Talk:CE

D'oh. I meant to write "having". Thanks. Researcher 20:44, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * WTF? CE is NOT the "PC" equivalent of AD.  AD is short for Anno Domini, which is short for Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi, which means, "in the year of our lord Jesus Christ."  Christ is a title that the followers of Jesus gave to him because they believed he was the Christ, the Messiah.  Jews and atheists use CE because they don't believe Jesus was the Christ.  If there was no Christ, why should they refer to dates as relative to his (non)existance?  It's not at all about being politically correct.  If one were to not call Christianity "the true religion" are they being politically incorrect since some think Christianity is the "true religion"?  No, because that would be absurd.    ThunderkatzHo! 14:30, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Relax. Have a goat. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks for the goat, it helped me calm down. Are they full of omega-3 fatty acids or something?  And can I get rid of the claim that CE is PC?  ThunderkatzHo! 15:14, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Why? CE is PC, in the non-reppressive connotation of PC - it is culturally inclusive. human  15:20, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * That's true, but PC still has a negative connotation in many people's (see: thunderkatz's) mind. We could change the wording so that people realize that's what's trying to be said.  ThunderkatzHo! 15:23, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Feel free to explain it more clearly in the article, I'm all for that. human  15:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Thunderkatz, AD is as much our (*) culture as the year itself. Birth of Rome or the passage of a comet (oops) could have been chosen, but the birth of some Jesus was chosen instead. And today we are 2007.x years after the birth of this Jesus. Well not, but give or take a few years it is that. That year was chosen because of our Christian heritage. AD was added as a plus sign (forget the lack of year zero), and - today - means nothing more and nothing less. If you are scandalized by AD, you should ban the year too. There are a lot of alternative calendars to choose from. I always forget if I am Christian or Atheist, but in either case I find no problem with AD. (*) Our culture meaning Western world with a Christian heritage. Just the opinion of an Editor at CPBring TK back 15:52, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * So if it had been called Before Jesus and After Jesus, many fewer people would object to that system.  But it's not.  It's referring to something that many people believe didn't happen.  I personally think years should be based before and after the Great Troll-Robot War which will happen in what we would call 2423 CE/AD.  However, as some don't think think that will happen, why should they base their calendar off of it?  And I'm not "scandalized" by AD.  I am scandalized that someone people think that only AD is acceptable.  Also, why are we arguing?  My main point was about it being called PC, and that's been resolved.  ThunderkatzHo! 16:52, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, but this is RationalWiki, where we always make a point of discussing any off-topic branches we can possibly come up with and blaming them all on the original poster. human  17:02, 12 February 2008 (EST)

H and PH

 * I'd be very happy if we could start our "year counting" at the oldest verifiable year in human history. But the paperwork would be awful.  Then all positive years would be "history" and we could use "PH" for the years "before human history".  Anthropocentric, yes, but the goats don't care. human  16:12, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, but then what about the cultures that don't use written sources? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:15, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Fuck them, if they can't take notes. human  16:30, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * So Human, the oldest verifiable year in Human history should be... your birthday birth year. You can trace your birthday certificate, can't you? Editor at CPBring TK back 16:20, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Hehe, that's not quite what I meant ;). Ironically, wouldn't my suggestion put as about year H6012?  Or do we have good, accurate overlapping records going back further? human  16:30, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * I'm afraid that question will prove much more difficult to answer (and much less useful) than you think. ;-) Anyway, the oldest available records is probably some kind of Sumerian wp:cuneiform from about 3000 BC. Of course, there's also the wp:Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, which is supposedly precise back to August 11, 3114 BC. That would put us somewhere around... 5121 PH H? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, I thought Chinese history was traceable for about 6k years. And I liked that 4004 BC might end up being "year zero" ;)  The biggest problem with my idea, of course, is that at any time archeologists could screw things up by finding more records. human  16:58, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Oh sure, if we go with what's 'traceable', we can go much further back - I believe there are prehistoric lunar calendars that go back at least tens of thousands of years. But that's not really 'verifiable' in the sense that it can be narrowed down to a specific year that could be useful as a starting point for a calendar. It's also sort of problematic what exactly is sufficient for verifiability in this context - years mentioned in written records are probably the best, but as mentioned, that has the not insignificant disadvantage of excluding otherwise advanced cultures that did not use writing as we understand it. Older calendars might also be useful, but those are very often at least semi-mythical in their origins. And of course, then there's the whole question of whether this kind of event history is necessarily the best starting point for a chronology in the first place. So there are lots of problematic issues involved here, and basically the only purpose it would serve is to exchange one perfectly good calendar for a much less useful one. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:22, 12 February 2008 (EST)

OK then, let's just call my birth year "zero" and start the year when I was born. That's much easier. I like my new birthdate: 1/1/00! human  18:13, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Works for me. Could we call it year 1 instead, though? Things get so messed up if we have to include a year 'zero'. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:21, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Wait, I thought that not having year zero screwed things up? human  18:24, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * It's mostly a question of convenience. If you avoid a year zero, you have a first century that goes from year 1 to 100, second century from 101 to 200, and so forth - and just as importantly, it's exactly the same if you go the other way: -1 to -100, -101 to -200 etc., which makes calculation using both positive and negative years a bit easier. There are also some chronological principles involved - e.g. whether we're actually counting ordinal or cardinal numbers and such. For an absolutely ridiculous further discussion of that, I suggest taking a look at wp:Talk:Year zero. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:42, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, I see, actually the WP talk explains why no year zero pretty quickly. Oh well.  I was born on 1/1/01 then. (well, actually, since I am now the measure of all things, I was actually born at the precise instant that would be 00:00:00.00 00/00/0000 - all other events are measured from this moment. human  18:52, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Great minds think alike
The article says: "Andrew Schlafly does not like it when you use BCE and CE. It is one of the main reasons why he founded Conservapedia".

I don't like BCE and CE either. False syllogism and fallacies, but should I be worried? Or found Conservapedia II? Editor at CPBring TK back 15:04, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yes, and then you must defeat Schlafly in mortal combat to determine who shall lead the Conservative clans in their final, epic struggle against their archenemies, the Liberal tribes. Godspeed! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:09, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Who gets the mech army? And babes, who gets babes?--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 16:23, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Well, denier of natural urges that he is, Schlafly will take the mech army, but will be unable to figure out how to turn them on. AKjeldsen the Wise will get the babes, whom he will hopefully share with us.  -- 19:09, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * Of course, of course. Babes for everyone after the Great Victory.TM :waves magnanimously: -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 04:29, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Where to start?
This article is not very rational.

First of all, many people around the world use and are happy to use BC and AD in their respective languages. I don't know how opposition to them and support for the PC versions is in non-English language countries, but I'd say quite limited. To say that it all amounts to the fundy Christians is reductive.

And a couple of facts. There is no year zero - we go from 1 BC to AD 1, as year numberings are ordinal, not cardinal. And Jesus being born in 4 BC (oops) is a hypothesis like many others. 7 BC was popular too at one time. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 18:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As far as the languages I'm familiar with are concerned, the Scandinavian languages and Dutch also have two different expressions, while French and German don't - I think. -- 18:14, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Germans just don't mix the Latin and German terms. Generally dates are "vor/nach Christus", abbreviated as "v./n. Chr.", literally "beore/after Christ". "Anno Domini" and its German translation is not general use, more like using a fancy idiom. 217.95.208.115 12:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)

This always bothered me...
Why is the term "CE" less Christian than "AD"? It seems to me to be an empty gesture, as if you ask someone "what event marks the beginning of the Common Era?", the answer is that it is the supposed date of birth of Jesus Christ. It hasn't removed the reference to Christianity, just distanced it slightly.  Phantom Hoover  13:44, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Also, considering that CE is also reffered to as meaning "Christian Era".  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 13:46, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I don't think the "Christian era" meaning is used very often, & only by a few Christians. The point of "common era" is to identify CE as a standard notation rather than a religious or cultural one.  The reason we now use this system of dates isn't just because of the birth of Christ.  That's the reason it came to be used; but the reason we use it now is just because it's been used for hundreds of years (in the West) and has come to be used around the world because of the directions history & communications & cultural exchange have taken.  The fact that it was originally a specifically Christian system of dates is now almost irrelevant (certainly to those of us who aren't Christians): it's just the "common" way of recording dates.  "Anno domini" is now inappropriate since it has an explicitly Christian meaning.  Short of starting a completely new system of dates (which would be highly impractical), using a more inclusive name to refer to the system is the next best thing.   14:00, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Plus the fact that historians aren't even sure jesus was born in "0 AD" kinda ruins the whole jesus thing. It's just convention.Z3ro 14:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * 1 AD, actually. There's no year 0. -- 14:22, 23 January 2009 (EST)


 * I agree with Phantom Hoover, CE is an empty gesture. I am not religious but I don't think that we should sanitize common language of all remnants of religion. It's like the use of 'Happy Holidays' to replace 'Happy Christmas'. Is anyone really offended by 'Happy Christmas'? Now realizing I seem to agree with Schlafly on something, I think that it's time for a 'Crying Game'-esque shower. I feel very, very dirty. JoeDuffy 14:34, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Christmas wasn't a Christian festival originally - the Christians just stuck their festival on the date of a preexisting pagan one.  Phantom Hoover  15:01, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I dunno, I get pretty sick of xmas, which now lasts up to two months and dominates so many sources of entertainment, etc. It doesn't bother me as much as it used to, though.  When I was younger I considered it moderately insulting for people who knew me to ask what I was doing for xmas - they should know I'm not a xtian.  At least if someone wishes me "happy holydaze" I can interpret it to mean the new year celebration on and around 12/21 or so - the real reason for the season. Likewise, "In the year of our Lord" is a bit, shall we say, presumptuous?  ħ uman  15:02, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) Even if it was there to "santize" the language, what would be worse; "politically correct" terminologies that are inclusive of everyone or religious terminology forced on everyone else?
 * To me, the "happy holidays" phrase actually makes sense if you're including the full season (post edit conflict makes me agree with human on this) such as Thanksgiving (which from a previous conversation is apparently more important in the US than Christmas itself), Christmas and New Year which all occur around the same time("happy holidays" as a phrase doesn't exist in the UK). And usually, the whole season around the new year gets thrown in together as one big season; you certainly don't hear news reports talking about the Christmas season when they're also including the first week of Janurary. When people want to refer to Christmas, they still damn well say Christmas! The whole "it's just political correctness gone mad" crowd are really just making massive mountains out of nearly non-existent molehills.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 15:12, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I guess growing up in a country that is dominated by Christianity (Ireland) gives me a different outlook. Although I am no longer a christian I grew up with a strong Christian culture including attending publicly funded schools run by pyschopathicly violent religious orders. To me Christian culture is familar and comforting. I never feel quite at home unless I'm being throttled by a Christian Brother. JoeDuffy 15:18, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, and further to my mellowing with age, nowadays if someone wishes me a "merry Christmas" on 12/25 or the evening of 12/24, hell, I just say it back. Since it is the name for that day, and why wouldn't I want it to be merry? It's the ones weeks before that seem silly - like, "if I don't see you before then, have a pleasant February 7th!"  ħ uman  16:12, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm probably more flexible than just Christmas Day/Eve. Maybe about a week before it? I was going to say whenever term ended and then I realised I actually have grown up since school :( Definitely not after Christmas Day, that seems a little pointless. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 16:16, 23 January 2009 (EST)