Talk:Anno Domini/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move in unison with Common Era move

Further information: Talk:Common Era § Requested move in unison with Anno Domini move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per outcome of Talk:Common Era#Requested move in unison with Anno Domini move. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Anno Domini → AD, BC, CE and BCE (or Gregorian and Julian calendar era notations) – a move in unison with sister article Common Era to Gregorian and Julian calendar era or Dionysius Exiguus' calendar era to change the focus of both articles. The article that is now Anno Domini would focus on the abbreviations, while the article that is now Common Era would focus on the era and link to the article about the abbreviations that are used (AD, BC, CE and BCE) to suffix the years after or prior to the era's epoch.

I don't see how we can determine from any reliable sources that "Common Era" is more popularly interpreted as the definition for the "CE" abbreviation than Current Era, or especially Christian Era, which, per sources, came about prior to 'Common Era'. It seems that Wikipedia itself is contributing to external sources' claims that CE is foremost meant as "Common Era", I don't see that claim being made in any reliable sources prior to the existence of this article under the title Common Era, and any recently-increased popularity of "Common" can be attributed to the name choice here on Wikipedia.

Can anyone provide an argument for why the abbreviations themselves (AD/BC and CE/BCE) should have separate articles both trying to summarize the era itself when they are all just abbreviations for the same era? It is redundant to have two full articles focusing on the same era, with the only difference being the semantics of the abbreviations used. This is certainly a convoluted and controversial issue, but the current title locations of Common Era and Anno Domini are too insufficient and biased in my view — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Common Era so the discussion does not become fragmented. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if this is a multimove request,it should use the multimove format. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

There's so much to fix with recent massive change

Re: "Because BC is the English abbreviation for Before Christ, English usage has copied Latin usage by placing the abbreviation before the year number for AD,[5] while BC is placed after the year number (for example: 68 BC, but AD 2011)."

• What does the "because" have to do with the rest of the sentence?

Re:"The Anno Domini or Dionysian era (also Christian era) is the calendar era traditionally based on the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but today used worldwide as a secular standard for numbering years in both the Julian and Gregorian calendars."

• Read this as "The Anno Domini is the calendar era traditionally based on the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but today used worldwide as a secular standard..."
• What kind of English syntax is "The Anno Domini is the calendar era..."?
• What is the "but" there for?
• What makes it a "secular standard" and where is the sourcing for that?
• what does "traditionally based on" mean? It WAS based on an estimate

Re:"The abbreviation AD (or A.D., alternatively CE for "Common Era") counts the years after the start of this epoch..

• Abbreviations do not count years!!

These are the problems I see after just a very quick read of the diff for just the lede. I recommend, per WP:BRD that all recent changes be reverted so that all the other probable problems buried in the massive change get addressed--JimWae (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Then have a look at the flawed or nonsensical points you have just restored, shall we. "sometimes found in the form Anno Domine"? I ask you. "After Death" is a "common misconception" according to "gotquestions.org"? WP:DUE? WP:LEAD? WP:RS?

You are right that my recent change did not remove all issues with the current lead section. That's probably because I attempted to salvage some of it. I respect your revert and will now try a more radical approach of removing bad stuff instead of half-assed attempts at salvaging it. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I think is wrong with the content distribution between Anno Domini and Common Era: The whole thing is taken hostage by the debate on abbreviations AD/BC vs. CE/BCE so that people tend to ignore the fact that this is supposed to be about a calendar era, not just about abbreviations used to designate it.

The era is known as "Common Era", "Vulgar Era" and "Christian Era". The abbreviations used are AD/BC and CE/BCE. It is was perfectly mainstream throughout the 18th, the 19th and most of the 20th century to call it the "Common Era" and still abbreviate it as AD as a matter of course. Only with the braindead discussion on political correctness in Latin abbreviations did using the term "Common Era" become suggestive of being a supporter of using the "secularized" abbreviation "CE". Basically, I am saying that this article is supposed to be about the calendar era known as the "Christian" or the "Common Era". The article called Common Era, otoh, is about the proposal to use the abbreviation CE, pushed in political correctness since ca. 1980. I hope I have made clear how this is a problem of article titles that spills over into article content, because editors become confused on what the article is supposed to discuss.

I endorse having a sub-article dedicated to the political correctness question, but I dispute that this sub-article should properly be called "Common Era". What I think should be done is that the article on the era should be redirected to by both Common Era and Christian Era, while the abbreviation thing currently under Common Era should get a title like "CE vs. AD controversy" or "CE/BCE vs. AD/BC debate" or something, and be placed in Category:Abbreviations and Category:Controversies, because it addresses abbreviations and a controversy, not a separate calendar era.

Whatever we do, the fact that Common Era and Christian Era redirect to two separate pages at the moment while they are perfect synonyms is a blatant problem in view of WP:CFORK. There should be only one article per topic, and a calendar era is one topic. A debate about some point or other on this era may be a second topic, but this doesn't allow us to split articles along the lines of preferred synonyms. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Common Era" is defined in the 3rd edition of the American Heritage Dictionary as "Abbr. C.E. The period coinciding with the Christian era." So they don't call it a synonym, they just say it is the same time period.

I don't share your experience with "Common Era" being used as a synonym for "Christian Era" in the mid to late 20th century. The only use I've seen it, other than forums discussing that and related terms, is in footnotes explaining what the abbreviation C.E. or B.C.E. mean.

Also, the claim that "After Death" is a common error is supported by a reliable source, although the citation to gotquestions.org is superfluous. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My history professor at Temple University, University of Chicago Ph. D. (on India during the 16th century, I believe, with in-country field work (of course)) and single author of a college-level text on World History, claimed the standard had changed at the academic level in the secular world to BCE & CE. I think the current state of affairs is naturally off-putting to people with serious reservations about Christianity. The change would improve wikipedia.Julzes (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Julzes' comment is in the wrong talk page. This talk page is about the article Anno Domini. The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is about writing dates in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New centuries and millennia based on astronomical rather than traditional dating

"In the AD year numbering system, whether applied to the Julian or Gregorian calendars, AD 1 is preceded by 1 BC. There is no year "0" between them. Because of this, most experts agree that a new century begins in a year with the last digits being "01" (1801, 1901, 2001); new millennia likewise began in 1001 and 2001. A common misconception is that centuries and millennia begin when the trailing digits are zeroes (1800, 1900, 2000, etc.);[1] moreover, this convention was widely used to celebrate the new millennium in the year 2000. For computational reasons astronomers and the ISO 8601 standard use a time scale (astronomical year numbering) in which AD 1 = year 1, 1 BC = year 0, 2 BC = year −1, etc.[27]" So, it's not really a misconception that 1 January 2000 was the 1st day of the 3rd Millennium. Rather, it's a derivative of the astronomical scheme already mentioned at the end of that paragraph. Shouldn't this be clarified? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, there#'s quite enough there and those are not what people use in general. However there is a small error there in that ISO 8601 uses the proleptic Gregorian calendar so its January 1 would be different. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Different people group years into centuries and millennia for different purposes. If the purpose is to have a party, it has more to do with the would-be party-goer's mood than formal definitions. If celebrating the birth or incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, there is considerable uncertainty about the date. Given the different motivations, there is no hope of clarification. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I was talking about clarification in the Article, not in real life. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a misconception, the wording should be changed.

I have brought this subject up somewhat in trying an edit of the article century. We could look at the current de facto situation in common use as a convention that the 1st century (both directions) actually has only 99 years. This is not clear, however. Scientifically-minded people will sometimes scoff at years ending with 00 being popularly, but incorrectly, conceived to be beginnings of centuries; and sometimes other scientifically-minded people will say the popular approach is actually, for all intents and purposes, correct. One would have to do careful research to determine which convention is preferable according to some kind of balance, but one rather bizarre way to settle the issue is by noting that the final 21 digits of 99⁹⁹ form a prime with 12 nines in it (999779999159200499899), and if you remove the 9s to leave 9 digits, change the rightmost of these--an isolated 8--to a 3 (chopping off the left half of the rightmost, taking its base-2 logarithm or substituting 9 under a radical sign), and add the four parts (77+15+2004+3) you get 2099. It seems 2099 would just make a better last year of our century than 2nd to last to me, but then again it is the 22nd century after ours.Julzes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC){Edit fix} Additionally, 2099 is the 317th prime, 317 is the 66th, the two parts 77+15 and 2004+8 (our year now) are 4 times the 9th prime and 4 times the 96th, and the middle 7 digits of the 191-digit 96⁹⁶ are preceded by the 317 just referenced and are 5555545.Julzes (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical birth date of Jesus

This section is quite a hash. It doesn't even mention that the traditional view is that Jesus was born in 2 BC, which would suggest Dionysius miscalculated by one year. The various modern theories regarding the date of birth have nothing to do with the calendar era. Kauffner (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for the "traditional view"? Also, whether Dionysius Exiguus set the beginning of his era on the date he intended is clearly relevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tertullian writes that Jesus was born, "in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus," and 28 years after the death of Cleopatra.[1] Augustus became consul in 43 BC. Cleopatra died in 30 BC. Luke writes that Jesus was "about thirty years of age" in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," which also works out to a birth year of 2 BC.[2] The theory that Herod died in 4 BC is based on the schedule of lunar eclipses, which wasn't worked out until the 19th century. Here is a secondary source from Google Books, suitable for use as a reference in the article. Kauffner (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That Google book link does not work for me. The article explains that the main discussion of when Jesus was born are described at "Nativity of Jesus" and "Chronology of Jesus". I would suggest examining those articles. If they are in good shape, use what they say. If not, fix them first then transpose the improvement here.

Also, "Historical birth date of Jesus" is probably a poor section title. Dionysius Exiguus intended to commemorate the incarnation of Jesus. Incarnation versus birth is at the heart of the modern abortion conflict. Many abortion opponents, including the Roman Catholic Church, contend that a person's soul is created at conception, not birth. It is unknown whether Dionysius Exiguus intended to commemorate the conception or birth of Jesus. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears this section is intended to access how accurately Dionysius established the date of the event he intended to commemorate. When competent modern writers establish an era, they write something like "4713 B.C. January 1, Greenwich noon" (see glossary of the Astronomical Almanac, term "Julian date"). Dionysius didn't do this of course; we can tell that his year AD 1 corresponds to Diocletian era year 248 because he includes an older table that ends in Diocletian 247 and his table starts with AD 532. We're not sure what date he was using for the beginning of the year, whether he thought the Incarnation was 25 March, 25 December, or something else, and whether he though the Incarnation was in 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1. We also don't know if he intended to commemorate the Annunciation or the Nativity of Jesus. We don't know if these distinctions were even present in the back of Dionysus's mind, or if they were recorded but lost.

The next problem is the many arguments, ancient and modern, as to when Jesus was actually conceived and born.

So perhaps the section should be rewritten to outline the difficulties in some kind of reasonable order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A slight correction: 532 years earlier than AD 532 is 0 or 1 BC, not AD 1. Bede discusses this in chapter 47 of Bede: The reckoning of time (Faith Wallis' translation) page 126. Bede notes that this places the Incarnation in the second year of the cycle, which Wallis notes is AD 1. However, to arrive at our 1 BC Bede uses knowledge that the Paschal cycle was 532 years. But Charles W. Jones argues that Dionysius did not know about that cycle; Dionysius only states that neither 19 yeays nor 95 years were Easter cycles, he never mentions 532 years. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept the correction, but a new section is needed to explain why. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are solid arguments for the plausibility of Jesus being a totally constructed individual (a non-person), such as the absolute lack of documentation during his presumed lifetime and his being a construct being consistent with certain strains within the Judaism of the time; and I don't see this section as having an editorial point at all anyway. The talkpages are by and large supposed to be about editing the articles. There is no year 0, though, I will point out. That much is settled. No year according to our common calendar between 1BC/BCE and 1AD/CE.Julzes (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I should remark that I don't actually support this view. I am neutral as neither argument is obviously right, but it is out there in scholarly circles.Julzes (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The question of Jesus's existence as a person (or entity beyond mythology), that is. I was being a bit unclear. Also, I am mistaken in saying there is no year 0. There is none in the Gregorian calendar, but the astronomical dating systems identify their year 0 with 1 BC (or BCE (or YG by my own construction elsewhere on this page)).Julzes (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dionysius' date of Incarnation

There is doubt what day of the year Dionysius thought the Incarnation occurred, 25 March (Annunciation), 25 December (Nativity), or some other date. I will refer to Incarnation as the date Dionysius intended to commemorate, whatever day of the year it was.

As alluded to above, not only is there doubt about whether Dionysius' estimate of the Incarnation was correct, but what year Dionysius intended to place the event he was commemorating. Blackburn and Holford-Stevens present arguments for 2 BC and AD 1 on pages 778–9. I'll give my version of their arguments below.

2 BC
The first Easter in Dionysius' table was in 532. B. & H-S suggest Dionysius argumenta (calendrical rules) make September, not January, the beginning of the year. He may have "counted in elapsed, not current years", so "the first year year after the incarnation ran from 1 September 1 BC to 31 August AD 1". If the Incarnation was the the Nativity, it would have been 25 December 2 BC.

1 BC
Bede argues, based on Jesus having lived about 33 years and Bede's belief that the crucifixion was in AD 34, that the Nativity was in 1 BC. But Bede does not claim this was the date intended by Dionysius.

AD 1
Bede supposed Dionysius to have placed the Incarnation in a year with indiction 4, concurrent 5 (that is, 24 March, a Thursday), epact 11, and year 2 of the 19 year cycle. These characteristics apply to AD 533. When Easter is computed according to Dionysius' rules, the cycle repeats after 532 years; AD 533 - 532 = 1 AD. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

B.C is also noted as Before Christ's Death, while A.D stood for After the Death of Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.192.131 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation to English

Should "Anno domini" not be translated to English in this article? I find the lack of an explanation for the emergence of a Latin term used to this day to describe the current era perplexing. ◦Cup o' Java (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The term is widely used in its Latin form. It is not Wikipedia's role to advocate language reform by translating Latin words into English when the general public typically does not do so. There is a long list of other Latin phrases that have been adopted into English in their original form. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is. See the introductory paragraph. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

The statement: "AD after year was formerly rejected by conservatives" is incorrect. The Chicago Manual section 8.42 (14th Ed) only refers to the expression "the second century A.D.", NOT to dates. Section 8.41 explicitly states: "Note that the abbreviations A.D. and A.H. properly precede the year number whereas others follow it." I propose the following:'

Common style standards hold "that the abbreviations A.D. and A.H. properly precede the year number whereas others follow it." Though formerly rejected, most now accept use in locutions such as "the second century A.D."' DLH (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole summary section has become verbose and disjointed. It needs to be compacted with most detailed material moved down to a subsection. The "after death" discussion is insignificant is NOT appropriate for the summary. It should be relegated to a minor subsection.DLH (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Restored After Death refutation

One of the many changes made by Dbachmann recently was removal of the After Death refutation. I have restored this. My reasoning is that I have watched this article for a few years, and one of the most frequent edits I see is editors (usually IP) who insert a statement that "AD" means After Death. Whether the editors are vandals or just ignorant hardly matters, the correction must still be made, and reliable sources to justify the correction are needed. I presume that any one else outside Wikipedia who deals with calendar issues must frequently encounter this error, and by providing a reliable source refuting the claim, we make it easier for our readers to refute the claim in whatever setting they encounter the error. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The "after death" discussion is insignificant is NOT appropriate for the summary. It should be relegated to a minor subsection. I read widely and have never seen this error before.DLH (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen the error either in publications by genuine publishers. But it seems to be a common error in writing by individuals who are not supervised by an editor or other professional writer. Since encyclopedia articles are for the benefit of those who are not already familiar with the topic, it seems legitimate to correct popular misconceptions, even if those misconceptions seldom penetrate into well-written works. As for putting it in a section, there doesn't seem to be any existing section with a suitable title. Creating a separate section just for this statement would take up more space and draw more attention to it than just leaving it in the lead, which doesn't seem to be the direction DLH wants to go in. If, in the future, a section is created about common mistakes related to AD, it could go there, but no such section exists at this time. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a non-user comment

I see that in this bit after the Birthdate of Jesus, it says

The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great[Luke 1:5]

Luke 1:5 is about John the baptists conception, not Jesus'. Why is that included as a reference? 115.64.12.44 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the reference to show the range of verses is 5 through 38. Verses 5 through 25 indicate Elizabeth became pregnant during the reign of Herod. Verse 26 through 38 indicate Mary conceived in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For an easier understanding

For newcomers, this sentence might be included: AD is AFTER Jesus was born and BC is BEFORE Jesus was born.--Movietech 23:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide spread

This article does not address in any detail how or why AD became the dominant system for international communication and commerce. This edit introduced a figure showing that Christianity is the most popular religion, and has a caption that could be interpreted to mean that the popularity of Christianity caused the dominance of AD. In the absence of any other material, the caption will be interpreted that way.

Ideally we would find some good sources that properly address the spread of AD outside of Europe up to and including the mid-20th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the default to CE

Most recent historians use CE as a prefix instead of AD. I feel that Wikipedia should follow the same system to keep up with the times. Chetanaik (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia writing style with respect to indicating whether a year falls before or after what Dionysius Exiguus believed to be the Incarnation (Christianity) is covered at WP:ERA. Any discussion of changing the current guidance should be taken to WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. This old version of the page shows the most recent discussion on this topic that I can find; many such proposals have come and gone with no change in the guidance. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is correct! Most recent historians use CE (and BCE). This will improve the Editorship class of wikipedia somewhat, don't you think?Julzes (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. If you choose to annotate things using the Christian calendar, then AD should be the default. CE and BCE are and affront to the people whose calendar you're using. Use another calendar if you don't want to use the proper notation. --TopherKRock (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Intentional Obfuscation

Since both "AD" and "CE" use the same arbitrary time point, (2011+ years ago at this time) changing it from "AD" to "CE" serves no greater purpose other than to apparently 'stick it in the eye' of those whom have a belief system that stems from this time point. Honestly, changing it, or advocating it is more a form of being antagonistic at some level with those that do have 'religion'. There is something to be said for retaining the dating nomenclature that has been in consistent use over that of what amounts to a passing fad. Generally redacting information to conform or having conflicting terms serves no greater purpose other than to be confusing for the sake of some apparently hurt feelings. (I would have to believe that the total number of those that are actually offended or put off by the use of AD/BC is a extreme minority (though vocal) in the general population.) Jcforge (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Jcforge. The Gregorian calendar is based on a religious event (i.e., the birth of Jesus Christ). It used "AD" as the mark for years after the birth, and BC for those before. The recent attempts to change this are ridiculous, since so many nations and organizations have now accepted this religious calendar for use. To replace AD with CE is nothing more than ignorance, pretending that the calendar has nothing to do with Christianity. Deejaye6 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTSOAP--JimWae (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, much of modern academia is militantly opposed to Western traditions, and take great pleasure in trying to offend people who care about such. 07:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.195.154 (talk)

The use of BCE and CE is consistent with having a common calendar used by the whole world, almost, independent of the status of Christianity in different countries. The change, moreover, is not new at all in scholarly circles, so AD would really be a retrograde change. However, there is not consensus of the kind that makes the question totally resolved. Why not a mathematical Frenchism? French for 'year to the right' is 'annee a la droit' (with accents) and for 'year to the left' is 'annee vers la gauche'. If you drop the middle words, you have an alternative to either BC or BCE that is the same length as BC, and the two, AG and AD, are using the first letter for God in the two languages. The alphabetical positions of 'A', 'V', 'L' and 'G' sum to 42 in English, and the other side generates sum of 18, the voting age in the USA with its sum with Douglas Noel Adams's 42 being 60. Seems like a good compromise to me. Then people who want to argue about which phrase is meant by AD can argue all that they want and if AG replaces BC we know who won.Julzes (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I believe using YG and YD is even superior. A capital 'Y' has the appearance of either a fork in a road, the simplest decision point or meeting place (up the page or down); and the sum on the left becomes 5²+7=2⁵ with the sum on the right being the 10th prime and the sum total being 61, the 18th (This is special for more obscure reasons). The Gauche/God and Droit/Dieu makes for a couple of thoughts also (For myself, I am just wondering where earliest in literature left- and right-handednesses are found discussed, and what proto-linguists have on it also; as well as the concept of 'God' being good with 1/4 of the reason how so a mystery, and in English for the other side the interest in how the universe is expected to end and the questions of human mortality/immortality). With context that 'Y' replaces 'A', also, the Led Zeppelin song Stairway to Heaven also comes up, the two-paths and ladder appearances of the letters, though I am not sure this is a universal grounds of appeal.Julzes (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of BCE and CE is appalling. It's like arbitrarily calling the Jewish calendar PCE (Pre-Current Era) or UC (Unused Calendar). --TopherKRock (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is BC in English

Why is BC in English and AD in Latin? Threadnecromancer (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

Latin was popular throughout Europe during the times when this calender was learned (especially in academia), thus the adoption of Anno Domini (AD). It's possible that it wasn't until later times (during the British Empire) that we really became interested in Pre-Christian history, making BC (Before Christ) an English phrase rather than Latin. I hope that helps! --TopherKRock (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Relatedly, though, I was disappointed to not find coverage of common terminology in other languages. I can well imagine that AD might be used in other European languages, but BC? A poke around the corresponding article on the French and German Wikipedias told me that (a) they discuss the terms in their English contexts, making it hard to discern when they're speaking of their own contexts, and (b) that my high school French and gleanings of German are woefully inadequate. -- Perey (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When do we stop using AD/OCE?

I wouldn't write a Wikepedia article saying Agrippina was married in 5 nor one saying that The Battle of Hastings was in 1066 AD/OCE. When is the cut off point for using AD/OCE? AlwynapHuw (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When it is clear from context which era is meant, then it can be omitted. There is no particular year for which this is true. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA doesn't give a clear guideline on this, but I think generally it is understood that AD/CE are usually used for years preceding 1000, especially when not paired with a month and day (which would make it less ambiguous that it refers to a year).Crumpled Fire (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear cutoff point. You wouldn't need it for anything to do with Jesus or Christian events (Councils, etc) for instance. Ah, except for when he was born and related material I guess, as that is thought to be about 4 BCE off the top of my head. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dionysius dating

87.81.147.76 is trying to use WP:CALC for this. WP:CALC is not a source for "This last theory is almost certainly the correct one." " It is the norm for eras to be initialised to commence a calendar cycle. The Muslim era of the Hegira commences not from the date of the event but from the new year nearest. The Jewish calendar is arranged so that, starting from the first year of the cycle, a month is added whenever the discrepancy between the lunar and solar years reaches one month. Its origin, the Creation, is not tied to any calculation of when this might have occurred but to an equinox in the first year of the cycle. The Era of Diocletian and the Martyrs (AD 284) and the Armenian era (AD 552) both begin at the commencement of a cycle, allowing for the fact that 1 January intervenes between the Diocletian New Year and Easter. The arithmetic is as follows: 284 divided by 19 gives remainder 18, but since the Alexandrian year begins on 29 (or 30) August that's equivalent to remainder 19. Remainder 19 or 0 can be considered the first year of the 19 - year cycle. 552 gives remainder 1 - here year 1 is considered the first year of the cycle. Dionysius initialised his cycle in 1 BC (year 0), so here again 0 or 19 is considered the first year of the cycle." is not "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the rule is that given the figures could a normal Wikipedia reader verify them. The position in the Metonic cycle is found by adding 1 to the year, dividing by 19 and taking the remainder. If there is no remainder the year is 19 in the cycle. That information is presumably provided in Metonic cycle. To verify the proposition the reader has to perform a simple division - divide the three epochs, 0, 284 and 552 by 19. I would be very surprised if people like Blueboar would regard performing that calculation as engaging in original research. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"normal Wikipedia reader verify them." Your text is full of unsourced assertions so no, they cannot be verified. And again, WP:CALC cannot be used to source, "This last theory is almost certainly the correct one." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly remove any editorialising as to which theory is most likely to be correct. Apart from that, is there anything else you want me to give attention to - for example the date of the Armenian epoch could easily be referenced to Armenian calendar. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

87.81.147.76 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change. See block log, WP:BMB.

Any assertion which isn't a pure calculation should be sourced. For example, "It is the norm for eras to be initialised to commence a calendar cycle. The Muslim era of the Hegira commences not from the date of the event but from the new year nearest. The Jewish calendar is arranged so that, starting from the first year of the cycle, a month is added whenever the discrepancy between the lunar and solar years reaches one month." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation

Two more citations: TheFreeDictionary even says it is ablative. Dictionary.reference.com agrees that the translation is "in the year of the Lord" where are your citations for "year of Lord"? To me it sounds like WP:OR: we simply don't translate Latin that way; articles are inserted as needed. Elizium23 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes we don't translate latin literally because our grammar is different. It still stands that the literal translation is 'Year of Lord', or if we assume ablative case 'in Year if Lord'(and I'm willing to concede the majority translate it as ablative). Then our interpretation becomes 'in the year of the lord'. It's a pretty minor point, but if we're going to say 'literal translation' I wanted to distinguish the literal as literally as possible, otherwise remove the word 'literal'. It doesn't need citations as common knowledge but as wikipedia says [[3]] the articles were developed in later latin to aid in the translation of greek which did contain articles. Hence later latin gets articles like ille, which are not in this later latin phrase and hence not part of the literal translation. Savvy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devatā (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I guess it doesn't say literal translation, but the phrasing implies it with a 'normal' translation and a 'often translated as'.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite. So I don't see why we should obfuscate the plain meaning of the text with an overly-literal translation that no translator would render. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is to make it clear how we can come up with "IN the year of THE lord" but also come up with "in the year of OUR lord" and the fact that "in A year of God" is also a correct translation. The vaguery of Latin means we will come across different translations. We don't see this phrase only translated in one way and that is explained by the grammatical differences between English and Latin which I tried to point out. Granted literal translation is not popular within the church because those translations already are given the interpretations you're expected to take from the text. I don't think it makes a hugely necessary point, but one that isn't expressed here, and certainly isn't disruptive as to warrant instant reversion.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the proposed reforms section really necessary?

We've had AD with the Julian calendar, AD with the Gregorian calendar, AD with the Revised Julian calendar (some church use), AD with the secret Dee calendar which might be the Protestant world's calendar now were it not for the failure of Queen Elizabeth to colonize any of "God's longitude" (circa Washington, DC) where spring ALWAYS began on the Easterian day of March 21 from 1555 to 3 centuries in their future (seriously).. Using AD or not has nothing to do with what calendar is in use. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the proposals are mainly trying to improve on the Gregorian calendar, and would keep the year numbering about the same. But the Human Era is mainly about changing the year notation, so that should be kept. But if that is the only one kept, it probably doesn't deserve its own section. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, the Human Era is the only one that is an actual calendar era like CE, AD, AH, AM, AUC, BE.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation

So if we suppose that Jesus wasn't actually born probably 4 or 5 years before the sixth century best guess, and if we also suppose that he was actually born on December 25, and if we also suppose that "New Years Day" is January 1 and not some other arbitrary day, then which year is supposed to be "AD 1" ?

Was he born almost at the end of "AD 1", or did "AD 1" start one week after he was born ?Tallewang (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the calendar is accurate, Christ was born on December 25th in 1 B.C. The reason that the "year of our Lord" doesn't begin until eight days later is because the eighth day was the day that our Lord was circumcised and given his name, in accordance with ancient Jewish law. 216.147.234.219 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it the other way around?

The article says:

The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin, which means in the year of the Lord but is often translated as in the year of our Lord. It is occasionally set out more fully as anno Domini nostri Iesu (or Jesu) Christi ("in the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").

But I am pretty sure that it's the other way around. It seems pretty clear that "anno Domini" is just a shortened form of the longer "anno Domini nostri etc." And if that's the case, then the term means "the year of our Lord" but is sometimes less accurately translated as "the year of the Lord". 216.147.234.219 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope.

(a) That passage is unused by the rest of the article and doesn't belong in the lead;

(b) that passage is uncited and doesn't belong in the article at all, until it has some reliable sourcing;

(c) the usage is incredibly minor and does not belong in the lead of a major article like this even once it is cited (WP:UNDUE);

(d) the fuller form—if it does turn out to exist and to predate the terser one—doesn't change the meaning of the terser form: "of our Lord" is still not what AD actually means, howevermuch it may be the preferred styling in English.

 — LlywelynII 01:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Trivial Edit Requests

The article is currently locked for anonymous edits, so I figured we could have a section for people to suggest trivial edits, such as typos and grammatical issues, that don't affect the intended meaning of the content. Not sure if such a section is typical, or will ever be used by anyone else, but here's my suggestion:

The last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead section says: "However, this would mean that the approximate 33 years commonly associated with the life of Jesus would not be included in either of the BC and the AD time scales."

First, the correct word is adverb approximately, since it modifies the number of years (approximately 33), not the years themselves (they aren't approximate years, they're normal years).

Second, I think the latter part of the sentence could be reduced to "either the BC or AD time scale".

I.e., "However, this would mean that the approximately 33 years commonly associated with the life of Jesus would not be included in either the BC or AD time scale."

199.127.114.114 (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Good points. However it seems to me that this entire sentence is irrelevant, and should be deleted, so that the paragraph ends with "it is sometimes incorrectly concluded that AD means After Death, i.e., after the death of Jesus." Any objections? Wdford (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Although there is a citation for this statement, it is a print book which many readers will not have convenient access to. While there is a link to a preview in Google Books, it is hit or miss whether that site will show the page of interest to any particular reader in any particular country. Therefore, I think it is helpful to present a logical reason why the error is obviously an error, for the benefit of readers who can't look at the book. (And yes, the reason stated in this article is also stated in the book.) Jc3s5h (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me add that there used to be a big problem with IP editors coming along and changing the statement to say that AD does stand for after death, and this activity seems to have substantially declined since the logical reason why this interpretation is wrong was added. Does this mean that people who sincerely held this misconception are being convinced by the reason presented? Or does it mean vandals have found something else to vandalize? I don't know, but I'd prefer not to have to keep removing nonsense from the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note on placement of BC and AD

I became curious when I noticed older reference works placing "BC" before the year, but couldn't find anything about it here or in style books. It still makes perfect sense to place the era before the year, so I shrugged it off until today, when I did some digging to find out when the shift in usage occurred. I hoped that the placement might be mentioned in some edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, but couldn't find anything about it. However, I did notice that up to the 6th Edition (1823), in the article on "Chronology", which I consulted in several editions for an answer, it was "B. C. 1322", "B. C. 1740", etc. Subsequent editions place "B. C." after the year. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, first printed in 1849, and other related works that I consult regularly in classical studies, usually places "BC" before the year.

Then I had the bright idea of consulting the Google Books ngram viewer for a statistical guide. For those unfamiliar with it, Google has digitized millions of books published between 1800 and 2000, and can be used to search for strings of letters and numbers. Ngrams are frequently used in Wikipedia and related projects to determine the frequency with which various words and phrases are used. So I searched for these combinations: 50 BC, 50 B.C., 50 B. C., BC 50, B.C. 50, and B. C. 50, and got this ngram, showing that until about 1880, "BC" and its variations were usually placed before the year, and since 1880 usually after, although before remained somewhat common until 1915–1920. I chose "50" as a year likely to appear in a lot of published works, due to its association with Caesar. Performing a similar search for AD 14 (the death of Augustus), I found that AD has been placed after the year fairly commonly throughout the entire period, although always less commonly than before the year.

What I'm not sure about is how precisely to cite this information, which I put in a footnote, since the article is already full of parentheses and digressions. I was about to say that perhaps it wasn't likely to be challenged, since it mentions familiar reference works and can easily be checked just by looking in old books (and it doesn't really matter which ones). However, my note was reverted before I could finish writing this! So I suppose I could use some help tracking down something to cite—assuming merely indicating some sources that say something a particular way isn't good enough. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have two issues with this change.

1. Without seeing images of the sources in question, we don't know if the dates were in running text or tables. We know that tables often arrange things in ways that would be considered unacceptable in running text, and I believe this article is discussing, by implication, running text. Also, nowadays we take it pretty much for granted that a good publication will enforce a uniform style throughout, but I have no idea if that was the case in the 19th century. Perhaps if other articles in the same publications were examined, the result would have been different.
2. No cited modern source has noted this change, so it may not be important enough to mention in this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The second point is easily dealt with; if usage has changed over time, and readers might encounter different practices, it makes sense to note them so that they won't be confused and assume a mistake. Certainly a statement that asserts that "BC" can only come after the year needs to be qualified if just a hundred years ago either position was perfectly acceptable—just as the fact that "AD" is often placed after the year and has been for a very long time, even though before has always been preferred.

The Encyclopædia Britannica, 6th Edition, avoids "B. C." entirely in many articles where you might expect it, writing out "before Christ" in most instances (I noticed "after Christ" in a chronological table), among other expressions; Roman articles often refer to "the year of the city" or similar phrases. In the few instances it does occur, it is found both before and after the year in running text: for instance, "Amasis, king of Egypt, ascended the throne B. C. 569, and commenced his reign with the death of his former master Apries", but "Makeda having established these laws in such a manner as not to be revocable, died in the year 986 B. C."

Within articles the usage is often consistent, presumably because each author used his or her preferred convention, and the editors considered both acceptable. "Argeia", for example, uses "B. C." seven times in running text, all preceding the year; "Antigonus I" and "Antigonus Gonatus", on the same page do it three out of three times. "B. C." comes before the date three times in "Assyria".

On the other hand, in "Astronomy" we find "Eratosthenes, born at Cyrene in 271 B. C. determined the measure of a great circle of the earth by means of a gnomon." Under "Baleares Insulae" we have "they were subdued by Quintus Metellus, thence surnamed Balearicus, in the year 120 B. C.", and "Battering-Ram", "it is said to have been invented by Artemanes of Clazomene, a Greek architect who flourished 441 B. C."

Some authors used both interchangeably; "Aristides" has, "Aristides was present at the battle of Marathon, fought B. C. 490, and was next in command among the Athenians to Miltiades", and later "This great man died about 407 years B. C. according to some at Athens, at an advanced age;" although in the second instance it seems to have more to do with how the sentence was phrased. The original example I cited, under "Chronology" was, "Reckoning backward therefore from this time for 1460 years, we come to the year B. C. 1322, when the sun was in Cancer, about 14 or 15 days after the summer solstice, which happened on July 5th", but in the next column, "It terminated on the first of January 45 B. C. and from this period the civil year and months were regulated by the course of the sun."

Changing sources to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, probably the most comprehensive English-language biographical encyclopedia of antiquity prior to the translations of Brill's New Pauly, and going through the first few pages of volume I, "B. C." is reliably before the year in most instances. "Abantidas, the son of Paseas, became tyrant of Sicyon after murdering Cleinias, the father of Aratus, B. C. 264." "C. Aburius was one of the ambassadors sent to Masinissa and the Carthaginians, B. C. 171." "M. Aburius, tribune of the plebs, B. C. 187, opposed M. Fulvius the proconsul in his petition for a triumph", "L. Accius or Attius, an early Roman tragic poet and the son of a freedman, was born according to Jerome B. C. 170", "T. Accius, a native of Pisaurum in Umbria and a Roman knight, was the accuser of A. Cluentius, whom Cicero defended B. C. 66." "Acco, a chief of the Senones in Gaul, who induced his countrymen to revolt against Caesar, B. C. 53." "Acestorides, a Corinthian, was made supreme commander by the Syracusans in B. C. 317, and banished Agathocles from the city."

With regard to other works you can find on Google Books or Archive.org, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities (1897) places "B.C." (no space) before the year, in almost every instance, except under "Aegyptus", where it occurs both before and after the year. The English Cyclopaedia (1854–1862) places "B.C." before the year in nearly every instance, but once in a while after. The Macmillan edition of Xenophon's Hellenica (1892) consistently uses before. Edward Greswell's chronological works (1854, 1861) use before. Shuckburgh's edition of the letters of Cicero (1905) consistently uses before.

These are all mainstream works by respected nineteenth century scholars; I think this is very strong evidence to back up what the ngram says: for most of the nineteenth century "B. C." or "B.C." was typically placed before the year, although occasionally after, and it remained fairly common into the twentieth century, even as after became the usual position. Incidentally, I don't think it really matters whether it occurs in running text or tables, as long as the relationship between the era and year is explicit. But all of the examples I've cited use it in running text (although some also contain tables). P Aculeius (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Observing that usage changed does not justify reporting it here without a reliable source noting the change. See WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

So, your contention is that the use of a particular syntax by various encyclopedias and other scholarly sources published during the nineteenth century is insufficient to show that it was used during the nineteenth century? Did you actually read the edit before reverting it, or did you just assume it referred to a change in style? Your characterization of the edit as "disputed, unsourced, and unimportant" on my talk page is patently false: I've provided plenty of evidence from reliable sources, and you've ignored it; the fact asserted is clearly true, but you claim it's disputed (by whom?); it's "important" because without the edit, the article makes an assertion that is incorrect. You've already accused me of "edit warring to protect my preferred version of the page", but what are you doing, other than trying to keep apparently correct and reliably sourced information out of the article? If you don't think the sources are good enough, help me find better ones, or place a tag that would inform other editors that assistance is needed, instead of just reverting and deleting a very simple statement that's both accurate and necessary for a comprehensive discussion of the topic. P Aculeius (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. We might note that B.C. nnn was used in the 19th century, except that it implies that the usage has changed, and we cannot say that (per WP:SYNTH), as you have not provided a reliable source which reports the change. In fact, you haven't supplied a reliable source that it was "correct" style, only examples of use.

The more complex example under WP:SYNTH notes a hypothetical example in which two sentences, both sourced, could not be placed next to each other. If you can find a scholarly work discussing historical (or even a 19th century work discussing proper) placement and formatting of AD/BC/B.C., the information could probably be placed somewhere in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that argument is completely fallacious. Stating that a common practice was not always common, or vice-versa, is not synthesis merely because a reader would imply that something must have changed. Let's think of another example. An article about a historic house states that it is painted blue, citing this fact to "source A". Under this interpretation of WP:SYNTH, another editor could not add that, according to "source B", in 1980, the house was painted white; because that might cause readers to infer that somebody had painted the house blue at some point between 1980 and the present, despite the lack of any reliable source stating that anybody had painted it blue during this period. Surely your goal isn't to keep reliable and accurate information out of the article merely because readers might be able to draw inferences from it.

Perhaps review WP:NOTSYNTH. The most applicable section might be, "SYNTH is not obvious II". Here we have two reliably sourced statements: something is usually done one way now, but in the past it was often done differently. That's not synthesis; it's obvious. Any reader who examines the sources will draw the conclusion that things have changed, even if no source can be located explicitly stating that a change has occurred. Before my note was reverted for the fourth and last time last night, it cited to three standard reference works dating from 1823 to 1897, as well as a graphic example showing the change over time. As the citations previously given in the discussion above show, many more sources could easily be cited, many other examples given. But why, when two or three sources will do? And why such an absolute opposition to providing information that is both relevant and accurate, that it can't even be provisionally kept with tags requesting different or better sources, as in the vast majority of cases, including countless assertions throughout Wikipedia that are far more dubious? If you really want to improve this article, then help find sources that give a more complete picture of the subject, instead of simply deleting useful content as soon as it appears. P Aculeius (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You never provided a reference work which described where AD/BC/B.C. should have been placed in the 19th century. You provided 19th century reference works whose placement differs from what would be considered correct, today. That is not sufficient for this article. You are essentially using tertiary sources as references about themselves. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources masquerading as tertiary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed they said that one was preferable, mandatory, or prescribed. Merely that a different form was commonly used. It's well-established that books are perfectly sound sources to cite for their own contents. If a particular thing is said by a number of reliable sources, such as encyclopedias and other standard reference works, then it's perfectly fair to cite them to demonstrate that the thing is generally accepted. If you want better sources, then help to find some, or use citation tags to solicit the help of the community to find them; there's no good reason to banish a credible and reliable statement merely because you don't like the sources that have been cited for it. Right now all I see is a string of inapplicable arguments, and each time one of them is answered, you find another policy of dubious application for preventing this information's inclusion in the article:

1. Unwilling to accept the sources without seeing images of them: editors are not required to provide photographic evidence that sources say what they are cited for. If you want to claim they don't, look at them yourself.
2. Usage might occur in tables rather than running text: same as above. Also, the argument is irrelevant, because even in a table, the usage would vary from what the article currently says it is, with the implication that that is the only way it can be, and the sources cited refute that. However, as the sources use this format in running text, the point is moot.
3. Not important enough to include if no cited source says that things have changed: it's important enough to include if it demonstrates that what the article says without it is false or misleading.
4. Edit warring, removing other editors' content, 3-revert rule, need to discuss on talk page, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia: content removed was mine, not another editor's; editor who was reverting it without discussion on talk page was not warned; talk page discussion initiated before first reversion by said editor, continued before third reversion by second editor; only two reversions occurred, not "more than three"; editor involved in dispute using threat of administrative action in conflict of interest; editor threatening administrative action without any violation of rules having occurred not even an admin.
5. Disputed, unsourced, and unimportant: accuracy of assertion has not been disputed on any grounds, only the adequacy of the sources. Multiple reliable sources cited, only how they are being used is in dispute; unimportant already refuted, since without qualification the article states something that is demonstrably wrong or misleading.
6. Cannot note that something was different in the past unless a cited source says that it has changed, due to WP:SYNTH: policy was not intended to prevent the inclusion of useful information, and should be applied with reasonable discretion; something inherently obvious, such as something having changed from what it was before to what it is now, is not synthesis for purposes of WP:SYNTH.
7. Sources do not show what usage was prescribed at the time in question: unimportant; the point is not whether one usage was required or whether a source states what should have been used, but rather how it was actually used. Agree that a source that explains the usage would be desirable, but usage itself has been adequately demonstrated by the reliable sources already cited.
8. Tertiary sources cannot be used as references for their own contents: this policy does not exist. Reliable sources are inherently acceptable as proof of their own contents.
9. Sources cited are primary sources masquerading as tertiary sources: does not matter whether sources are primary or secondary as long as they are reliable, which they are as proof of their own contents.
10. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources: that may be so, but the absence of a secondary source does not preclude the use of primary or tertiary sources.

All of the arguments over whether the sources are primary, secondary, tertiary, masquerading, promenading, or marinating are completely irrelevant since all of these types are acceptable. If you want better sources for the assertion, then help find some, instead of digging up more technical reasons for excluding material that is demonstrably correct from an article to which it is relevant and useful. P Aculeius (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Scientology page reference

Scientology in the Dianetics section refers to A.D. as standing for After dianetics. Request someone with more experience to decide how to process this. Reaper14th (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I would just as soon keep that happy little factoid contained on the Scientology page. In terms of Wikipedia policy, I don't think it has enough WP:WEIGHT to merit inclusion here. Other opinions will probably differ. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Agreed Domini is the genitive case of dominium, which is still in modern usage. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dominium Anno, Annum, Annual. Anno Domini. Year of Domination. This is not supposition, it is direct translation of the words. It is impossible to understand how 'year of our Lord' came from these two easily translatable words. From the actual Latin words we have, and the historical activity at that time, it is obvious this refers to Roman Rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.77 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Assume as you wish. It doesn't. It means 'the year of our Lord'. 31.50.156.84 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Why does everyone put "our" into the translation? Surely a better translation is "Year of the Lord", or even "Lord's year". 07:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.195.154 (talk)

An abbreviation like this from Latin, being based on initial letters and thus on the stem rather than the inflectional ending, should admit of varying inflections. Specifically, I question whether the "A." in "A.D." need always be decoded or construed as "Anno" (ablative singular, "in the year") and never as "Annorum" (genitive plural, "of the years"). "Annorum Domini" would fit better with the usage of "A.D." as a modifier for "century" (which in this context would then mean "set of one hundred [of Lord's years]"). The article currently suggests that such usages as "second century A.D." were only formerly frowned upon, but it includes no remark on whether or how such disdain might be justified, or why it is passé. SirDespard (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This, like the article, is misleading. Latin has no definite article, so the translation "in the year of the Lord" is no more precise than "in the year of our Lord". The reason for employing "our" is straightforward; it relates to chronology as understood from a Christian context. I shouldn't have to say this, but the division between A.D. and B.C. is not universal. (e.g. in ancient Greece dating was done by Olympiads; at Ancient Rome by the foundation year of the city, or the year of relevant consuls; in Islam from the time of Muhammed etc. etc.). Thus the use of "our" is perfectly acceptable, because if we are using this dating system it relates to our own culture! Shouldn't need to add this as it is "bloody obvious"; but evidently not to some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.18.170 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the translation to emphasize that the latin phrase contains no explicit articles, definite or indefinite (as Latin does not use them, except occasionally in medieval Latin, but not here). Hence "The" and "A" are interpretations (although accurate ones). This comes up in Greek as well. Think about the phrase "In the beginning was the word and the word was G-d" replacing all of the "the"s with "a"s. Also worth noting, the Latin nominative ending '-us' often turned into '-o" in medieval Latin, hence anno can still be seen as nominative instead of ablative or accusative. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And a reference to back up the nominative interpretation of anno: latin grammarIṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

B.C. = "before Christ"

Does this mean that this term was not used before the development of English? Editor2020 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something in Latin? Editor2020 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In the "Popularization" section of the article it's explained that Bede, in 731, used the phrase "ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus anno sexagesimo" (in fact in the 60th year before the time of the Lord's incarnation). Jc3s5h (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Good question. The quote from Bede suggests that back then the term "B.C." may not have been used. Is there any example of how early "B.C." was used? I am not formally trained in Latin, but it seems to me that "before Christ" would be, in Latin, "ante [however "Christ" is spelled in Latin]. I can't find a Latin word which means "before", so I have no idea what the answer would be.Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

JimWae and I discussed the first use of "before Christ" in 2008 in the talk archives, see First use of "before Christ" in English?. There I uploaded the first pages of James Ussher's 1650 Latin version Annales Veteris Testamenti (wherein he famously stated that the world was created in 4004 BC) and the postmortem 1658 English translation Annals of the World (not translated by Ussher). Ussher used the Latin phrase "Anno ante æram Christianam" (in the year before the Christian Era) which was translated into English somewhat freely as "The year before Christ". However, this translation did not use the abbreviation "BC". I opined that "before Christ" must have been used earlier because of this free translation. The modern translation The Annals of the World (2003) does use "BC". The article already states "In 1627, the French Jesuit theologian Denis Pétau (Dionysius Petavius in Latin), with his work De doctrina temporum, popularized the usage ante Christum (Latin for "Before Christ") to mark years prior to AD." — Joe Kress (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed citations

I didn’t have time to post when I did it (from a different location), but I’ve removed these refs for AD and BC because it seemed completely unnecessary to cite an entirely uncontentious abbreviation in the opening sentence. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References