Wikipedia

Talk:Jesus/Archive 72

< Talk:Jesus
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Ben Applegate in topic Requesting a new vote to decide whether to use "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE"
Archive 65←Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75

Jesus and India

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

More Hindu Views

Swami Vivekananda compares Jesus to Buddha saying they both found and achieved God. Buddha by Meditation and Jesus by Christ. He criticises christians for a variety of reasons (not similar to that of Gandhi), he too believes the true teachings of Christ have become polluted today. I think it should be added--71.163.67.245 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this the "Hindu view" of Jesus, or the view of one Hindu? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe Vivekananda was a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. Iirc it was Vivekananda who wrote the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, from which this quote most likely is. That movement, to essentially see all religions as having a single source, is now a world-wide event. I think that one of the Beatles had gone to India to meet with some of those disciples, albeit, in their third or fourth generation already. Wjhonson 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Jesus going to India?

You know this is amazing to me. THere is alot of evidence, documentaion, and writing about Jesus traveling to India. And there is no mention of anything like that here. I mean weather u believe it or not is one thing. But why is there no mention of this anywhere here? 71.107.54.199 01:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence that this is bogus, and no valid evidence to the affirmative. Jesus did not go to India, whether you want to believe it or not. Str1977 (smile back) 09:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. Scholars now feel the idea of Jesus going to India is impossible. Moreover, all the "influences" in Jesus's teachings can be found locally in Iudaea itself. Nevertheless, in the last century, the idea of Jesus travelling to India (across the trade routes) was an offbeat but legitimate hypothesis. IIRC, there was a Tibetan Buddhist scroll discovered in one of the temple libraries, that was written around the 1st-century by a student from the "Mediterranean Sea" named "Isa". There was a serious suggestion that Jesus himself wrote the scroll while studying Buddhism there. Of course, he didnt. But it was a serious inquiry. --Haldrik 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
However, this is a very notable tradition in India (there is even a Tomb of Jesus in Srinagar, Kashmir, India). I think it may be worth a mention somewhere (although I have no suggestion as to how). אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across this idea while trying to find citations for the Hinduism paragraph, shouldn't this already be mentioned down there? Many Hindu's seem to think that Jesus went to India for some reason. Homestarmy 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Above there is some correct information entangled with inaccuracies, so let me try to clear it up a bit:
  • There was, to my knowledge no scroll by a Isa from the 1st century - only Mr Notovitch, one of the originators of this thesis, claimed he had seen it. Later visitors could not find it again. Notovitch himself was exposed a fraud only a few years after his claims.
  • There is no local tradition about a "Tomb of Jesus" ... in Srinagar there is a Tomb of Budasaf, which the originators of the thesis misread Yusasaf. Budasaf is, to cut a long story short, no one else but Buddha, who in a varation of his biography died in Kashmir and was buried (in fact he didn't but it got stuck there)
  • All these claims were mixed with two elements:
    • Fasionable claims about Christian-Buddhist parallels (as Haldrick said) - Notovitch was writing in that vein.
    • The Islamic Amadhiya (spelling?) sect that identified Budasaf/Yusasaf with the Prophet Isa (i.e. Jesus) to further the claims of their leader and self-professed Messiah (he did this to ensure that Jesus was buried in Srnigar and hence couldn't appear again as an eschatological figure as most Muslims believe - the man thought himself to play that role)
  • Finally, that thesis was never "serious enquiry" - it was always unsubstantiated claims based on imaginary evidence.
Str1977 (smile back) 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Str: "There was, to my knowledge no scroll by a Isa from the 1st century. .. Notovitch himself was exposed a fraud only a few years after his claims." Dont you hate it when that happens! Appreciate the update. --Haldrik 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that Nicolas Notovitch was exposed as a fraud. He was called a fraud. But his claim was that he was shown a scroll that now is only shown to high adepts and therefore not in the perview of scholars. It would be difficult to prove that such a scroll does not exist. However I think you're right if you'd say that the vast majority of scholars believe such a scroll does not exist, or if it does that it does not say exactly what he is claiming it said. Wjhonson 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple of (inconspicuous) sentences regarding the location of the tomb of Yuz Asaf, believed to be Jesus by a few Muslims and also that this man was seen as a holy man by some Hindus and Buddhists. I believe my comments to be relevant, however, if they don't fit in, please feel free to remove them. The alternative theories to what might have happened to jesus should get a mention. See tomb of Jesus and links from it for more information.

My interest in this was that I saw a book about 'Jesus in India' (or Tibet) while I was in Dharam Sala and I'm now kicking myself for not buying it. User:Beefy_SAFC 21.55, 31st August 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention in this article of the Bhavishya Maha Purana, in which it is said that Shalivahana, the Indo-Scythian king met Jesus and spoke to him in Kashmir. If you go to the tombofjesus.com website, you will see records of Jesus referring to himself as Ishaputra (son of God) and Kumarigarbhasambhavam (which I guess means 'of virgin birth'). He also refers to himself as 'Isa-masi'. I don't know how accurate this document is, but at least there should be some discussion of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.32.94 (talk • contribs)

"commonly referred to"

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Anittas (talk · contribs) points out that where this article currently reads "He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where 'Christ' is a Greek-derived title meaning 'Anointed One' which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived 'Messiah'," it should probably say "He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where 'Jesus' is the Hellenized name of 'Joshua' and 'Christ' is a Greek-derived title meaning 'Anointed One,' which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived 'Messiah.' The name 'Joshua' means 'Jehovah saves,' and he was sometimes called Joshua bar-Joseph, where the prefix bar means 'son of,' in Aramaic." I basically concur, except that instead of "the Hellenized name" I would say "a Hellenized form". Anittas's suggestions on such things are usually good; I'm leaving this on the talk page rather than editing, because I'm sure this is a continually controversial article, it's not one I watch, people may have been over this territory before, etc. I leave it to someone working on this article to actually make the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See the archives. There is extensive debate over the origin of Jesus' name. You can also see some of what we agreed on in the past in the Historicity section of this article, specifically Jesus#Forensic_reconstructions_of_Jesus.27_day_to_day_life. —Aiden 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, see Talk:Jesus/Archive 41. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
"The name 'Joshua' means 'Jehovah saves'". Not precisely. The "shua" part isnt the verb "saves" but a noun. "Shua" literally means "a cry for help", or a "shout" like "Save me!", the kind that someone might give if attacked or drowning. Thus, "Yahu shua" literally means "'God' is a shout-for-saving". Where a person might shout, "Police!" or "Lifeguard!", the person shouting (usually a parent praying to have a child), says "God!" (The newborn child then is literally the answer to the parent's prayer.) The loose translation of the name as "God saves", takes for granted God never ignores a cry for help, thus "God saves" whenever someone shouts for God. --Haldrik 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a new vote to decide whether to use "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE"

Latest comment: 18 years ago96 comments40 people in discussion

I am requesting a new vote to decide, at least for a while, which of these notations to use in this article. I think this is the time to make such a decision because Wikipedia has finally become "mainstream" and a new vote can more accurately gauge the actual feelings of the public, rather than hardcore wikipedians. I honestly believe that Wikipedia is a far greater resource than Britannica, Encarta, etc; and all that is holding it back from perfection are things like this, where nobody can reach an agreement and compromises have to be made, at the sake of the usefulness and elegance of the entry on a whole. If problems like these were solved, Wikipedia could improve itself 10 times over. These teachers, these librarians, who lambast our project do so because they think that millions of people, especially young people, will never be able to work together and agree on anything. They are wrong. I think that this generation won't be remembered for popularizing ipods or blogs or anything technological. I think we will be revered as the generation that was closer to each other than any other, not in the fact that we know everyone on our street or can name everyone in our grade, but that we can collaborate with each other and actually do things together with others that we will never even see or live in the same country with. Like a realization that we are better together, instead of breaking off from everyone else and declaring your dissatisfaction with everyone else like the baby boomers, or generation x, we will work together to better satisfy every one of us as individuals. And now that I have brought to a close my lamentations and hope for the future, you may stop reading and respond. --Spotswood Dudley 01:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This again? Debating the date notation seems to be a recurring event. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been a long time, and we should seek to make the article look better. And by "Better" I of course mean "AD and BC only" :D. Homestarmy 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that would look far better! But anyway, Wikipedia policy should apply instead. I presume there is a policy on this issue by now? If anyone can point us to it please? - to save us trawling through archived discussions to find it? rossnixon 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the issue has pretty much been solidly changed to an article-by-article basis. I haven't seen any sign of the dispute breaking out over any new policies or anything. Homestarmy 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Homes is right, Ross. The relevant policy is WP:Date#Eras. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that long, Homes, it seems to happen every other month or so. Still, if Spotswood wants to vote, then let us vote (with much fear and trembling....) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Final vote tally: 16-11-1-9

Voting ends 0600 UTC on 3 September 2006 (Voting now ended).

The voting might have ended but the issue won't go away. Any bets as to how long before the article is reverted to the "dual format"? Why not just remove AD and leave BC - wouldn't that satisfy most people? Arcturus 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Four hours and 36 minutes before the first revert. What a long time! Then again, America was probably still asleep when the change was made. Arcturus 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's 21 against it being just BC/AD & 16 in favour of it being just BC/AD - that is NOT consensus for just AD/BC. The compromise that has stood since May 2005 has not been overturned & the reversion to BC/AD done by OLPP does NOT reflect the vote --JimWae 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that method of tallying standard operating procedure at WP? It sounds like an underhanded and unexpected (as in, the rules weren't set before the vote. I'm sure most people thought CE/BCE and "Neutral/Abstain/Protest" were two distinct votes) way to get around the vote results. 2nd Piston Honda 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should count every editor on WP that didn't vote as being in the "Neutral/Abstain" category. Therefore, the number of people against just using BC/AD is more like a million. Absurd? Yes. Let's tally this a little differently. That's 16 for it being just BC/AD and 12 against just BC/AD. Now the question becomes, is 16 to 12 a concensus? Kylef81 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 57% took the time to vote for something other than just BC/AD. It is entirely reasonable to say that nearly every protest vote was a vote for the existing compromise AND a vote against having another vote. I know mine was (even though I personally would prefer BCE/CE) & I know for sure from comments that many others were. One of the earliest votes had BCE/CE beat AD/BC by something like 31 to 20. It was agreed that such was not a consensus & that the best way to avoid continued edit wars was the compromise of using both --JimWae 18:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Was the decision to use the double notation agreed upon using the same super-majority standard? 2nd Piston Honda 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It was offered as a compromise and accepted after much discussion. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears that more editors want AD/BC only than any other variant. Whichever way you look at it, that's got to be the winner - but it's not a consensus (but then again, see usage 1 here Arcturus 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
A plurality is not a consensus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In 2000 (or AD 2000 if you like), George Bush was elected to the US presidency (heaven help us!) with 48% of the popular vote. In 2005 Tony Blair was elected prime minister of Britain (give me strength!) with 35% of the popular vote - I think AD/BC is the winner. Arcturus 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I voted for Ralph Nader, so... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • see Wikipedia:Consensus. We have had a compromise which, while for only a few is their first choice, is an acceptable second choice to a large majority. Do we want an environment that respects the views of a large majority of editors, or one that gives preference to a minority? --JimWae 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • JimWare is the only user against the fact that AD/BC is the final consensus. The Neutral category represented those who did not want to participate in a vote but wanted to offer comments. AD/BC is the consensus here. What gives Wae the right to decide what is consensus when the rest of us disagree with him?— OLP 1999 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • AD/BC is not the consensus. The vote was to change the dating notation, and the majority oppose this. While the double notation is cumbersome, this vote has confirmed two things: 1. The forces that forced a double notation in the first place are still in play. 2. Many editors are sick and tired of this vote occuring again and again and again and again. --Haldrik 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not so on 2 counts - at least 3 others have agreed there is no consensus for change from both - and that is not what Protest meant - as evident from the comments. Would someone else please do the honors? --JimWae 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. A vast majority of editors here fall into one of two categories. 1. People who voted for and/or prefer the compromise outright. 2. People who voted for one of the two notation systems but PREFER the compromise over the other notiation (where I fall). Why is this even being argued? The compromise is the only alternative that settles the debate peacefully for now. Live with it and debate it here if you want, but this page needs get back to being unprotected.PelleSmith 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AD/BC

  1. Homestarmy 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Cheers to another 1,000 or so years to use AD and BC! :)
  2. rossnixon 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Wjhonson 06:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC) The more normative choice.
  4. `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` [discl.] 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Lostcaesar 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I was going to abstain, since I think a change will just cause trouble, but after seeing the reasons people employed to vote for CE I just have to vote here. If someone gives a good reason I could change my mind - (in regards to below) lots if not most scholars use AD, Lord and Christ were both applied to Jesus while he was alive to him directly, both AD and CE refer to Jesus as they refer to the traditional year of his birth (a year when nothing else significantly world-changing happened), and the fact that one article uses CE (lots of articles use AD also) - sigh.
  6. Roy Brumback 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The compromise of using both AD and CE seemed fine to me, but if this is going to become a recurring issue, then I think the following guideline helps to solve it. According to Wiki's rule section on Eras and dates both styles are acceptable but an edit war over which to use is unacceptable and whatever the article originally used is to be preferred. The first version of this page talked about the common era but used AD/BC for dates, so in order to avoid eternal conflict, we should probably stick with that, although I don't really have any problem with using them both, unless that is going to be a continuing source of conflict.
    Roy, you should know that this was once a incredibly heated and divisive debate. People involved worked out a compromise, specifically concerning Jesus and more generally concerning religion and 1st century Jewish/Roman history. Articles that were specifically about Christianity would use AD/BC. Articles on Jewish topics or dominated by a Jewish POV would use BCE and CE. Articles that strived to acknowledge both POVs or be strictly neutral would use both systems. This was never codified in a guideline, it was a workable (and, everyone recognized, not perfect but rather "good enough") compromise sorted out by a number of editors who reached a compromise in part because they were consciously NOT making policy, just a working compromise. You are free to reject it in favor of the style guide but let me remind you that the style guide is not policy nor mandatory. It´s your vote, i just wanted to give you some more background info. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Spotswood Dudley 3:17 PM, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I have a number of reasons for using the BC/AD timescale.
    1. I feel that in the ENGLISH wikipedia we should use the English dating scale.
    2. BC/AD have become so ingrained into our culture that they are no more religious to most people than the pagan-derived days of the week.
    3. Further seperating BC and AD from their ancient religious connotations, most scholars now agree that 1 AD is likely the incorrect date of Jesus' birth. See [[1]]
      • the determination was (erroneously) based on Incarnation & birth in 1 BC - not AD
    4. And lastly, even if B.C.E. and C.E. were used in the real world, the fact that they mean the same thing as BC and AD, combined with the considerable majority of Christians in influential places like America,invariably means that the meaning of these connotations would change into the already oft-used "Before Christian Era," and "Christian Era." See [[2]]
      • though chronologically equivalent, they most certainly do not MEAN the same, and if you choose to interpret CE as Christian Era, that's fine, that's your choice. There is no such choice possible for those who have problems with AD & BC, using them MUST imply Jesus is Lord or Christ. This is why there should never have been a vote begun without prior discussion --JimWae 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Peyna 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the original page used BC and AD. Wikipedia policy supports the use of either method (same rule applies to things like whether to use British or American English). If there is an argument, then either the most natural choice (i.e. an article about the Queen of England should use British English) should be used OR whatever the page used originally. (These statements all come from WP policy). However, personally I don't care which version it is, so long as it is something other than this horrible compromise. Peyna 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, it appears that AD/BC dominated the article from inception (December 19, 2001) up until around October 28, 2004, when the edit wars began on the grounds that AD/BC was NPOV and "offensive" to non-Christians. Peyna 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, we need not redisturb this calmed debate.--142.176.56.62 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Which was over a year ago and circa Archive 16...when we're almost up to archive 72! I strongly suspect the result of this poll will be no consensus, and hence no change. I just get tired of saying "RTFA" (Read the F'in Archives) and pointing so far back...if this comes up again (and it will), I'll have something more recent to point to. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. 2nd Piston Honda 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Causes less confusion, continuity with millions of historical documents, and has its own meaning. If you want to pick your own point in time and your own new name for it, fine, but don't try to rewrite history by covering BC/AD up with bland Newspeak.
  10. mweng 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC) I say keep it AD/BC
  11. Darentig 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kylef81 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Avery W. Krouse 04:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Granted I've been gone quite a while, I was here when the most previous debate about this raged, and I still see no reason to change it. Please see Year zero for a better glimpse of why we use the system we use today. Note well that there is no other reason given for the significance of year zero other than Jesus' birth. Therefore, Anno domini is a rather appropriate construct for the current system of time.
  14. OLP 1999 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) More of a worldwidely-recognized system, and CE/BCE is not any more neutral, it's still based on Jesus' birth date.
  15. Arcturus 13:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) As per comments immediately above, but see my comments at the foot of this debate.
  16. Merlin Storm 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC) AD and BC are appropriate to article. (I'm not even a Christian and I can see this is obvious)
    1. Just because Dionysius Exiguus screwed up doesn't mean anything- this artcile is about the one of the most important figures in Christianity and I feel it appropriate to use the dating method used by Christians. Merlin Storm
    • I see so you're just advocating the use of indigenous dating systems? The minute you say that the reason for using this dating system is because Jesus is an important figure to Christians and supposedly this is THE Christian dating system you are introducing the type of POV argued against by the opponents of AD/BC. This is not a Christian encyclopedia, as such the dating system used should not be prefered "because of" that religion no matter what the particular entry is about (of course there may be other reasons to prefer AD/BC). The fact that someone got it wrong and Jesus was most probably born prior to his own era simply introduces the irony in sticking to this system if we are interested in facts and not simply acquiescing to a POV related to a historical and symbolic figure.PelleSmith 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps Mohammad should be dated with the Islamic calendar? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Late Votes:

  1. Brisvegas 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Not too bothered either way, but using BC/AD in this article seems more appropriate in this case.
    Um, the voting ended; but thanks for playing! Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 09:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CE/BCE

  1. Haldrik The archeology of Israel's Early Roman Period (Jesus's lifetime) uses CE. To me, AD just looks odd.
  2. In my humble opinion, both systems are well-known enough that readers will recognize what they are. But, BC and AD refer to Jesus, and Wikipedia should not favor any particular religious group. After all, we don't just have the Christian version of Jesus in this article; why should we only have a date scheme biased in favor of Christianity. In all, I think that if we use BC an AD, we might as well also give the dates using all other calendar systems, for completeness, including the Hebrew, Muslim, and Chinese calandars. -- Where 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC) It really isn't that big of a deal though, in my opinion. -- Where 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, a few academics who use the term CE refer to it as the Christian Era. Even this is acceptable, and is more or less what Jews mean when they say the Common Era marks the beginning of the period when Christianity gained hegemony in Europe. But to force people to say, "In the year of our Lord" (Latin: Anno Domini) is indeed a form of forced conversion. It shouldnt be here. --Haldrik 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Likewise, BCE as Before the Christian Era is similarly a quasi-neutral statement. Haldrik 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. The designation of "christ" and "domini" is from after his lifetime. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Scholarly version should be used. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. per Brian and Where. I have had the same issue with Abraham, and while it is currently using the hybrid BC/BCE, I believe the neutral CE/BCE convention is more appropriate. -- Avi 13:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. BCE/CE is the NPOV option, imho. -- Sampo Torgo [talk]  
  7. If we would find "Year of our Lord" POV, then AD is POV. I wouldn't innovate the "BCE" alternative if it didn't exist, but I wouldn't neglect it once it's become common. Jonathan Tweet 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. as per arguments made above--Clawed 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. If archeologists, geologists and biblical scholars, use CE/BCE, that's my preference. Atom 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. I personally prefer CE/BCE, I would vote for both out of practical concerns, but can't fail to see the irony in advocating a dating system based on the birth of Jesus (BC/AD), when even this entry dates his birth to between 8-2 years prior to the original calculation. So if we use AD/BC we have to say that Jesus was born 8-2 years Before Christ?PelleSmith 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. As per long debate elsewhere, BC/AD violate WP:NPOV. Since NPOV is non-negotiable, I don't see why it's ever worth discussing (but anyway...) Guettarda 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on dates says that BC/AD and BCE/CE are both acceptable. Regardless of whatever debate you had on some other article, the policy is the same and has been that way for some time. Peyna 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Late votes (for future reference):

  1. I believe that AD/BC is a system that should be phased out, but that is my personal opinion, not to mention that nearly all modern scholarly literature uses CE/BCE nowadays. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course. How are the unsophisticated masses going to swallow such change but by calculated transitional steps. 2nd Piston Honda 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Both (AD/CE and BC/BCE)

  1. --CTSWyneken(talk) 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC) We've been over this countless times before. Both notations are used in the lit. Some non-Christians do not like what is to them an implicit confession of faith (AD). It is long term policy. Leave it alone.

Neutral/Abstain/Protest

  1. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC). WP:VIE. Besides, 6 of one, VI of the other. I still remember the hypersphere of Hell of transfinite dimensions from last March. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Which is worse - leaving the era notation as is (thereby acknowledging the issue) or another torturous debate (that will likely AGAIN end with the same result anyway)? Spotswood has made 8 edits to wikipedia - all to Jesus page, its talk page, and his home page. It is bad precedent to jump to a vote at the drop of a hat from someone with so few edits. Other votes have been refused in the past, why does this one get set-up so quickly? We should vote first on whether or not to have a vote --JimWae 03:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    To prove a point. Last April, his second edit aribtrarily changed a date to AD/BC. And again, later: [3]. At least he asked for a vote this time ;) If, indeed, nothing changes, then Spotswood will know why. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • we do not need to put ourselves through all that again just to prove something to someone whose edits are indistinguishable from vandalism - or at least in violation of policy. This is bad precedent --JimWae 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. If it isn´t broken, don´t fix it. We had a stable version that violated no policies. Why screw with it? If anything, we should be discouraging people from trying to stir up conflict where there need be none. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. There is no reason for a vote, especially one raised after no ongoing discussion by a user who has not previously participated in such discussions or long been involved with the article. —Aiden 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Per JimWae, Slrubenstein, and Aiden. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Per above. No matter how much people think CE is more 'neutral' or 'scholarly', there is always going to be the valid POV (especially on this page) of the Christians who take offense to any effort to make the era notations more politically correct. Using both is a compromise that shows both POVs, and avoids edit wars. We keep this policy, and if anyone from either side tries to change it, we have this longstanding consensus to use both (if its upheld again, which the current 7 to 6 vote seems to show we won't reach consensus to change).--Andrew c 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. I tire of this debate and I dislike political correctness. Move on. Storm Rider (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kevin/Last1in 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Per Storm & Arch. We have enough substantive problems; why obsess about trivia?
  9. m:Polls are evil, and also per Slr and Aiden. JYolkowski // talk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussions (re this choice?)

What makes this page so special as compared to every other page on Wikipedia where it has been accepted that use of one or the other is fine? Peyna 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well this is the article about Jesus, who's introductions of the beliefs and teaching's of Christianity did sort of form the backbone of most of the western world in some way or another, so it's certainly a rather important topic. Homestarmy 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Also what makes this article unique is that its editors are knowledgeable about Jesus, and acutely aware of what the terms mean, BC "Before the Christ" and AD "In the year of our Lord", and their implication. So, the luxury of blissful ignorance cant happen. --Haldrik 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So, does that mean every article that touches Christianity should the same rule regarding dates used on this article? Peyna 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a case by case thing per article based on the new Era notation policy thing, generally saying that if it's in one notation, it should not be changed to another unless there is a clear consensus/agreement/what-have-you on the subject. Homestarmy 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Payna, why don´t you take a minute to read my comment to Roy Brumbick? Also, Wikipedians ideally form a community. That means that we are cablable of making ad hoc decisions on a case by case basis, while also trying to be consistent to certain principles. From apurely legalistic point of view this may seem paradoxical, but this is precisely the difference between a community and a juridical regime. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what I find to be the silliest part of this whole waste of time? There are only 3 places in the article that require an era notation. Seeing BC/BCE 3 times is superior to edit wars and a halt of progressive discussions on talk. I mean, Aiden and myself (with a little help from other editors) worked on point 1 of the to do list. And I proposed moving on to point 2 and how many people responded? On the other hand, how many people are willing to respond to a poll that only effect 3 small abbreviations in the whole article?--Andrew c 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. That discussion is still open, too. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Err, actually, I counted 8 instances of BC/BCE or AD/CE. Homestarmy 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Ack, I take that back. For some reason I didn't realize that we use AD/CE on a number of dates as well. Wikipedia policy says that positive years do not need an era notation, unless in a range of dates that starts in BC/E. However, discussion has suggested that AD/CE may be necessary for some positive years if it isn't clear contextual what the number represents (for example single and double digit year numbers). Anyway, I'd propose simply removing some of the AD/CE era notations on the triple digit years. And just to avoid confusion, what I am proposing is changing between 325 and 787 AD/CE to say between the years 325 and 787 and Council of Carthage in 418 AD/CE. to Council of Carthage in 418. However, I apologize for saying "only 3" above, there would still be about 10 instances of the dual eras.--Andrew c 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you got your point across though, I admit, it is a small number of letters. But these days, they sure can be extremely noticeable letters nonetheless. Homestarmy 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Look folks, right now 12 people want to stick with BC/AD and 50% more want something else. I think this is enough to show that the working consensus that has been fairly stable for some time deserves to be maintained. Let´s keep things as they are, and instead of wasting our energy on voting and arguing over a dead horse, lets devote ourselves to actually improving articles. There is still the issue of how best to merge or reorganize the articles focusing on the historicity of Jesus and the historical Jesus. And then there is the question of different Christian interpretations (by clergy and or theologians) of the NT, and whether the article on Christology deserves further work. Why not turn out energies to these topics? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What just happened, Atomaton's vote seems to of somehow scrambled up the history, and now several votes were deleted? Homestarmy 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I can't fix it.--Andrew c 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just happened to pass by this page and - blow me! the debate continues; astonishing! The solution is staring you all in the face but you just won't have it, will you? Here it is: Don't use AD or CE. Simply state the year with a link (e.g. 1). Years from AD 1 onwards speak for themselves. If there's a view that AD is somehow POV (can't see it myself), then don't use it - and don't use CE either. When it comes to BC vs BCE, BC does not proclaim anything. It merely sets a marker for an event that just about everyone acknowledges took place, and on which our calendar is based - so what's the problem with it? Use it! If you don't like it, fell free to use the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other calendar, but if you use the Gregorian calendar at least accept what it's based on. In summary: don't use AD, CE or BCE. Use BC for years prior to AD 1. Arcturus 13:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the standard was -- if an article uses BC/AD in the original draft or is about Christianity, use BC/AD. Well, this article is about Christ, and original draft used BC/AD. To use such an awkward dual notation on a page about Jesus strikes me as patently absurd. --Ben Applegate 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_72&oldid=1143859495"