought you were requesting comments on whether the link is "authoritative enough", not soliciting help in finding a "credible" replacement for it.

Therefore, I see no reason to consider jguk's most recent post as a substantive response, or even a good faith one. –dablaze 23:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I take strong exception as to your categorising my approach to this content dispute as being in bad faith. You will note that the first two outside visitors responding to the RfC have agreed with me that the site is poor and should not be linked to. I have consistently argued that I object to this link because it is not reliable - and that its conclusion is irrelevant to this point. The "well-thought out" counter-arguments are based on the actual or supposed popularity of the website - but this is a strawman argument; a website's popularity is no indication of whether its content is any intellectual rigour.

I have also consistently suggested that an amenable compromise for those that wish to link to a site that comes to the same conclusion as Robinson's blog is to find a reputable site that does just that. Unfortunately, however, that suggestion appears to be rejected, and you, with a few other users, continue to wish to link of no religious or intellectual standing, jguk 07:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, noting that others agree with you is not the same as addressing the points of those who disagree with you. Thus, this is yet another unresponsive response from you.

I urge you to address the many arguments provided above in support of this link. I agree that I shouldn't have called them "well-reasoned," as that's clearly POV on my part (though I certainly do think they are well-reasoned). But they are, at the very least, detailed and specific, and bring up several points that you have not even attempted to address. I find it perplexing that you challenge others to provide rationales for you, and that you make no effort to address their specific arguments when they do. Again, restating your arguments is not the same as addressing your opponents' arguments.

Sunray (like others here) has obviously gone to a good deal of trouble to address your concerns on this matter, bringing up several arguments and references to counter your claims (see the sections titled "Religious Tolerance website" and "Another round on religious tolerance" above). Yet it is obvious to anyone who can read that for whatever reasons, you have declined to answer even one of his many justifications for retaining this link, preferring instead to merely repeat your own arguments instead of addressing those that challenge your position.

As there are several references and arguments above in support of this link; as you have not even attempted to address them; and as your response to opposition is to restate instead of to respond, I see no point in continuing this pointless exercise. Instead, I suggest referring this matter to mediation. If you agree, please post here or on my talk page. –dablaze 14:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently any user can post a Request for mediation, so I have done so here. I'm not really familiar with this process (it's the first time I've had to avail myself of it), and I *think* some sort of template has to be added to the article to note this. I'll try to figure out the correct procedure on this and act accordingly. –dablaze 16:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have responded on the RfM page in detail, but offer a summary of what I say here. Unfortunately this case is not suitable for mediation as (1) it is a content dispute; and (2) there is no middle route - either we have the link or we don't.

I have already listed this page on the RfC page, and we already have two outside responses. I suggest that, for now, we wait to see whether there are more outside responses, which we can then all reflect upon, jguk 18:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the issue of whether or not the Religious Tolerance link is included in this article, or not, is worthy of a referral to mediation. Rather, it would be Jguk's continual reverts of material in this article without adequate efforts to discuss or a will to abide by consensus that would be a subject of mediation. Hopefully we can achieve some agreement about this short of going to mediation.

It seems to me important to focus on the substantive issues that have been raised about the Religious Tolerance link. Arguments such as "it's poorly written" are subjective and insuficient. Recall that the guideline we should be considering (as noted above) is "is it proper." Dablaze has given detailed statistics on the usage of the website. That is one criterion. Jguk has raised the question of the reference to an outdated Wikipedia article. That has been discussed at some length without consensus. What other aspects of the Religious Tolerance link indicate whether it is a proper link? Sunray 18:55, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

(1) Its author and its author's standing in the area which he is commenting on; (2) The fact that the author's conclusions are the complete opposite of what his sources are saying, jguk 20:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have made your feelings clear on (1). But we all seem to be going in circles on (2). For the sake of clarity, could you please explain in your own words what you believe "the author's conclusions" are and "what his sources are saying"? Your detailing this purported textual conflict might go a long way toward clearing things up. –dablaze 21:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Having read the arguments for and against, it seems to me the arguments for keeping the link are much stronger. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opposition/Support

You say you want to see facts for the support section, Jguk, but the support section isn't giving any argument that requires facts. The opposition, on the other hand, asserts that BC notation doesn't "in fact" offend non-Christians. Where are your statistics and facts to back up that statement? There are none. The opposition section also says that there is no need to replace BC notation, but clearly that is debatable. In order to improve this article, it's necessary to remove the statements "Usage of the term BC/AD does not, in fact, offend people of non-Christian beliefs." and "There is no need to replace a term that everyone knows and understands, which is 'Before Christ'."

The first three points in the "oppose" section are supported by the NSW Hansard (the links to the Hansard are in the article). I initially made specific reference to the NSW legislature being where these points were raised, and would be happy to reinsert that to put those arguments in their proper context.

All the other points for "oppose" and all of the "support" section are, as far as I am aware, currently unsourced. The assertion is that these arguments are being made. If this is true, we should be able to find reputable sources showing these arguments being made, jguk 21:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, are you saying that you think that statements by a politician (to make a political point) somehow tell us anything about the usage of the term or people's reaction to it? This would not be considered acceptable evidence by any social research standard. I agree with the unsigned editor ( Berserk798?). The statement that usage of the term does not offend non-Christians is unsupported and should be removed. Sunray 06:44, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I should add another reason why this is important. We do have a source, namely the FAQs on the Chicago Manual of Style website, for there being no big arguments one way or another on this (although this source would clearly only apply to the US), jguk 21:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've sourced every statement in the Support section. I checked the External Links and found that the only support for the statement "Usage of the term BC/AD does not, in fact, offend people of non-Christian beliefs" was from Mrs. Jillian Skinner who said " I assure honourable members that people of non-Christian beliefs have told me that they are not offended by the terminology,". I don't think that this is enough. If there were some sort of polls or statistics showing that non-Christians aren't offended by the usage, fine. But there aren't. I also think that it's redundant to say "There is no need to replace a term that everyone knows and understands, which is 'Before Christ'" because it is under the Opposition section. This is glaringly obvious. It's quite like saying "The opposition oppose this!".

Well said! I hope Jguk can follow your reasoning. Sunray 06:44, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I don't find the unsupported assertion of "Mrs. Jillian Skinner" to be strong enough for the article to make this claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits of April 7

Usage. I strongly feel that we should not have to find an example of every little use of BCE/CE, and rather keep this section general and encyclopedic. Unless we're going to go out and find a huge list of every museum that uses the notation, I think it appears a bit incongruent to say that such-and-such academic fields in the English-speaking world use BCE/CE, yet the only example we can link to is the Royal Ontario Museum. I did a little checking, and it appears that the British Museum and the Smithsonian also use it, but if we're going to say that museums use it, I think we should have several examples instead of just one isolated (or ostensibly isolated) case.

As for the bit on British state schools, I simply don't see the relevance, besides jguk's longstanding efforts to show that BCE/CE is not widely used in everyday speech. I happen to think that's a relevant point, and I've tried to note it more than once throughout my edits, both in this section and in the intro. But to describe the practices of the entire English-speaking world in 3-4 sentences, and then to have 2-3 huge paragraphs on British state schools doesn't make sense to me. After all, this section is on usage, not non-usage. I think we can depend on the reader to figure out that if BCE/CE is used in only a few areas, then it's not used in others. Simple set theory, IMO.

Also, I just cut that bit about BCE/CE being used in U.S. media, because it's not. That web site was an anomaly. I used to be a journalist for a major U.S. newspaper, and I still work with journalists and other media professionals, so I can assure you that nobody uses BCE/CE notation in U.S. journalism because very few people in the general public would understand it. I wish I had my AP stylebook handy, but I'm pretty sure that it also prescribes BC/AD. I'll try to remember to look it up and post back here.

In regards to the U.S. National History Standards website, they're not national standards! At least, not mandatory ones, as that would be unconstitutional and give millions of Americans a collective hissy fit. These suggested standards were developed privately at UCLA, and because of the nature of U.S. law, cannot be imposed nationally. In fact, here's the disclaimer from the site:

The development of the History Standards was administered by the National Center for History in the Schools at the University of California, Los Angeles under the guidance of the National Council for History Standards. The standards were developed with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the U.S. Department of Education. This publication does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the United States government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. (empahsis added)

So unless someone would like to include it and explicitly note that these standards are not mandatory, I don't think it's appropriate to include. But my own preference, as I said above, is to just keep this section short, sweet, and informative, without trying to find individual uses of BCE/CE, as I feel they are unnecessary. But it goes without saying that I won't go on a revert jag if these things are brought back; my only concern is that specific examples be placed in a broader context relevant to the general nature of the article.

Link to Wikipedia style on BCE/CE. Jguk has removed this several times, but I think it's important to include, since some people will probably be coming to this article after having encountered BCE/CE elsewhere on Wikipedia. Besides, maybe I'm just not looking in the right place, but I have never seen an outright prohibition on self-reference within a Wikipedia article. Is it in the Manual of Style?

And even if it were, I refer him and anyone else interested to this statement on the MOS front page:

Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules. (emphasis not added!)

So even if there is some sort of rule, I would point out that because of the nature of Wikipedia, it is a guideline rather than a rule, and I would need a very good reason indeed to be convinced that this link should not be included.

I think that about covers it. –dablaze 14:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there's really enough content in that link to justify the self-reference. We're talking about three sentences that basically say it's OK to use either BC/AD or BCE/CE, so long as you're consistant. If the same content was on an external site, the link would be deleted without a second thought. I'd have to go searching to find the exact policy on self-references, but any self-reference needs to be included from a neutral third-party perspective. Basically, the question we need to ask is, "Would this reference make sense to the reader if this article were hosted in a non-Wikipedia environment?" (which may very well be the case, since this encyclopedia is mirrored on several other sites). --Azkar 15:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that this is a rare case of an article being highly relevant to Wikipedia editing practices. Many readers will no doubt be unfamiliar with BCE/CE and come here for an explanation, so I think it only logical that we provide this one link that says, yes, this is something that the community has heard of and has accepted as a viable alternative to BC/AD. Besides, it's essentially no different than the Chicago link -- just a style guideline.

As for non-Wikipedia environments -- well, the good ones already cite the content as being from Wikipedia, and the not so good ones pass it off as their own content, so in the former case, the link would probably "make sense," and in the latter, it might direct the reader to the real deal instead of some unauthorized knockoff. And IMO, I think we should keep Wikipedia readers in mind as our primary audience when editing, not readers of mirrors of sometimes dubious quality and timeliness.

In any case, due to the highly unusual confluence of subject matter and relevance to Wikipedia practice, I support leaving this link up. –dablaze 16:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Through Wikipedia's licence, there is no such thing as an "unauthorized knockoff". Mirrors and forks are not only allowed, but encouraged. One of the bigest catalysts behind the Wikipedia:Avoid self references policy is to make forking easier (in addition to stylistic reasons).

I agree that the link to The Chicago Manual of Style doesn't really contain any more content than the Wikipedia manual of style link. The difference here would be authoritativeness. The Chicago Manual of Style is a well respected style guide that is widely used by the publishing industry. While Wikipedia may report and use widely accepted conventions, it is not, in and of itself, an authoritative source for writing style. Wikipedia's manual of style is really just a description of Wikipedia's house style. While useful to Wikipedia editors, it's not really relevant to anyone else.

There are probably several articles that could relate to Wikipedia editing practice. Off the top of my head, there are mentions of the serial comma and American and British English differences in the MOS, but neither article contains a self-reference back. --142.242.2.248 17:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) (wasn't logged in --Azkar)

Interesting debate with relevant points on both sides. I have to side with Azkar on this one, though. If Wikipedia were geared to editors it would be another matter, but the intent is to be informative to the general reader—who could probably care less about the Wikipedia style guide (unfortunately). Sunray 01:33, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Good point. I'll just go delete that now... –dablaze 01:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that under the Opposition section, the statement "Some non-Christians object to the Common Era's preservation of the year 1 as a starting point because it preserves a Christian-centric worldview at the expense of a religiously neutral timekeeping system." should be changed back to the way it was, because it isn't exclusively non-Christians who argue this. Many Christians use this as a reason of why they think the CE calendar is just as politically "incorrect" as the AD calendar. —Berserk798 17:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you, Berserk, so by all means go ahead and make the change. However, there are no guarantees that it won't be reverted :-) Sunray 01:48, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

The article looks and reads much cleaner with Dablaze's changes, IMO. However, I do think that the usage section is a bit thin now. My sense (born out, ironically, by Jguk's h2g2) is that the terms are increasingly used outside of academe. Because this was hotly contested, it was necessary to cite examples. While it is better not to list every instance, it is sometimes necessary to do so to document a trend. I will keep my eyes open for more appropriate references on usage. Sunray 01:42, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Well, it may not be necessary to collect a bunch of references. Instead, it might be sufficient to say why it's significant that, for example, the Royal Ontario Museum uses BCE/CE. Is it very prestigious or prominent in Canada? (Sorry, I'd never heard of it before, so that's why it sounded random to me.) If so, perhaps: "The Royal Ontario Museum, which is the largest in Canada, recently decided to use Common Era notation exclusively." But IMO it would help if at least one other institution or organization of similar importance were mentioned along with the ROM, just to flesh out the sentence and ground it in context. –dablaze 02:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The ROM is both prestigious and prominent in Canada. It was noteworthy in that their announcement that they would be using BCE/CE notation caused quite a stir in the national media, due to opposition. However, since museums such as the British Museum and Smithsonian also use BCE/CE, perhaps we should just say that. Since we have great museums in three English-speaking countries engaging in a practice that each museum visitor will become aware of, the trend is inevitable (and that is a significant fact pertaining to usage). Sunray 02:37, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Exactly. Though my info on the British Museum and the Smithsonian was based only on Google searches, and they both also use BC/AD online. I don't know if they use BCE/CE in their exhibits, but I guess it couldn't hurt to shoot off a couple emails... –dablaze 02:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

More on usage examples

Just a quick thought here -- I think the article gives the impression that BCE/CE is used uniformly within academia, but that's not the case. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to give a few link-pairs to illustrate this, such as:

"BCE" at the Smithsonian and "BC" at the Smithsonian (BCE & BC are easier to search on than AD & CE, I've found.) I've also searched on a few other academic/scholarly sites with similar results.

Probably would have to figure out some decent formatting, but this might be an effective and web-friendly way of giving real-life usage examples (and frequencies). What do you all think? –dablaze 15:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

CE usage at the Smithsonian

My source for that info I added about the Smithsonian was an editor at the the Office of Exhibits Central at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, (contacted today, Apr 8 05). She told me that BCE/CE was preferred because of the "diversity of visitors" the museum gets, but added that the office is not necessarily involved in all exhibits at all museums, and that individual museums get the final say on date notation (and presumably other matters of style). But when the office is involved, it recommends BCE/CE by default.

BTW, this probably makes my comments above moot. Ah well, it was just a thought. –dablaze 22:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

That's going right to the source, I'd say! We could say something along the lines of "museums such as the Smithsonian (U.S.), the British Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum (Canada) have adopted BCE/CE notation in consideration of the diversity of visitors they receive." We could put the ROM as an External Link and refer to it. Sunray 06:43, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Gotta love primary source research! :-) Actually Sunray, if you'd like to try and rewrite that paragraph, please go right ahead -- I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes. (Though the Smithsonian hasn't "adopted" CE, it just prefers it.)

One caution, though: If the "diversity of visitors" is going to be mentioned, it would not only have to be in quotes, but be sourced as well to avoid the appearance of POV. Standard academic style for something like that would look like:

7. Jane Doe, Acme Co., telephone conversation with author, April 8, 2005.

At least, that's what the Chicago manual recommends. But for obvious reasons, I'd rather not list this person's name on the internet. And I'm sure as hell not listing mine! But without that quote, I don't think it needs sourcing beyond the info on the talk page. Besides, I think it's pretty clear that CE is intended as an inclusive term (even if some people don't see it that way), so perhaps the quote's not vital here.

But hell, I dunno... –dablaze 11:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Three words, generally, does not a quote make... unless they are especially noteworthy (e.g. "Some chicken." (Churchill). What we are doing here is trying to capture the essence of the Smithsonian's policy, so I think a full citation along the lines you have specified is not needed.

I will add the sentence, slightly amended, use the ROM link and one from the Smithsonian. If someone wants more info they could refer to this talk page (that is a general rule that people quickly learn when they use Wikipedia). We can make that explicit if necessary. Sunray 14:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at the article and see that you have done exactly what I was going to do. Looks good. Sunray 14:40, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

We are yet waiting for any evidence that C.E. originated in (secular) academia; all evidence thus far points to its appearance in the twentieth century among religious scholars, i.e. Talmudic and Christian acedemia. In fact, the most likely source for originating the abbreviated terms is Jacob Neusner. Someone should e-mail him at Neusner@webjogger.net and ask him where his use of it originated, as I can't get my e-mail to work. Thx. Nobs 21:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

zh link

interwiki link zh:公元 was removed, because the zh article is not linking back but interwikilinking to da:Anno Domini de:Anno Domini en:Anno Domini ... -- Thoken 14:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The zh:公元 article can actually be linked to both Common Era and Anno Domini. Articles in different languages do not always correspond in a one-to-one manner. — Instantnood 21:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

ISO 8601

Jayjg: the keyword is recognized, not compatible. Go ahead have a try at it-[20] Nobs 19:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD notation is not part of the ISO 8601 standard either; your point is at best irrelevant, at worst deceptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Usage and style guides

The number of references to style guides that prefer BCE/CE notation seems to me to be excessive. Could we perhaps pick two or three that would be representative—say one major university, a book publisher and/or a periodical? Sunray 19:38, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Well, part of the point was how many style guides were mandating or recommending it. But I think it would be fine to cut out 3 or 4 of the weaker ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you include a date the earliest of these "mandates" began. Thx. Nobs 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What for? This article from the United Church News says the use of C.E.—signifying "Common Era"—can be found at least 100 years ago.[21]

Seeking to establish when various institutions "mandated" its use, not necessarily just it's origins. As a chronicler, this is writing the historical record. After all, a change after nearly 2000 years is of interest I would suppose. Nobs 22:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Its dominant usage is not nearly 2,000 years old. As for the style preference, I have no idea when various groups starting mandating its use. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The evidence suggests its wider popular use outside of limited historical & theological studies only dates c.1978; what I am seeking to establish is at what point thereafter it became intstitutional policy, which evidently is less than the past 10 years. Nobs 01:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism?

I've removed the following statement from the Criticism section:

Common could be misconstrued to mean profane or vulgar rather than belief in a shared deity.

Perhaps if anyone thinks it should be back in the article, they could explain why it would be included as a criticism of the term Common Era. Many English words have multiple meanings. To understand how the word common is used, one should be able to deduce it from the lead paragraph of the article. If that isn't easy to do, then we should re-write the lead. Defining the meaning of words is the role of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Sunray 06:09, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant to be a criticism, but rather related to the origin of usage for CE (as hitherto, at times, VE) from latin (vulgāaris; from vulgus, “the common people”), see examples here. Still, on closer look, I think it can be better worded and qualified, so I will not revert for now. El_C 08:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

C.E. was developed by Jewish and Christian ecumenicalists to denote the shared values of a common Judeo-Christian heritage. C.E. is not a Novus Ordo Seclorum or New Order of Secularism, over the Anno Domini system, i.e. a victory of the godless attempting to discard Christianity and the Church. The Church infact took the leadership role of reforming itself to make itself more inclusive. Only now, decades later, is secular academia following the leadership role of the church in society. And of course atheists are free to continue decieving themselves that they are living in the year 2005. Nobs 18:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Enlightening times in which we live. Actually, I would wager that most atheists, myself included, could not care less and are more concerned with such delusions as the earth revolving around the sun, etc., and are satisfied with more-or-less consistent periodization. El_C 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

My concern here, as is typical, is original research; exactly who makes this argument as an objection to the usage of the term "Common Era"? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Likewise my concern has been that there has been zero, absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented to support the assertion that the CE/BCE convention originated with, or has been accepted by "scholarship", outside of Jewish or rabbinical scholarship, or Christian theological institutions. You will recall, the basis of many who voted for CE/BCE was its use in "scholarship". Nobs 15:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how your comment relates to mine, but did you read the article, and the examples provided? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

See further below for continuation from above. As I understand wiki policy, I don't see how a general assertion can be regarded as fact, and primary and secondary sources discarded as evidence. The general premise I cite is "There is no evidence non-religous scholorship began accepting CE/BCE until less than the past 27 years, and no evidence it has been mandated policy outside religous institutions anymore than 3 years." Further, "There is no evidence CE/BCE convention began with non-religious scholars (and/or academia, seeing those proponents voting in the affirmative for change often cite this reason). Where it began, for now, I beleive has been established. It seems to me the next phase of this discussion is to understand what vulgar means. And I beleive the wiki article on vulgar is correct, though lacking a racist implication the term once had toward Bulgarians (or Bulgars, more correctly). Nobs 22:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you may be correct, but I still fail to see the relevance. It's certainly gaining currency today. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify my personal position (see personal comment on Slrubenstein talk page); I have no problem with CE/CBE convention, (and have on occassion used it over the years depending on what audience I'm speaking to). But personally I feel it needs to be clear: this is not a slap down by secularism against the Christian church. This is in fact an occassion where the church has assumed the leadership role in society to be inclusive, and generic (secular) academia has followed. My official position is neutral (meaning the default AD/BC convention), until those facts can be establish. Of course, I welcome anyone to dispute the hypothesis and correct me if these impressions are in error. Thank you. Nobs 00:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Professional scholarship

Unfortunately, I suspect this is a product of you not reading closely, as evidence has been provided by myself, in a discussion your were intensively involved in. It consisted of the following examples:

• For dates, please use the BCE-CE system, rather than BC-AD. From the The Publications Committee of the Egyptian Studies Society new guidelines for their journal Ostracon [22].
• All dates should be in the format BCE/CE, unless in quoted material. From the Contributor Guidelines for editorial submission in The International Journal of Pagan Studies [23]
• Eras and dates. The journal prefers B.C.E., C.E., 12 December 1999 From the American Journal of Philology [24]
• All dates should be in the format BCE/CE From the NSU Style Manual. [25]
• [W]e prefer BCE, CE Submission Manuscript Guidelines for Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha [26]
• we prefer BCE, CE Journal for the study of the historical Jesus [27]
• Eras: Please use BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) rather than B.C. and A.D. From The Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies Style Guide. [28]
• we prefer BCE, CE From the Continuum International Publishing Group Brief Style Guide for Contributors to JSHJ and JSHJSup [29]

El_C 18:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

All those references refer to very recent acceptance of the use, acceptance of a standard that has been accepted and used by religious scholarship for decades. Most of those referances I date as being no more than 3 years old; whereas Catholic Encyclopedia use dates to 1908. The point being, non-religious scholarship has accepted and used, only very recently, a convention devoloped by Jewish and Christian scholars. Nobs 18:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That is not what you said, and I quote: "Likewise my concern has been that there has been zero, absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented to support the assertion that the CE/BCE convention originated with, or has been accepted by "scholarship", outside of Jewish or rabbinical scholarship, or Christian theological institutions."

More examples:

• we prefer bce (before common era) and ce (common era) to bc and ad from World History Connected submission guidelines [30]

• prefers the use of B.C.E. and C.E. to B.C. and A.D from the Journal of early Christian Studies submission guidelines [31]

• We use BCE (Before the Common Era) as a religiously neutral chronology referent. We do this because BC (Before Christ) assumes Jesus was the Christ, and in a religiously plural age, not everyone makes that assumption. Similarly, CE (The Common Era) is used instead of AD (Anno Domini - After Christ). from Ethics Reader [32]

• So we use B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) rather than the Christian oriented terms, B.C. and A.D. from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions [33]

• We prefer C.E. and B.C.E. to A.D. and B.C. from the Byzantine Publications Style Guide. [34]

• No periods in BC and AD. Some contributors prefer BCE and CE; This is fine. Wiki Classical Dictionary [35] — I misread 'periods' as periodization, this particular example is inapplicable, but my point stands. El_C 23:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Etc.

El_C 19:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

On this technical point, I will concede. My reference was to the discussion on this talk page, not the evidence presented (valid) on the Jesus talk page. Chalk this up to an effort to merge or continue the discussion. Point stands however, I don't believe there is any source stated above more than 3 years old, and if so nothing predates 1978. Both Jewish & Christian scholars have those dates beat. Nobs 20:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That contemporaneity is actually my point, these are all active journals. If I try to establish Peer Review, that's what I look for. I'm not going to be searching for, let's say, American Politics Quarterly, but rather, American Politics Research (formerly American Politics Quarterly), etc. El_C 21:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal concerning CE and NPOV

I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to its contemporary use or its historical use over 2 millenia? Nobs 15:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

First use

What evidence supports the claim that the term "common era" was first mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopaedia in 1908. I thought the term pre-dated that, jguk 11:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to this. El_C 12:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It's quite a leap to go from Slrubenstein's claim that this is the earliest reference he can find to concluding that it is the earliest reference. I have therefore removed the statement. I have also removed the statement that some claim the JW's were using the term in the late 1800s until the "some" is defined. Kind regards, jguk 18:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, we need definitive rather than possible origins of, unless it is demonstrated that this is as definitive as the scholarship gets on that question (which I highly doubt). It is unfortunate that SlR's (rather singular) efforts are the closest we are to an answer though. El_C 23:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessary. As far as I'm concerned, if it has been a relevant question for at least three decades, then it certainly can affect Wikipedia style. We don't call African-Americans "Negros" now though that was common as late as the 1960s. --Fastfission 04:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italics and quotation marks on indents

I just screwed up the Edit Summary of my last revert. If one looks at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, it says: "There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics…." Additionally, if one looks at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks, it says: "Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon. Indented quotations do not need to be marked by quotation marks." The first applies to the revert; the second applies to my previous edit. Sorry about being unclear.

— DLJessup 01:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. Sunray 07:47, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

A better way to display longer quotations is to use the <blockquote> </blockquote> pair notation. That way the right margin gets indented as well as the left. I recently added a section on this to the How to edit a page examples. --Blainster 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)