Talk:CE

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Comments

Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR


Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --Truth is bipartisan 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be

  • a generic term meaning any standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
  • a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch from others used by Christians. E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era of the Jews.) 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men.

So it's not a new phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is the general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. Dpbsmith 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
I'll study your sources further. --Aschlafly 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--Epicurius 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888 What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues? 88888888888888888888888888888888

One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --Eatsilk 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)



There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably do have something to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? Dpbsmith 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. Scienceisstupid 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

Original Research

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on. As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --<<-David R->> 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). JoshuaZ 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)
If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. Pinion 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)


If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --TimSvendsen 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used here I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. JoshuaZ 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Common Sense, ppl

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [2].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. Muchodelcrazy 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Rabbi Dialogue

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --Truth is bipartisan 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --trekie9001 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. Bobtexas 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --Prometheus 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

Christian Era

Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. RSchlafly 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause clearly it shows bias. --Prometheus 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge.... An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --Anschelsc 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

References

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

Lack of dictionary definition

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. Alethiophile 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --Truth is bipartisan 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.


Unfortunate Truth

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'. The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things. I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they? Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

Last time I checked, Global warming was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --Ed Poor Talk 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. Potatocakes 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Article Locked?

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views for and against the topic in question - this article does not do this. --Tomt 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --Eatsilk 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I've always heard something different

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--Ollie Garkey 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --Eatsilk 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes [1] --Brendanw 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Rabbi dialogue revisited

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has progressed to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes one of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --Eatsilk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--Aschlafly 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-Greenmeanie 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's bias regarding this term

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. Jesus. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. Plato, Socrates, Tutankhamun, Persia, the Roman Empire, etc. Jinxmchue 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Good point, but CE is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [3].--Aschlafly 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. Jinxmchue 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.--Redsox70707 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
And this matters because...? ProserpinaFC

more common

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. John Brown 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. Karajou 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The word "erase"

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

  • The term "Common Era" is an attempt to erase the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

  • Numerous texts, particularly schoolbooks, have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --Telephuse 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

British date format becoming more common in America!

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!

The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. Karajou 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. Rockthecasbah 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

ISO 8601

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --Countryforchrist 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the APA standard or the MLA standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --Luke1978 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Merrium websters

I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis. But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)

Main Entry:Common Era
Function:noun 
Date:1846

 : CHRISTIAN ERA


Main Entry:Christian era
Function:noun 
Date:1657

 : the period dating from the birth of Christ

Main Entry:CE
Function:abbreviation 

1 chemical engineer
2 civil engineer
3 Christian Era —  often punctuated; Common Era;   often punctuated
4 Corps of Engineers

Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary?

There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --Brendanw 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term?

CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --JerriahD 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Weekdays

Why this was eliminated?

Those pagan names were successfully replaced only in Portuguese, due to the efforts of Martinho de Dume, roman catholic bishop of Braga (518 - 579). See, for example this text in Portuguese or this text in English

Just because it shows that Portuguese is a more Christian language than English? :-) Sunda62 14:45, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Let Portugal do as it pleases, but don't bring Portuguese policy here. Karajou 15:33, 9 March 2010 (EST)
This has nothing to do with atheistic denial of the basis of a dating system. And, by the way, atheists seem just fine with the pagan weekdays while they insist on erasing reference to Jesus.--Andy Schlafly 17:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)
I don't dispute your basic point, but in fact atheists have abolished pagan names for weekdays - at least in the past. The atheistic and socialist French Revolution instituted a calendar in which there were 12 months of 30 days each, named largely after the Parisian weather, and in which each week had ten days simply named after numbers (primidi, duodi, tridi and so on). You are totally correct that modern atheists seem more intent on removing references to Christianity than references to more primitive religions, however. RobertE 17:54, 9 March 2010 (EST)

General clean-up

Hey everyone! I fixed some grammar issues, and generally tried to make this article more encyclopedic and 'clean.' I also added some more history about where the terms CE and AD come from; hope I helped! God bless. WillS 18:02, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

"A later edition (11th)" in the lede

"A later edition (11th)" in the lede is confusing. Edition of what? What did the earlier edition say? Thanks! Keepscases 12:51, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

  1. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html

Ab Urbe Condita

Couldn't the science movement use the AUC notation, or since the founding of the city (of Rome). Classical antiquity is arguably the start of modern science, and if they use AUC they won't have to deny the Saviour of mankind in order to remain politically correct.PeterZ 23:51, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

People can use whatever system of dates they like. But if they use the Christian dating system, then honesty requires stating its source: BC and AD, not something that erases the basis of the dates.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
Personal tools