Talk:Common Era#First use

{{closed rfc top

|status = WP:SNOW Close

|result = While I am involved, the consensus is clearly opposed to the suggested change, 14 Editors have expressed opposition to the change, and 0 Editors have expressed support for it. Editors have noted that it would not be appropriate to include Christian Era in the lead of the article per MOS:LEADALT. In the interest of saving editor time, I am closing this per WP:SNOWCLOSE and WP:ACD which states {{tq| If the outcome is truly uncontroversial, closures by involved editors are permitted and even encouraged.}} Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731139266}}

The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.

Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins.

Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term.

The community is invited to discuss the following question:

Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article?

Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• The whole point of the term Common Era is to secularise date formatting. If there is a specific Christian religious context that is so relevant that it must be mentioned, AD/BC is well established and unambiguous. If some people also use CE for Christian era, it constitutes trivia for this article about the topic Common Era, which does not belong in the lead· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

::::There are some very wierd arguments there, but I'm travelling. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• This proposal is fundamentally flawed.

::* :CE is a disambiguation article, it does not redirect here.

::* :Christian Era redirects, as it should, to :Anno Domini (the widely accepted name for the Christian era.

::* The term "Common Era" is the one used for our present dating system by non-Christians. This is by far the most widely understood meaning of the term today.

::* The etymology of the name is not especially relevant but it is a conversion of the word "vulgar" (which had gained negative meaning, just as the word "common" has begun to do). The word 'vulgar' (of the people) was used to distinguish dating from 'regnal' (of the King, as in 'the first year of the reign of Charles III'). That some sources such as Merriam-Webstee have chosen to define it as "Christian Era" really tells you more about their target demographic than anything deeply meaningful.

::I strongly oppose this proposal. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC

• Oppose: This claim is only very weakly supported by the article and so hardly belongs in the first sentence of the lead just per WP:LEAD. Incidentally, it looks like the mere use of the term "Christian era" is being invoked in the article to support this as an interpretation of "CE". But that simply does not follow. The abbreviation has another meaning well-established by the body of the article: "Common Era". --Patrick (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an article about the term "Common Era"; it is not the place, and its first sentence is most certainly not the place, to shoe-horn in a trivial claim that the abbreviation of the term might also stand for something else, e.g. the CE mark. NebY (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• :* Oppose per above, I've never seen Christian era abbreviated as CE
• :Kowal2701 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though "Christian era" is a reasonable guess by somebody unfamiliar with the abbreviation, it is pretty obvious that any and all writers of "CE" think it stands for "Common Era". In addition your own dictionary links says it stands for "common era" and not "Christian era", look at the page for "CE".Spitzak (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No sources have been given to support equal time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I already stated in #Talk:Common Era/Archive 10#"Christian Era" in lead. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The relevant guideline, I think, is MOS:LEADALT. An alternative name may appear in the lede ¶ if it is significant, and if there are fewer than three alternative names. Looking at major dictionaries, I cannot tell whether Christian Era is significant as an alternative name for the same period as Common Era. Meanwhile, the OED mentions both Christian Era & Anno Domini in this context; the Cambridge English Dictionary lists Christian Era & Current Era. If it's unclear to me whether or not Christian Era is significant, it's very clear to me that there are at least three alternative names. Surely, if any alternative is significant, Anno Domini has a better claim than Christian Era. The current treatment—in which Christian Era appears in the body of the article but not the lede—appears to me to be the right course. Pathawi (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• :Oppose as above. The term Christian era is already given detailed discussion throughout the body of the article. Spree4218 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose AD by definition overlaps with CE, but this is not mentioned in the lead. It would defeat the purpose of CE. Senorangel (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Based on the {{em|current}} state of the article body I don't think that it is sufficiently significant to the topic to put in the lead, which is currently an appropriate size relative to the body. If there really is substantial historical scholarship that this is a historical usage, then (assuming appropriate care is taken not to overrepresent due weight) some careful additions might be made to the body, and {{em|iff}} said portion of the body becomes much more substantial, only then should we start to discuss whether to add it to the lead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per JMF McYeee (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It could be mentioned in some capacity in the article as a historical thing, referenced, but it doesn't seem appropriate to include a usage that is no longer common in the lead, let alone the first sentence.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jeaucques Quœure could you do your fellow editors the courtesy of not using large language models to write on your behalf? If I wanted to talk to a chatbot, I wouldn't be on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:You may need to think over WP:Culture of disrespect. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

::A response like this really isn’t helping your cause any. Great: We need thick skins. True enough. But this is a collaborative project. Pathawi (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Yeah there are a lot rules here and some contradict, or at any have different takes. I can shout WP:MANY HANDS MAKE LIGHT WORK and you can shout back WP:TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH, Me, WP:HE WHO HESITATES IS LOST, you WP:FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD. Etc.

:::The question is, is the allegation true? If it is, you can't hide behind some rules. If it isn't, it's a pretty scurrilous statement. I don't know anything about Chatbot, how can you tell, or infer to a high level of satisfaction, AirshipJungleman29? Jeaucques Quœuremis, is it true or not? Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

::::@AirshipJungleman29 was casting WP: ASPERSIONS. I rendered the benefit of the doubt as I wanted to prevent a WP: BOOMERANG. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

::::{{u|Herostratus}}, [https://gptzero.me/ GPTZero] classifies the opening statement of this RfC as 100% likely to be AI-generated. On the question of a high level of satisfaction, GPTZero has [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10519776/ about a 10% false-positive rate], meaning that there is about a 90% chance that the opening statement of this RfC is AI-generated.{{pb}}For some reason, those who use LLMs get rather defensive whenever you call them out on it (see e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1246402283 this ArbCom case request]); unfortunately that seems to be the case here too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I don’t think 10% false positive rate implies a 90% probability of the content being AI. It could even be the case that we have a false positive paradox here. McYeee (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Also... altho using ChatGPT to generate content is not well thought of by many (the whole subject is very fraught), is there anything wrong with how one generates remarks that one puts one's signature under? Maybe -- I'm asking. Speaking just for the moment of talk page remarks... if the matter is that the remarks themselves are incorrect, hard to understand, disingenuous, just blather, or whatever, OK. But if they are cogent, does it matter if you got them from a fortune cookie or your cat? Herostratus (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Indeed, since most people opening an RFC do so from a particular POV, using an LLM may be a way to present the question more neutrally. Though of course the initiator is still going to write the prompt from their POV and the LLM will respond to that. Or hallucinate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::While I do not know the efficacy of the ChatGPT Detector, it is worth noting that the User in question has been warned numerous times on their talkpage about using AI Generated Content and was also brought to ANI about it Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162#h-Jeaucques_Quœure_and_apparent_LLM_abuse-20240724075000. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Ah, I see. Well, certainly, one's reputation follows them, so I can certainly see the basis for being annoyed here. But reputation doesn't entirely define all one's future actions. I didn't read thru that thread, but the original complaint began:

::::::{{talkquote|...added a block of apparently LLM-generated content that's been reverted for having no sources, which they've immediately readded with an apparently dishonest edit summary claiming they're "adding sources"...}}

::::::Well and good, but what is the purpose of the term apparently LLM-generated here? Seems that the problem is that the material was unsourced and the person insisted anyway and was disingenuous to boot. Mnmh? I do get that AI is going to take over all the fun creative work, then destroy our civilization and then either enslave or destroy humanity itself soon enough, probably. So I can see how "AI generated" would be seen as automatically bad. But it really doesn't have anything to do with this project. Write your congressman.

::::::So, would this be a valid reason to open an ANI complaint?

::::::{{talkquote|...added a block of apparently LLM-generated content that's good and well-sourced....}}

::::::How about this?

::::::{{talkquote|...added a block of content (apparently written by his next-door neighbor) that's good and well-sourced....}}

::::::Where is the line?

::::::And this is a talk page, so were sourcing requirements are much less strict than for articles. Is it possible that people just find the editor annoying and are bringing up red herrings on that basis. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::It's not up to me to decide how things get enforced or why, but I will say there is also precedent for using LLM on a talkpage as being unacceptable {{special:Diff/1246504770}}. In anycase, it's all above my lowly head on this platform.

:::::::{{tq|Is it possible that people just find the editor annoying and are bringing up red herrings on that basis.}}

:::::::Could be, I don't know enough about their history to swing one way or the other. My point was mainly that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, has been flagged by an automatic duck detector, and has a history of engaging in duck related behavior, it could be a duck. Could also be a Goose, though, I s'pose, or some other manner of waterfowl. When we're talking about a 10% margin of error and "it could be a false positive", the reputation of prior duck activity seems relevant.

:::::::Some people just have an eye for recognizing AI Generated Content, the stuff it churns out is very formulaic (I say this having participated in training and evaluating LLMs). My understanding from what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia is that LLM's are unacceptable for use on Talk Pages and in Article Content. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

and WP:SNOWCLOSE this RFC, please? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:I am unsure, but there doesn't seem to be any need for an uninvolved editor to close this since there is such a clear consensus. There is exactly 0 supporting votes and an overwhelming majority of opposition. I don't think this needs a formal closure, since the consensus is pretty clear. Per WP:ACD. {{tq| If the outcome is truly uncontroversial, closures by involved editors are permitted and even encouraged.}} Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

2601:247:4000:4E70:7C73:8986:9729:E4D2 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:The split is arbitrary (as are dates in general). BCE and CE are just alternate methods of referring to dates. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, but what's their explanation of the splitting? Calling them BC and AD makes it clear they define the split as Jesus' birth. But what defines the split with BCE and CE? What defines a "Common Era"? People in the time of Alexander the Great probably considered themselves in the "Common Era", but we consider that before. Why would, according to evolutionists, billions of years pass before we reach a "Common Era" only 2000 years long? 2601:247:4000:4E70:8072:F979:7D80:54BC (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Because nobody would use these if the numbers had to change. Spitzak (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Then why change at all, if BC and AD with their number systems with starts and ends make sense on their own? 2601:247:4000:4E70:8072:F979:7D80:54BC (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Because some people don't like using the standard abbreviations because they stand for words from christian scripture. Spitzak (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:To be clear, the question isn't, "Why use BCE and CE?". The question is, "How do BCE and CE define the split between?". BC and AD use Christ as a center point, But BCE and CE are (generally) used by nonbelievers. How, then, do they explain what a "Common Era" is, and why before it was so much longer? 2601:247:4000:4E70:8072:F979:7D80:54BC (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Because it had become a de facto standard, despite the fact that Christianity is a minority world religion. You may as well ask "why do so many people speak English when they don't live in England? answer: it is another de facto standard, again despite the fact that the population of England is tiny fraction of the world-wide Anglophone population. The term "Common Era" just means "the calendar era in common use"

::BTW, the date of the the BC/AD split ("the epoch") does not coincide with the most likely date of birth of Jesus of Nazereth. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::But isn't this whole concept directly opposite to what the whole concept of wikipedia stands for? Maybe i'm misundersteanding Wikipedia's stance but it seems to me that what it seeks to do is DEFINE.

:::If we use a therm for the sake of using it, without actually knowing what it means, but just perpetuating what was done before, aren't we in the end just using a therm regardless of its definition, deeming the same definition unimportant? If we were to apply this logic to wikipedia's articles, anybody could make an argoument for any therm being a "de facto standard" removing hyperlinks to it on this basis, removing the whole net of referenced definitions that makes wikiepia what it is, to leave just lone encapsulated definitions which each only points to other definitions connected with the same view of the world.

:::So i don't see how we can logically reason the use of something that is against the whole point of wikipedia being not just defined, as it would indeed be logical to do, but actually applied as a rule to the whole of the wikipedia corpus; and it seems more to me like the real reason for the use of such therminology despite this, is that wikipedia is based on consenus, and there is just too large a number of editors who "feel" like using it to rule against its use.

:::And personally i think this should be the explaination provided in the guideline regarding its use, something along the lines of "as the current rule 'wikipedia has' reached the conclusion of using the Common Era and the Before Christ/Anno Domini therminology interchanghably as anybody feels like" which is pretty much what seems to be happening in many articles i've seen, with every other sentence using a different convesion and with the inability of reaching an agreement even inside an article.

:::Mayhaps i went a bit off-topic but i'm somewhat trying to see if any improvement can be made for anybody like me which somehow got here just trying to figure out which therm to use. As a note, i don't exclude what i stated being indeed the official guideline for dating but me having just missed it, if that's the case just let me know please. 87.21.206.230 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's impossible to discern what you're actually arguing, but yes—broadly, we don't decide what is true or best, our sources do. We use these epochs because they appear in our sources and are universally familiar to our readers. Secondarily, yes, the point of our guidelines is to prevent endless fighting over things that actually do not matter like which set of labels we must use. Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, it does seem to me like we do however "decide what is true or best" in regards of HOW articles are written, that's the whole point of why there is an hierarchy of people who have power over someone else's writings, because otherwise it would be chaos: even if "what is written" isn't competence of anyone to decide, "how things are written" (wether something is relevant or not to an article for example) IS something that is left to "wikipedia" to decide, and it very much seems to me that dating conventions pertain to the format in which an article is written.

:::::As per the using of dating systems taken from sources, that doesn't quite match direct sources, and being that both the conventions argued use the same overall system, they both would be equally familiar to the reader except for the very confusion that switchging between the two may bring.

:::::What i'm saying is that if we agree that such is the point of guidelines, the "free for all" that's been going for isn't quite solving any bickering, at least when concering the re-writing of articles: everyone just edit as they please or side with, and we end up with an unnecessary confusionary alternation, which people can't even correct to either side, and all is justified on the official guideline for what i understeand; imo it simply would be more of a solution to pick a side for once, given the exception of the debate pertaining not to the content being written as much as the intelligible grammar by which it is written.

:::::And the point i was trying to make, is that within the discussion of which of the two convensions to use, the topic i replied to seemed to offer a solid case for which side should be picked: it would make more sense to pick an artifact dating system as it would better universally apply, but as such system isn't actually in use, and what is more similar to that and is in use is a very much "biased" system, just hidden by a naming convention which does not actually change the workings of the system, but only makes it more convoluted to know what such system itself actually refers to, it would make more sense to use the more evident convension of that same biased system until a more universal dating system is widespread. The way it appears to me, it just seems more naturally towards wikipedia inclination to go for the original BC/AD convention the same as it goes for the gregorian calendar, and the use of the new common era "coating" seems to much more make for an unnecessary topic of debate.

:::::Finally, i can understeand that people are just gonna want to write however they want in here as they do elsewhere and that might just be enough of a reason to do so, but if that was indeed the reason, it wouldn't hurt to make it more evident that it is; so switching the guideline from "Either convention (is used)... depending on the article context", to "Wikipedia doesn't have a rule for for which of the two conventions to use" would better reflect what actually goes on; either that or implement some better system (or even better ruling) to actually enforce dependcy on the context (i've have no knowledge of how wikipedia scripting works, but can't something be made like a filter double-checking whether people are using the "most common dating convention" and at least warn them if they aren't? it does seem convoluted, which is why i'd take a different route, but at least it would be less than anarchy). 87.21.206.230 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not reading all that. In my experience, our guideline cuts short plenty of bickering, and I'm sure many other editors would agree. It doesn't really matter if it "seems" some other way to you, since you presumably don't care to engage with any of the archived discussions where various editors over time presented arguments, evidence, and hammered the out the spirit verbiage of the guideline as written. Though you're the one here who apparently wants to know why others think what they do, you seem oddly uninterested in that. Remsense ‥ 论 23:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::* Wikipedia doesn't define anything, it just reports the definitions given by reliable sources. If the sources disagree, we give priority to the consensus of the highest quality sources while also reporting any substantially supported, factually based, minority viewpoint{{snd}}see policy WP:NPOV. We do not cover 'edge case' perspectives, see policies WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.

::::** Some other related policies include WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:Righting great wrongs{{snd}} Wikipedia is not the place for anyone who wants to campaign against "the rising tide" of Atheism/Islam/Christianity/whatever.

::::* Wikipedia's "no preference" policy on which notation to use is at MOS:ERA. We have a similar policy on which variety of English to use, see MOS:ENGVAR.

::::𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The fact that wikipedia just reports definitions, and doesn't directly define topics, doesn't really change wikipedia's goal of providing definitions to people, and thus in this context, it doesn't make the ruling of the use of a convention that seeks to replace another Only to remove the direct correlation to its definition for the sake of doing so as the wikipedia standard, any less antithetical to wikipedia's goal; and to link it to what i originally wrote, i'd like to re-iterate how this opposition to my understeanding of wikipedia's values woudln't of course justify a universal decision if we were talking about the content of a page, but it imo does as we talk about the format of pages themselves.

:::::Other than that, i think i gave my ansawer already when replying to user:Ramsense and i rather fully explained my take on it, so i won't be taking any more unnecessary space and stop replying here except for unexpected further developments. P.S. bare my grammar and dialectics, i'm too tired to re-check further than what seems adequate to me atm to get my point across. 87.21.206.230 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

My bold attempt to tighten first paragraph of this section was promptly reverted. I am not convinced the the reason given (Dionysius's failure to define his terms) applies any less to the unchanged text.

{{tq|The idea of numbering years beginning from the date that he believed to be the date of birth of Jesus was conceived around the year 525 by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus. }} Yes, no, or maybe: it was the date of the "incarnation" but we don't know what he meant by that. Admittedly it would be a cop-out but could we write that as date of the incarnation of Jesus? For this article, we really don't want to get bogged down in theology.

Either way, the commas need to be reinstated because their absence makes for much more difficult reading. I will do that now. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:The sentence used in "Anno domini" is

:{{quote|This calendar era takes as its epoch the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus.}}

:The phrase "traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus" was last touched by Akrasia25 on 3 January 2021, and that was just to unlink "Jesus". So the phrase seems fairly durable. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think that would work here. "Traditionally reckoned" is too vague: we need to say that it was the point in time that Dionysius calculated to be the "Incarnation". (I suppose we could wlink to Incarnation (Christianity), though far from ideal, at least it explains that there is a theological dispute about its meaning.)

::The other option might be to start from my attempt at a rewrite? I know you didn't like the first version but perhaps we could we identify what needs to be changed to make it acceptable?

::{{blockquote|Around the year 525, the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus devised the principle of taking the moment that he believed to be the date of the conception of Jesus to be the epoch (point from which years are numbered) of the Christian ecclesiastical calendar.Doggett, L.E., (1992), [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendars.html "Calendars"] in Seidelmann, P.K., The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, Sausalito CA: University Science Books, 2.1{{cite book |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BW_1mt4oebQC&q=jesus+birth+year+before&pg=PA686 686]|title=The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia |first=Geoffrey W. |last=Bromiley |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |year=1995 |isbn= 978-0-8028-3781-3}} Dionysius labeled the column of the table in which he introduced the new era as "{{Lang|la|Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi}}" (the years of our Lord Jesus Christ).{{rp|52}} He did this to replace the then dominant Era of Martyrs system because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.{{rp|50}}}}

::{{blockquote|This way of numbering years became more widespread in Europe with its use by Bede in England in 731. Bede also introduced the practice of dating years before what he supposed was the year of birth of Jesus,{{efn|Bede wrote of the Incarnation of Jesus, but treated it as synonymous with birth. Blackburn, B & Holford-Strevens, L, (2003), The Oxford Companion to the Year, Oxford University Press, 778.}} without a year zero.{{efn|As noted in History of the zero, the use of zero in Western civilization was uncommon before the twelfth century.}} }}

::Most obviously, {{tq|date of the conception of Jesus}} should of course be to be {{tq|date of the incarnation of Jesus}} (using date of the incarnation of Jesus). Also "epoch for" rather than "epoch of"? Is that a basis for discussion? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am happy to see Dionysius Exiguus's name given before the pronoun "he"; the old version placed "he" before the name with too many words in between. I think "incarnation" is the best word to use, but which article to link to is less clear. "Birth date of Jesus" does have a discussion that mentions "incarnation", but you have to dig for that. "Incarnation (Christianity)" describes the event Dionysius meant to commemorate, but the article doesn't go into the date at all, neither the modern observance date nor ancient beliefs about the date. Maybe we could link to the appropriate section in "Birth date of Jesus", although section links tend to be unstable. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that's a better idea. The text of that target is far more 'detached'.

::::True, long section names seem to be just too inviting of change. But I find that anchors tend to be left alone, so I have just created Date of birth of Jesus#According to Dionysius. So that would leave us with

:::::

Around the year 525, the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus devised the principle of taking the moment that he believed had calculated to be the date of the incarnation of Jesus to be the epoch (point from which years are numbered) of the Christian ecclesiastical calendar.Doggett, L.E., (1992), [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendars.html "Calendars"] in Seidelmann, P.K., The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, Sausalito CA: University Science Books, 2.1{{cite book |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BW_1mt4oebQC&q=jesus+birth+year+before&pg=PA686 686]|title=The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia |first=Geoffrey W. |last=Bromiley |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |year=1995 |isbn= 978-0-8028-3781-3}} Dionysius labeled the column of the table in which he introduced the new era as "{{Lang|la|Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi}}" (the years of our Lord Jesus Christ).{{rp|52}} He did this to replace the then dominant Era of Martyrs system because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.{{rp|50}}

::::Note that I have also changed "believed" to "calculated", since he did it rationally rather than superstitiously. Any immediate response or shall we let it marinate for 24 hours in case fresh eyes spot a gotcha? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So far, so good. I would also change "then dominant Era of the Martyrs" to "Era of the Martyrs system (then used to calculate the date of Easter)". The Era of the Martyrs wasn't in everyday use in Rome; in that city it was only used for Easter calculations. I'm not sure what was used in Alexandria and other areas of North Africa. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, I don't know who dropped the definite article, given that the target article uses it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

But not with my proposed text: Alden A. Mosshammer argues convincingly in [https://academic-oup-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/25620/chapter/192998181 The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era] that Dionysius did not recalculate the date from first principles, as previous authorities have ([https://academic-oup-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/25620/chapter/192998181 he says]) merely assumed.

{{blockquote|Much of the information about Dionysius in such standard reference‐works as the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica is wrong, often perpetuating scholarly errors of the early modern period. None of the hypotheses that have been offered as to how Dionysius established his date for the birth of Jesus is convincing. In fact, Dionysius may well have adopted an already established date, so that it is to his sources that we must look for a solution to the so‐called ‘Dionysian problem’.|source=Alden A. Mosshammer}}

That'll teach me to go looking for a second source for Dionysius's motivation! I think that my proposed text can stand except maybe (?) for the word "calculated" but maybe I have parked a tank on the lawn of the Computus article! What do you think? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have seen other works, such as Blackburn and Holford-Strevens and Dogget, that are consistent with the excerpt from Mosshammer. Several hypothetical calculations are shown, but no conclusion is drawn as to what Dionysius did. Dogget also indicates there is not enough surviving information to know the basis for Dionysius's year numbering.

:I'm not sure what the current version of your proposed text would be, several revisions having been discussed. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::OK, late final edition:

::

Around the year 525, the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus devised the principle of taking the moment that he had calculated to be the date of the incarnation of Jesus to be the point from which years are numbered (the epoch) of the Christian ecclesiastical calendar.Doggett, L.E., (1992), [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendars.html "Calendars"] in Seidelmann, P.K., The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, Sausalito CA: University Science Books, 2.1{{cite book |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BW_1mt4oebQC&q=jesus+birth+year+before&pg=PA686 686]|title=The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia |first=Geoffrey W. |last=Bromiley |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |year=1995 |isbn= 978-0-8028-3781-3}} Dionysius labeled the column of the table in which he introduced the new era as "{{Lang|la|Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi}}" (the years of our Lord Jesus Christ).{{rp|52}} He did this to replace the then dominant Era of the Martyrs system because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.{{rp|50}}

::{{blockquote|This way of numbering years became more widespread in Europe with its use by Bede in England in 731. Bede also introduced the practice of dating years before what he supposed was the year of birth of Jesus,{{efn|Bede wrote of the Incarnation of Jesus, but treated it as synonymous with birth. Blackburn, B & Holford-Strevens, L, (2003), The Oxford Companion to the Year, Oxford University Press, 778.}}{{efn| most biblical scholars and ancient historians believe that his birth date is around 6 to 4 BC.D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo & Leon Morris. (1992). An Introduction to the New Testament, 54, 56. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.{{cite book | authorlink=Michael Grant (author) | first=Michael | last=Grant | title=Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels | publisher=Scribner's | year=1977 | page=71}}Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources," Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12–20.{{Cite web |title=Jesus - Jewish Palestine, Messiah, Nazareth {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/Jewish-Palestine-at-the-time-of-Jesus |access-date=6 January 2024 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}}} without a year zero.{{efn|As noted in History of the zero, the use of zero in Western civilization was uncommon before the twelfth century.}} }}

Are you content? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|2}}

I would change it to say

Around the year 525, the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus devised the principle of taking the moment that he had calculated believed to be the date of the incarnation of Jesus to be the point from which years are numbered (the epoch) of the Christian ecclesiastical calendar.Doggett, L.E., (1992), [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendars.html "Calendars"] in Seidelmann, P.K., The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, Sausalito CA: University Science Books, 2.1{{cite book |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BW_1mt4oebQC&q=jesus+birth+year+before&pg=PA686 686]|title=The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia |first=Geoffrey W. |last=Bromiley |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |year=1995 |isbn= 978-0-8028-3781-3}} Dionysius labeled the column of the table in which he introduced the new era as "{{Lang|la|Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi}}" (the years of our Lord Jesus Christ).{{rp|52}} He did this to replace the then dominant Era of the Martyrs system (then used for some Easter tables) because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.{{rp|50}}

I think the second paragraph is fine as is. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ok, I can live with that. I will make it live now. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}