Talk:Common Era/Rewrite

The arguments have been lifted from [1].

If you feel the need to edit them or add new ones, you are at the wrong page.

Relevant

These still need to be checked for correctness and weasel words when merged.

implications

Is BC/AD POV?.

• +Stylistic rules which require that AD precede the year are justified by saying that "In the year of our Lord 2005" is correct syntax, and "2005 in the year of our Lord" is incorrect. Such statements belie the claim that AD has lost its religious meaning.
• +The intensity with which some Christians protest any switch from BC/AD to BCE/CE indicates that, despite any claims to the contrary, BC/AD has not become "removed from its religious connotations".
• -BC and AD have been used for such a length of time as to have become somewhat removed from their religious connotations.

neutrality

Does BCE/CE overcome that POV?

• +Supporters of common era notation promote it as a religiously neutral notation suited for cross-cultural use.
• +The calendar used by the West has become a global standard — one built into every computer's hardware. It should be religiously and culturally neutral out of consideration for those cultures compelled to use it out of necessity. [2]
• +It promotes ecumenical standards and Christian Era is an interchangeable meaning for the acronym CE.
• +It is simple to change BC/AD to BCE/CE terminology, since the years are exactly equal, regardless of which terminology is used. No conversion of the numbers is required. Documents with years that do not have AD designation do not need to be changed. (example: 1066 remains 1066 in AD and in CE systems)
• -Some object to the common era's retention of the year 1 as its epoch because it preserves a Christocentric worldview at the expense of a religiously neutral timekeeping system. These people hold that a more massive change in the calendar is needed, one that would change every date.
• -Likewise, the imposition of a Christian calendar as a 'Common Era' is also seen by some to be self-defeating.

anti-christian sentiment

Is BCE/CE POV in the opposite direction?

These arguments somehow meander a bit on Norse mythology to make a point and might turn out to be a variety of religious implications after they have been trimmed.

• +Dating years according to Christian theology has the potential to be culturally divisive in worldwide use. Naming months and days based on Roman and Norse gods, however, is of little concern because the Roman and Norse religions are virtually extinct and thus exclude everyone equally. No alternative naming system for days and months exists which has gained much currency. Furthermore, the names of the days of the week come from the names of the planets and other celestial objects, and four months are already named according to their numerical sequence. People in other cultures are free to name the months and days of the week as they wish in their own language (and they do), but years are just numbers and it is quite easy to make them less overtly culturally specific. [3]
• +Going along with the naming of a day as Wednesday does not imply that one worships Odin as a god, anymore than going along with calling a planet Jupiter implies that one actually worships Jupiter as a god, or even considers him a god. However, the very meanings of AD and of BC are such that they imply the acceptance of Jesus as Christ and as Lord. Saying "Today is Wednesday" does not mean that one attributes divinity to Odin. Saying "This is AD 2006" does actually mean "This is the year of the Lord (Jesus), 2006".
• -As there is no equally forceful trend to remove other terms with origins in non-Christian religions (such as days of the week named after Norse gods, and months named after Roman gods), the movement to replace BC and AD is specifically anti-Christian.

usage

How does BCE/CE fare as a means of communication?

• +It has been largely used by academic and scientific communities for over a century now, and is not a completely unfamiliar dating system. [4]
• -The newer BCE/CE system has not been used widely enough so as to have become commonly understood.

style

Does BCE/CE have other advantages/disadvantages that might be relevant?

• +It avoids confusion over whether "AD" should come before or after the year. (This is important for the in-house manuals of style of periodicals.)
• +Common Era notation works well syntactically with centuries, whereas Anno Domini, because it is about years instead of eras, does not ("In the 18th Century, Common Era" vs "In the year of the Lord, 18th Century" vs "In the 19th century in the year of the Lord")
• -"BCE" and "CE" are so similar that they may confuse readers.
• -Some believe that changing the notation merely confuses members of the public for only minor benefits.

correctness

Does BC/AD have other advantages/disadvantages that might be relevant?

• +The label Anno Domini is almost certainly inaccurate — the birth of Jesus of Nazareth probably occurred no later than 4 BC, the year of Herod the Great's death.

This is in need of a counter-argument. For example, by showing that CE isn't any less arbitrary and that most christians probably will think that AD is accurate enough, anyway.

Irrelevant

Arguments which should be removed, or at least countered.

pointlesss

• BCE/CE fails to fix one of the primary problems with the Christian calendar, the lack of a year '0'. 1 BC should become the year 0, 2 BC should become 1 BC, etc. There is no point to changing the system, without fixing the system.

People do use a year 0 when it suits them. It is also a false dichotomy: "either people should use AD, or something-with-negative numbers".

appeals to authority

• The term "Common era" is viewed as a weak euphemism for Anno Domini. MSN Encarta recognizes the era simply as "Christian (Common) Era: the period after the birth of Jesus Christ" [5] and uses the AD/BC notation in all articles [6]. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica does not even have a listing for "Common era" [7], and uses the AD/BC notation in all of its articles.
• When BC was changed to BCE in one examination question in New South Wales, Australia in early 2005, it prompted questions and protestations of offence in both chambers of the State Parliament, and the State Education Minister stated in Parliament that the change should not have been made.
• When the teaching of what BCE/CE meant was introduced into the English National Curriculum in 2002, it prompted confused letters to national newspapers.
• When the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada changed from using BC to using BCE, it was subjected to derision as well as complaints expressed in the national Canadian press.

If this is to be an examples of opposition, there should also be examples of support. However, what's the point?