Jump to content

Talk:Anno Domini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.94.71.179 (talk) at 04:37, 12 January 2011 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleAnno Domini is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
December 4, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:WP1.0

Alternative birth theories

An editor, Dgillig, added the following passage to the Date of birth section:

Or, a different Quirinius named Publius Quinctilius Varus could be the one to use and that would support a 5 BC date for the birth. Or, one could use the Book of Daniel and find support for 5 BC with the crucifixtion in April of 30 AD. Then Luke is not incorrect and one doesn't need to discard Luke.

Considering the vast number of theories about when Jesus was born, and that this article is not the main article about his birth (Nativity of Jesus is), it is important to limit theories in this article to those held by a substantial number of scholars. Are there any citations to indicate any of the theories in the passage are held by a substantial number of scholars? --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, the actual date of the nativity is irrelevant to this article since AD is not based on the true date, it based on an arbitrary best guess. Everybody else has been happy with that for about 1500 years so I guess we just have to go along with what is, not what anyone of us thinks it should be. --Red King (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After Death" and the limits of good faith

I am reaching my limits for my ability to assume good faith.

First, there are the anonymous editors who insist on repeatedly insert the claim that AD means "After Death". I'm talking here about a whole set of IP editors, each of whom repeatedly inserts this crap. In the case of repeat offenders, I refuse to believe they actually believe this, they are just editing to provoke a reaction. They are vandals.

Second, there is Zargulon, who, without recourse to this talk page, repeatedly questions with {{who}} or {{when}} templates the concept that people often erroneously think that "AD" is an abbreviation of "After Death". Two sources have now been presented that show this error is indeed commonplace. The {{who}} template is to prevent Wikipedia editors from inserting their own opinions of what the general public, or a significant subset of the general public, thinks. It is not to prevent conclusions from reliable sources about what general public opinion is.

If Zargulon really thinks the After Death misconception is not commonplace, the time has come for him or her to provide a source showing that it is not commonplace; a source better that the two sources for the opposite position. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was not sure what you believed. Apparently you do believe the misconception is commonplace. Obviously it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to conclude from his/her own personal experiences that any concept is or is not commonplace in society, and put that conclusion in an article. But given that one reliable book and one website that might or might not be reliable have concluded this is a common misconception, what do you consider the best way to express this in the article?
  • Alternatively, perhaps you think a source should be disregarded unless it has a statement along the lines of "according to a scientific poll conducted by the authors of x,xxx Americans in June of 2000, xx % held the opinion that 'AD' is an abbreviation for 'After Death'". --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A preview is available on Google books. It says

Many people think that because B.C. means "Before Christ," then A.D. must mean "After Death". Not so. First of all, if that were the case, you'd have to add about 33 years to your actual date to account for the tenure of Jesus' life on earth and then come up with a special term for dealing with those years. And, from a theological point of view, Jesus was only dead for a couple of days before being resurrected anyway.

I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to add a {{who}} template to a statement based not on what the source actually says, but rather how the editor imagines the author would have written the source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think that was my basis for adding the template, despite my repeatedly saying it was WP:WEASEL? I'm glad we established that, contrary to your implication, the texts that I pinned the template to weren't what the source actually said. Nonetheless, the source's actual words are bad style according to Wikipedia, and I completely agree.. don't you? Who exactly is Ryan, and what was his audience? His condescending style sounds like a children's book rather than a reliable source. Zargulon (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source for the "After death" misconception, but I don't think we even need a source for the clarification bit about the missing 33-or-so years, it's a simple mathematical conclusion; Jesus lived 33 years, and if BC is "Before Christ" and AD is "After death", then there would be a 33-year gap in the calendar. — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "it is sometimes incorrectly concluded that AD means ʽafter deathʼ" is weasel wording. The source indicates that AD is in fact commonly mistaken to be an acronym for after death; we don't need to know who exactly thinks this. It has been shown that many do think this. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need Ryan. Like I said, it's a mathematical conclusion. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEASEL only applies to what Wikipedia editors write. It is wrong to write "[The general impression of Wikipedia editors is that] the After Death misconception is widespread enough that it needs to be pointed out." On the other hand, an author entrusted by a recognized publisher to write a book, thus putting the reputation of the publisher at risk, is entitled to write about his general impressions of what misconceptions are worthy of mention, and Wikipedia editors are entitled to put the author's general impression into a Wikipedia article. It is nonsensical for a Wikipedia editor to attempt to impose Wikipedia's internal guidelines on an external author and publisher. A sufficient source has been provided; the burden is on Zargulon to provide a better source before disturbing the article any further (unless he/she wants to edit to make the article more closely follow one of the sources provided).
As for not needing Ryan, we don't need him to establish that AD is not an abbreviation for After Death, but we do need him, or a source like him, to establish that enough people entertain this misguided idea that the idea is worthy of mention. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP:WEASEL only applies to what Wikipedia editors write" is not true, at least not in the way you mean. WP:WEASEL applies to article content, whether it is original text of editors or indirect quotation (X says that ..). The only thing it doesn't apply to is direct quotation (X said "..."). WP:WEASEL is like any other style guideline in that regard. I would sooner see the whole paragraph removed since I think it reads poorly, has the air of an urban legend, and is completely peripheral to the article. It is particularly strange to find it in such a prominent position. Zargulon (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan is right. If he were wrong, we wouldn't have all these IP editors coming along trying to insert "AD means After Death" into the article. So, what is your positon?
  • Ryan is wrong, hardly anybody really thinks AD means After Death.
  • Ryan is right, but he isn't competent to write what he wrote, and we should ignore him because his book isn't a reliable source on this topic.
  • Ryan is right, his finding should be in the article, but his finding should be expressed in a way that follows WP:WEASEL. If so, how should it be expressed?
  • Something else. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than giving me multiple choice, why can't you just read what I wrote? You talk about Ryan's "finding" as though his words carry some scientific authority. Do they? Do you know what Ryan's background is, or his book's background? If you don't care about that, but only about whether he is "right" or "wrong", then my friendly advice is that Wikipedia will not provide you with much enjoyment and you should probably quit. I personally don't know who Ryan is, or whether Ryan's book is of fact, religion or entertainment. The only clue I have is his writing style from the above quotation, which being WP:WEASEL is not that of a serious author writing for adults from the standpoint of authority. Zargulon (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I have added another source, this time a web page of an English professor who published a book (based on his web site) that is specifically about common errors in English. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self published webpages probably don't meet reliable source guidelines, not that it matters; the sentence we are talking about in the article is just as WP:WEASEL as ever. Why don't you refer to some sources that actually make the mistake and state that A.D. stands for "After Death"? According to Ryan, there should be "many" such sources. According to your English professor, they should be "common". It shouldn't be too hard for you to find then! Zargulon (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • JimWae, your source says about himself "I do not hold a graduate degree in English, literature or other discipline. I merely find language fun and can't seem to restrain myself from sharing my weekly discoveries." This is a work of entertainment. That is probably why even his title is WP:WEASEL. Zargulon (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zargulon is standing WP:Reliable sources on its head. First of all, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So the web site should be OK. Second, the issue is not if one or two examples of misuse can be found, the issue is whether it is widespread enough to mention in the article. Since readers have no idea whether Wikipedia editors have read enough material in the subject area to judge what is commonplace and what isn't, a reliable source must be used to establish that. Furthermore, the issue isn't whether the misconception is commonplace in reliable publications (which would be the only things I could cite) but whether it is commonplace in general society. Ryan does not say how he determined it is commonplace, but it is reasonable to surmise that the English professor would have encountered it in the course of teaching, or whatever research he did in the breeding grounds of common English usage errors. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jc3s5h, you are the only one standing on your head. Every edit and post I have made has referred to WP:WEASEL, but you keep banging on about reliable sources. WP:WEASEL deals with subjective language, which compromises reliability even when the authors are qualified on the topic. The reason is that one person's "many" is another person's "some" or few", and one person's "sometimes" is another person's "commonly", "often" or "rarely". You shouldn't have taken away my 'who' and 'when' templates, they were completely in order. Zargulon (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEASEL explicitly states "The key to improving articles containing weasel words is ... to name a source for the opinion (i.e., attribution)", hence weasel words are permitted if their source is identified (three sources are given here), especially "when contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one". Here "AD means After Death" is the minority opinion. — Joe Kress (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoeKress, the key word you missed was "opinion". The weasel words in question in this article are being presented as fact corroborated by the sources, rather than opinion attributed to the sources (which, as you point out, would be acceptable according to WP:WEASEL). So the templates should go back until this is resolved. Zargulon (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we can say something like "'AD' is not an abbreviation for 'After Death', because if it were, there would be a name for the period before the Jesus's incarnation, (BC), a name for the period after he died, but no name for the period when he lived. Three commentators have observed this is a common misconception. [references]" Would that meet with your approval? --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing "observed" to "reported" is fine. However, dropping "common" is wrong. We don't need the three sources to say it is a misconception, we know that through thousands of sources that clearly define what AD means. The sources are being used to show that the misconception is common. If you won't accept this, then it would seem it is out-of-bounds for Wikipedia to ever call attention to a common misconception. What, if any, type of source would you accept to show that a misconception is common? --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the Grand Central quote is WP:WEASEL - why don't you go fix it? Why are you talking about it on Talk:Anno Domini? What you wrote, suggesting that the three sources say it is common, is incorrect. Ryan doesn't say it is common, he says "many people think it". The third source presumably says something different again. What you suggested writing, "Three sources observe/report that it is a common misconception" is simply untrue. I suggest you use my alternative as a simple and uncontroversial way of summarizing the authors' statements without using subjective language. Zargulon (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is wrong to say "'AD' is not an abbreviation for 'After Death', because if it were, there would be a name for the period before the Jesus's incarnation, (BC), a name for the period after he died, but no name for the period when he lived. Three commentators sources have reported this is a misconception. [references]" The problem is that saying something is a misconception might be interpreted as being synonymous with saying it is wrong, with no implication at all about whether, or to what extent, people actually believe the misconception. If a reader interprets it that way, the reader will regard the statement as redundant, and think we couldn't find any better source than three commentators to confirm that AD actually stands for Anno Domini.
gotQuestions.org wrote "it is commonly thought...". Ryan wrote "Many people think...." Brians wrote "...as many people suppose." The article says "it is sometimes incorrectly concluded...." The article's phrasing is a fair paraphrase of the sources. So is my proposed "common misconception". I see no difference between saying something is a common misconception and saying may people think or suppose the misconception. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinions but they are facile, ignorant and against well-established Wikipedia guidelines. Please restore the templates which you expunged in a fit of self-importance. Zargulon (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zargalon has a intriguing stand on this whole WP:Weasel guideline, but I'm not sure its tenable in the current evolution of this encyclopedia or documented human knowledge on the whole. Mostly wikipedia guidelines are interpreted to guide the style of writing on wikipedia, describing a world outside of wikipedia, and to a big extent outside of the internet, or the written word in general. Just like style guidelines at a newspaper apply to the newspaper articles - often dealing with imperfect sources. This new approach would apply wikipedia guidelines to all external source information, it would seem to limit to only the more rigorously peer reviewed, and exclude a world of imperfect writings, speeches, documents. Unfortunately, this effort to wipe out all content or quotes that contained weasel words could decimate half the reliable sources on wikipedia. I just don't think the bounds of human communication are ready for this new standard of applying wikipedia guidelines in all of our writings and communication.Cander0000 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR 1 template

I request that User:Swungpoke justify the addition of the OR 1 template. The article contains extensive citations. Unless a more specific complaint is registered I will remove the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no explanation has been provided, I have removed the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Julius Africanus be Credited?

According to Diarmaid McCulloch's new book "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years", Julius Africanus was the first to date the "Year of the Lord" and his work became embedded in the work of later scholars. Quote from the book: "...this calculation became embedded in the work of later historians, such as the sixth-century Dionysius Exiguus ('the short'), who has often wrongly stolen credit from Julius for fixing the first Year of the Lord (annus Domini)" (McCulloch, 82).

This is my first comment, so before I made any edits to the article I wanted to check with those who have been active in editing and maintaining it. It seems that at least some credit is due to Julius Africanus for the work he did in dating annus Domini and the influence he had on Dionysius and others.

--Mattdv (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Matt DeVries[reply]

The surviving relevant material from Dionysius Exiguus is sparse and contaminated with additions from scribes. Thus it is hard to decide whether Dionysius took an idea from Julius Africanus or reinvented it. My recollection is that Julius Africanus would not have assigned exactly the same number to a given year as Dionysius, which would favor the reinvention idea. Also, modern ideas about plagiarism did not necessarily exist in the 6th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems sensible to me to include the calculations of JA, if there are citations. We can't say that DE's calculations were independent or not [though I suppose that we could say that we can't say, if there is a citation for that]. But the basis for AD is on the work of DE, and thus JA's calculation is an interesting aside, no more. --Red King (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a significant number of people numbered years from the birth or conception of Jesus, as calculated by JA, then it might be worth mentioning in this article. If not, I think any mention of the calculation belongs in another article, such as Chronology of Jesus, Nativity of Jesus, or Incarnation (Christianity). Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. What I thought worth including is that DE's calculation is not the only one but, as you say, there is a risk of getting bogged down in material that belongs in other articles. If material is included, it needs to be very limited. --Red King (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any reference should be light. I am trying to find out if there is more evidence as to the degree that DE may have been influenced by JA. I found an article that looks promising, but haven't gotten a copy yet. --Mattdv (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found three Christian eras in use during during the 5th century, the century immediately before Dionysius Exiguus, but none during the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries, including none by Africanus. During the latter three centuries, only world eras (anno mundi) were used, even though all Christian writers during that period deduced years for Christ's Incarnation/Nativity and/or his Crucifixion/Resurrection. Among the sources I consulted were: (1) Georges Declercq, "Dionysius Exiguus and the introduction of the Christian Era", Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002) 165–246; and (2) George Ogg, Hippolytus and the introduction of the Christian era, Vigiliae Christianae, 16 (1962) 2–18. Declercq has the best discussion (pages 209–210), but does not mention Africanus.
Declercq mentions two eras from the Crucifixion/Resurrection: Prosper of Aquitaine (455) began his Passion era in AD 29, while Victorius of Aquitaine (457) began his Passion era in AD 28. Declercq also mentions Annianus (c. 412) who began his Incarnation era in AD 9. It was always used alongside the Alexandrian world era, whose year 1 was 5492 BC, also invented by Annianus and used by many Byzantine chronologists. The first known use of Annianus' Incarnation era was during the middle of the sixth century by Cyril of Scythopolis. It is still used as the Incarnation era of the Ethiopian calendar. Ogg concludes that Hippolytus neither invented a Christian era himself, nor did anyone else base their Christian era on dates given by Hippolytus.
Declercq concludes:
In this context, the invention of our Christian era by the Scythian (and thus eastern) monk Dionysius Exiguus in AD 525 appears to be less of a novelty than is generally thought. His innovation was therefore not so much the use of a Christian era, not even the calculation of a new date for the incarnation of Christ, but rather the introduction in the West of the incarnation as the starting-point of the Christian era, instead of the Passion which western chronographers and computists had preferred until then.
Much of this is already in the article under Other eras. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Controversy section

Suddenly, there is no controversy over the use of A.D. But these sources imply there is one:

Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anno_Domini&diff=359264526&oldid=358943843 Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC) What if I restore the "Controversy" section without repeating the CE information? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be a controversy section. The Common Era section can include mention that there is some controversy--JimWae (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinity University controversy goes beyond usage of "AD" and the CE/AD controversy in that at Trinity the full translation "in the year of the/our Lord" is used.--JimWae (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to ReligiousTolerance.org, there is a controversy about even using A.D. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more references to back up the assertion that there is a controversy over using the BC/AD dating system. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course a controversy exists - and now I see you have already re-added a controversy section. The Trinity issue could be added there (as that is not about Common Era). You weren't thinking of removing things from the Common Era section though, were you? The refs should relate to the sentence they follow - the ref immediately after "Attempts to use secular year designations have also stirred debate" does not relate to that debate. Put refs at end of (sometimes even within) relevant sentences - not at end of paragraph JimWae (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports. If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References#Inline_citations Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the paragraph were all on the same "side", that might be reasonable here. As it stands, the refs are just a jumble & one cannot quickly tell which sentence each supports.--JimWae (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Attempts to use secular year designations have also stirred debate" (and its refs) are about Common Era - and can go in that section--JimWae (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trinity U controversy is NOT about "basing the world's dating system on the life of Jesus". The objection is not to putting 2010 on the diploma - It is specifically about "in the year of our Lord"--JimWae (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll edit that line to address your concerns and mention "year of our Lord". Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 30 does not go to cited reference, and cannot be confirmed. Please find new source or delete. Ref 31 does not indicate sentiment in article!! Controversy section isn't needed of course. Any reference to discord should be placed within rest of article (there's plenty of room!)98.249.185.122 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out the link in Ref 30, per WP:DEADREF. However, the link is still verifiable by obtaining a paper or microfilm copy of the paper, so the reference is still valid.
Ref 31 does support the concept that Anno Domini is a relic of Western imperialism, although it does not necessarily support the rest of the paragraph. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

This edit on 2004-JAN-19 seems to be the first to introduce date format to this article. It used "January 1" (month-day). --JimWae (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at what seemed to be the majority date format of the current article. I also note that I can't find any words that would have different spelling in the US vs. the UK, so making the date format and spelling agree is not an issue. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, it is first-usage, not majority, that determines which format the article is to carry.--JimWae (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so. WP:MOSNUM states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." The first format would be resorted to in case no one format predominated.
This is a sound guideline, because there could have been a consensus on the talk page to change to a particular date format, but that consensus would probably be missed if one just searches for the first version with a date. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one archive + this current page. This is the only section I could find that even mentions date format--JimWae (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current guideline says if the article has evolved using a certain format, continue to use it. The present version of the guideline says not to change from the style used by the first major contributor, or if he/she didn't use any dates, the first contribution to use a date after the article is no longer a stub. However, that isn't what the guideline always said. If you want to justify a change, you would have to find when the day month year style was introduced, and what the guideline said at that time. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2008-DEC-31 March 25 appeared also as 25 March - but still wikified. This 2009-MAR-31 edit seems to have initiated an incomplete change to DMY, after which both MDY and YMD appear until 2010-MAY-04, when it made consistently DMY - changing 11 MDYs to DMYs. I see no discussion.--JimWae (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Century start date

In recent edits, Ec.Dommowall has amended the text to claim that non-experts think that centuries begin with the years ending in 00, and millennia begin in years ending in 000, "except for the first century and the first millennium (beginning with year 1 AD)." I am reluctant to believe this. It seems to me that non-experts who think centuries begin in years 00 have not thought about what year the first century began.

I suspect one could find people who make a reasoned argument that centuries begin in years ending in 00, but these people would argue the first century began in the year 1 BC. Since it isn't clear when Dionysius intended to place the incarnation, nor is it clear what date Dionysius used as the beginning of the new year, a variety of arguments could be made, just so long as there aren't any centuries that are 99 years long.

The burden is on Ec.Domnowall to supply citations to show that the same non-experts who think the 3rd millennium began in 2000 also think the first millennium began in 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium bug, for example? Or newspaper comment referring to people who wanted to wait another year as pedants and boring old farts. EcD is right, but seriously– is it worth the space in an already long article? --Red King (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red King, you miss the point. Sure, there are people who think the third millennium started in 2000. So what would those people say if you asked them when the third millennium started? 0? 1? 1 BC? Would they say they didn't know? No source with an answer to these questions has been provided, so it is wrong for the article to state that they would answer 1.
Since the name of centuries and millennia is connected to the year numbering system, it should be addressed to some degree. Perhaps it is enough to point out the view of most reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right to say that people talking of 000-millennia have not thought about the first year of Anno Domini. That's precisely why they have no problem using two different rules: they don't really care. People don't look for difficulties: they consider that millennia begin in 1000, 2000 etc because it is simple and easy, and at the same time they count years of the common era from 1 AD because we all count "one" "two" "three" etc (and because a year 0 has been created late and is seldom used). They don't realise that they have a different reasoning pattern for each case. The result is a de facto rule where people are wrong for millennia and right for year 1. It is not logical but it is always so. Even you probably answered that way in the beginning, before you took interest in these matters.
In short, since everybody starts Anno Domini with year 1, all those who prefer to begin millennia with 000-years necessarily make an exception for the first millenium. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ec.Domnowall's reasoning seems plausible, but I don't know of any reliable source to support this reasoning. To be sure if this is actually the case, one would have to conduct a public opinion poll, or sort through a substantial number of letters to editors of various publications. That would be original research, which is fine if it appears in a reliable source, but not acceptable if done by a Wikipedia editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anno Domini

It may be a good idea to let people know what 'Anno Domini' really means, which is 'Continual Dominion'; I assume it is referring to the dominion of the papacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If that was the case, then you'd be right. Unfortunately it is not, and you, therefore, aren't. Anno, from annus, year, and Domini (from dominius, lord) mean, in nearest translation, in the year of our Lord. It has nothing to do with continual (jugis being the closest Latin equivalent)and only tangentially related to dominance, in that the root of dominion in English is related to the same root. However, the closer Latin word would be principatus.Jbower47 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit undone for several issues

I have undone this edit due to several issues, including:

  • use of AD after year is not necessarily due to ignorance; it may be to provide neatly aligned columns in a table
  • The Chicago manual says AD after year was formerly rejected by conservatives; a new source would have to be cited to say that usage is currently rejected by conservatives
  • A bacronym is often correct to the extent that the meaning of invented phrase actually corresponds to the meaning of the short word or letters. The Bacronym article uses the example of the invented phrase " Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration" for APGAR. The phrase is correct to the extent that those signs are indeed used in computing the Apgar score, although the name of the score refers to its inventor; it was not originally an acronym. It is inadvisable to refer to "After Death" as a bacronym, in part because labeling it as a backronym does not tell readers it is wrong, and also because it isn't widely used enough to be a backronym. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Anno Domini → Christian Era — I know many will probably be urged to oppose such a move because BCE/CE are sometimes used to indicate Christian Era, but here are a few reasons I think it should be moved: (A) it would make this article more analogous to Common Era, reducing confusion and making any comparisons of the two easier, (B) this article describes the Before Christ notation as much as the Anno Domini notation, so naming the article after only one of these notations is misleading and insufficient, while using the name "Christian Era" encompasses both terms, and (C) the term "Christian Era" is already widely notable, and not only as a backronym for the BCE/CE notation as some may think, but often as a proper namesake for the AD/BC era without any mentioning of the BCE/CE notation.

In addition to these three reasons, the move would allow us to add a paragraph to the intro that could link to and explain Common Era, while also stating that the terms "BCE" and "CE"—though used primarily to indicate "Common Era"—are also used to mean "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era". Thoughts?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This was discussed earlier at Talk:Anno Domini/Archive 2#Move this page to Christian Era?. Christian era is not specific enough to cover the many Christian eras that have been used and have their own Wikipedia articles, including the many Anno Mundi eras used during the first millennium by Christian chronographers, especially the Alexandrian era used in the early Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine era used in the later Byzantine Empire and Russia, the Spanish era used by Spain and Portugal until the Middle Ages, the Era of Martyrs now used by the Coptic Church, as well as the Era of Incarnation now used in the Ethiopian calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But are there any reliable sources that indicate the general term "Christian Era" as meaning anything other than the AD/BC era (or BCE/CE notation)? I think it's pretty clear that Exiguus' era is the primary topic for the term "Christian Era", especially seeing that Christian Era already redirects here. — CIS (talk | stalk) 02:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons spelled out by Joe Kress. A person who is searching for the title of an article does not necessarily know if it is a generic descriptive term, or a specific title for a particular thing among many similar things. So even if, when used as a title of a year numbering system, "Christian era" always refers to "Anno domini", the person who has not yet found the article cannot be expected to know it isn't a generic term. Also, as much as possible, I think the lead should be written so it makes sense to someone who has arrived here by choosing any of the redirected titles; the closer we come to that goal, the less it matters which title is the main title and which are redirects. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anno_Domini&oldid=407414661"