Talk:Anno Domini/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

AD as abbreviation for Christian era

In the edit [1] User:JimWae asserts that AD is "certainly not" an abbreviation for Christian Era. I disagree. Isn't lb an abreviation for pound? The Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus cited in the article has this entry (emphasis mine):

A.D. 'abbr.' (of a date) of the Christian era (Latin Anno Domini, 'in the year of the Lord').

Now, since the article does not claim Christian era is the only phrase for which AD is an abbreviation, and since one dictionary says AD is an abbreviation for Christian era, we would have to find a source better than Oxford University Press to justify JimWae's reversion. --Gerry Ashton 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

JimWae was right. "AD" is not an abbreviation of "Christian Era"—not in the true sense of the word "abbreviation". The particular dictionary you cited is careless in characterizing it as so. Oxford University Press publishes more dictionaries than I can count, some better than others. For resolving questions in which technical accuracy is at issue, a pocket dictionary is not a good choice. (For example, does your dictionary distinguish among abbreviations, contractions, initialisms, and acronyms in its word labeling?) --71.175.22.69 17:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question from IP address 71.175.22.69, no the dictionary does not distinguish among abbreviations, initialisms, and acronyms; it does label contractions (like can't) as such. Also, you have not posted a reliable source that describes the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus as careless, so I'll pass over the issue. So what kind of shortened form is AD when it stands for Christian era. Surely not a contraction or initialism. To try to see how the American Heritage Dictionary (3rd ed.) deals with English words with a short form based on Latin, I looked up lb. and found that is labeled as an abbreviation.

If you disagree either that AD is an abbreviation, or that AD is the short form for Christian Era, please find a source; I'd be happy to see it. --Gerry Ashton 19:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"AD" is not an abbreviation of "Christian Era" because it is not formed by shortening the latter. This follows directly from the definition of abbreviation. (The Encarta dictionary entry on abbreviation provides a clear explanation of what an abbreviation is. See [2].) "AD" is an abbreviation of "anno domini", and functions as an adverb. "Christian Era" is a noun phrase (and functions as a noun). "CE" is an abbreviation of "Common Era" (or "Christian Era" if you prefer) and functions as a noun phrase when used purely as a shorthand for its expansion. When used after a year number, "CE" really means "in the Common Era" (or "in the Christian Era"). --71.175.22.69 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that Encarta dictionary entry says an abbreviation is a shortened form of a word or phrase, but it does not specify the process of shortening. Apparently, Encarta does not object to translating into Latin before shortening, because an entry for lb. says this is an abbreviation for pound.

I also note that Encarta says AD or A.D. is an adverb, so apparently they consider it a word in its own right. If we want to find a way to express this that covers all the dictionaries, this could get messy. --Gerry Ashton 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to flog a a dead horse here, but would "AD is also an alternative designation for..." not be better than "AD is also an abbreviation for..."? --ukexpat 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like abbreviation I suggest short form or is shortened to rather than alternative designation because the latter implies that AD is a word in its own right, which not everyone would agree with. --Gerry Ashton 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get nit-picky, try the term acronym. But it seems fine the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.151.13 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AD-Latin BC-English

BC obviously stands for Before Christ and AD, Anno Domini but why is the former in English and the latter in Latin? If someone knows, could they add to the article please? Tuck99 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why that is. You probably noticed that Anno Domini was invented in 525, while the concept of numbering years before Christ was invented by Bede several hundred years later. The fact that the two concepts were invented at different times may play into the difference in the abbreviations. --Gerry Ashton 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BC should really be AC - ante Christum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.10.43 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Annis Domini

A google for "annis Domini" reveals a low number of uses in English. The search, of course, revealed only the uses in the full (rather than abbreviated) form. In full form, it appears to be used with multiple years ("annis domini 1993, 1996, 2004"), rather than with periods longer than a year. For cases I saw, it appeared BEFORE the years rather than after. While "7th Century in the yearS of our lord" improves the reading where AD comes AFTER the year, there are still syntactic difficulties with "in the years of our lord, 7th Century". The "info" was addded by an IP with no other edits, and subsequently used to justify removal of a paragraph from Common Era article. Still, some discussion of use of "annis Domini" would be appropriate for this article. Anno Domini existed first, then was abbreviated as AD. Some citation might be found for the backronymic claim. --JimWae 06:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin word order is not the same as English. Anyone who would use "annis Domini" would therefore use it in constructions that would be unnatural for "in the years of our Lord". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this be an FA?

I mean, it doesn't have very many references, and there's an apparent dispute going on over the article, that content should be moved from it to another article. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the references, there may not be too many, but two of them are entire books that are closely related to the topic at hand, and several others are on-topic papers in respected scholarly journals. I see some spots in the article that are not controversial that could be given inline citations to one of the references, but this isn't really necessary, because they could easily be found in the index of one of the books cited.

Right now, the article seems to be almost entirely taken from a single book. Just because that book is the "result of extensive research" doesn't mean that this article is based on a broad base of research.RodPickett 23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that some of the material about other eras probably belongs in a different article. --Gerry Ashton 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest merging certain information into this article, for the sake of making it somewhat longer (but ensuring that they are of equal quality beforehand). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

BC / AD and NPOV

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum do raise such a question; if not, perhaps somebody can forward the issue in a more-visible, more-correct place. It seems to conflict with the NPOV to use "B.C." and "A.D." in articles on Wikipedia (e.g., in the recently-featured Hatshepsut article). As stated in the Anno_Domini article itself, "B.C.E./C.E. ... do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog", Cunningham & Starr, 1998. In the same way that "mankind" (in reference to humankind) is exclusionary and no longer acceptable in writing that claims to have a NPOV, so are "B.C." and "A.D.".

The place to discuss how dates should be written in Wikipedia is the talk page for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I suspect the reaction will be "oh, not again", but that's just my guess. --Gerry Ashton 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous and undated message poster above, the issue cannot be resolved by resort to POV and NPOV tags. It relates to the application of conventions and more particularly to the culture wars that are a feature of debate in the US but not nearly so significantly in other English-speaking countries. Most strikingly the BC/AD and BCE/CE standoff in three English-speaking countries I have lived in (Ireland, South Africa and the UK) is restricted mainly to academia while in the popular culture almost everyone uses BC/AD regardless of belief. With regard to 'mankind' you are quite wrong, it is quite acceptable in writing and I have seen it used and heard it spoken frequently. Usage of this word may be favoured for numerous reasons other than ignoring political correctness, which is the origin of the Latin-English hybrid term, 'humankind'. --AssegaiAli 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The United States is not dissimilar: CE/BCE is an academic usage, and even there only in certain fields. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article removal

Can anyone explain where to find the discussion leading to this no longer being a featured article? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Click on Show in heading to get to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anno_Domini/archive1 --JimWae (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First usages in English or o/w

re:

Even though Anno Domini was in widespread use by the 9th century, Before Christ (or its equivalent) did not become widespread until the late 15th century.

1708 is the first I can find in English in connection with a year (and this is neither capitalized nor abbreviated -- admittedly not every book is on google, but if it were widespread, we should expect to see it more than this

• see:
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=iZwv4VeoCOQC&pg=PR5&dq=%22before+christ%22+date:1700-1720&lr=
  • http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22before+christ%22+date%3A700-1710 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, 1665 seems to qualify

• http://books.google.com/books?id=dW4DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP18&dq=%22before+christ%22+date:700-1710&lr= --JimWae (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, 1665 is not clear at all. Regarding the other hits that do not let us read the text, I have found many other books before 1708 that DO let us read the text--JimWae (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1732 for use of BC abbreviation

• http://books.google.com/books?id=LEYQAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA151&dq=year+BC+date:1732-1732&lr=
• do a search on year BC (no quotes)

I will also do a search on year AD -- remember AD is a Latin word. disregard Theosphist & notes on that play by Johnson - they are later --JimWae (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1654 for AD abbreviation
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=dPc2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52&dq=year+A.D.+date:1651-1654&lr=

• 1394 for Anno Domini --- among google books anyway, obviously Bede used it & Dionysius used similar words
  • http://books.google.com/books?q=%22anno+domini%22+date%3A300-1400

• Other abbreviations for Anno Domini --JimWae (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Anno Dom
  • A° Dom

• Some early 1500s showing up with Anno Dom. at http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22anno+dom%22+date%3A1-1560&btnG=Search+Books
  • 1507 with Anno Domini
  • 1519 in Latin with Anno Dom. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/45987961
  • 1520 - but refers to 1577 http://books.google.com/books?id=rqw9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA84&dq=%22anno+dom%22+date:651-1640&lr=
  • 1604 in http://books.google.com/books?id=tF4LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA493&dq=%22anno+dom%22+date:651-1640&lr= BUT it is difficult to tell WHICH PARTS of book are from 1604

• • 1264 "Anno Dom." on funeral monument in LATIN in London http://books.google.com/books?id=Um0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA108&dq=%22anno+dom%22+1264 --JimWae (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

From CE

There was a well-documented Origins section on CE, which I have removed there to make that article focus mostly on the AD vs. CE-debate. As it overlaps but has interesting sources, I now paste it here for stepwise merger with the text already here. Large parts overlap.

==Origins==

See also: Anno Domini

The Anno Domini system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus, while in Rome, working on a table to establish future dates for Easter. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by regnal years and by naming the consuls who held office that year. He wished to replace the Diocletian years that had been used, because he did not wish to continue the memory of a persecutor of Christians. In the process, he determined a year for the beginning of the life of Jesus. He gave a method to calculate "annos ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi" (Latin for years since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ). He himself stated that the then current year was 525 years since the incarnation of Jesus.

Some two centuries later in northern England, the Venerable Bede began the process of bringing the AD system Dionysius had invented into general use in Western Europe, when he (Bede) used it to date the events in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731. Bede also used another Latin term "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ", to identify years before the first year of this era. According to the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia, usage of AD gradually became more common in Europe in the latter part of the 9th century, and, while it occurred occasionally in papal documents of the time of John XIII (965-972), it was not the rule before the 12th century. In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to switch to the Anno Domini system.

Classical geographer (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When the coverage of the origin of the A.D. era was substantially increased a few months ago by JimWae, I questioned whether it was wise to have such extensive coverage in two different articles, but at the time, I was the only one who questioned the expansion. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• That edit was too bold a move - CE is not defined as an ALTERNATIVE system, it is NOT equivalent in meaning (it is chronologically equivalent). The focus of the CE article should NOT be the arguments. While some condensing might work, Dionysius himself was engaging in some "political correctness" & that needs to stay with the CE article - more later--JimWae (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• the fact that it was not until the 15th century that AD was entrenched & that "common era" was used so soon afterwards (perhaps even concurrently) are relevant to the issue of CE being a "late-comer". I agree that the AD article could benefit from thise 2 paragraphs, but further discussion about CE should be at Talk:Common Era --JimWae (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Common Era

A template has been added by an editor using an IP address, suggesting that Common Era be merged into this article. This has been discussed and rejected in the past. Unless the editor supports his/her proposal here, I intend to delete the merge template in 24 hours. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Against the merge They are two differenet concepts. One could argue for the opposite as well. 68.144.11.50 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Against the merge I'm the same guy above; I just forgot to log in. Sorry! Udonknome (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Against the merge.  If currently CE and AD denote indeed the identical christian era, seperated topics are justified for its different approaches.
By the way, CE and AD don't necessarily designate the same era, cf. this  – astronomically only correct –  proposal.   -- Halloo 007 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Independent ideas. AD is a religious designation but CE is a neutral designation for the de facto standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red King (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, there is no current proposal on the table. The proposal was lost in the past (see intro to this section) and, judging by the votes this time, it woulf fail again. --Red King (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... no way is CE a neutral term. It has generated far too much controversy for that and in any case AD's usage is largely for situations that have nothing to do with religion so neither is that a religious term! Merging the articles is nevertheless unnecessary IMHO--AssegaiAli (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy

What is Wikipedia's policy regarding dates in articles? The B.C./A.D. or B.C.E/C.E.? I personally prefer the traditional B.C./A.D. Emperor001 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy and I suspect there would be no consensus for one. I strongly favour the neutral CE/BCE in all articles except astronomy, which uses the +/- designation. And articles about other faiths should use the relevant calendar in addition to CE. That's if a designation is needed at all. 2008 is self explanatory, it doesn't need a CE after it. --Red King (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer periods:

• Years are normally expressed in digits; a comma is not used in four-digit years (1988, not 1,988).
• Avoid inserting the words the year before the digits (1995, not the year 1995), unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear.
• Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before a year (AD 1066) but after a century (2nd century AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other

So if you start the article, you get to choose the form. But using either designation for dates since at least the 15th C is affectatious. --Red King (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed starting the article (or being the first to use the AD or CE term) gets to choose; and subsequent editors should respect this. It is much like the choice for British or US spelling. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's pronounced what now? I don't know about the states, but in Australia I've only ever heard anoh doh-mih-nih, as in the sounds in Bath [BrE, AuE] Note Nod; Dinosaur Nod Mayday Billy Nope India. Forgive me for the transcription, I lack a familiarity with the IPA. That's the pronunciation I learnt in school and that's what I've used and heard people use when discussing the concept. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are probably several pronunciations. But I'm removing the pronunciation in the article because that is not how I pronounce it, nor is it the pronunciation given in the OED. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First use of "before Christ" in English?

• 1722?--JimWae (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• 1708 --JimWae (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• 1665 --JimWae (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An earlier use is in the 1658 English translation of James Ussher, Annals of the World page 1: "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710." The words in the last two phrases, including "before Christ", are the headings of two columns on the right side of this page and many subsequent pages (the numbers appear below, opposite the text to which they apply). Obviously, this is the famous Creation date of 4004 BC. — Joe Kress (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=VrHER1jYzhIC&pg=PA17&dq=Annals+of+the+World+%22in+the+beginning+god%22&ei=H9K9R8rfK5eQiQGL2bzbBQ&sig=9cEpDjrYFKSTfV2Vz1CBqF5ifi8 uses BC - must have been editor's change. I suspect column headings could be editor's doing also --JimWae (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you click on more editions for the result from http://books.google.com/books?ei=H9K9R8rfK5eQiQGL2bzbBQ&q=Annals+of+the+World+%22in+the+beginning+god%22&btnG=Search+Books you get the originals (no preview). However, with search http://books.google.com/books?ei=H9K9R8rfK5eQiQGL2bzbBQ&q=Annals+of+the+World+%22in+the+beginning+god%22+christ&btnG=Search+Books Ussher does not appear at all. Something seems to be "up" --JimWae (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://saturniancosmology.org/files/ussher/ has excerpts that use neither "christ" nor "BC" --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Yzq5f81KByEC&pg=PA86&dq=Annals+%22in+the+beginning%22+God+created+heaven+bc&ei=O9m9R8aSCtC4igHb-8lH&sig=kezjeHkVWGQe6RSzbijOf2gmEDU says 4004 was a marginal notation (no mention of christ)--JimWae (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://hess.metapress.com/content/v37838lp87321565/ also relevant (esp to BC abbrev) --JimWae (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=SuXWhYuz3NsC&pg=PA502&dq=Annals+of+the+World+%22in+the+beginning+god%22+b.c.&ei=W9-9R9KGHoeQjgGi3LDZBQ&sig=gI5b2rSeMkF8HZsRCjhHr7Mp5YA would seem to support that Ussher used "something" consistently that aligns with BC, but it is not entirely clear what, nor how it was translated --JimWae (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm has Ussher (translated) as using "before the Christian account" twice in his preface --JimWae (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html denies Ussher used BC, and indicates he wrote as if there were a year zero. Seems he used negative years --JimWae (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare the last to http://books.google.com/books?id=VrHER1jYzhIC&pg=PA9&dq=Annals+of+the+World+%22autumn+of+710+jp%22&ei=nOm9R7vRG5aCiQHslMHKBQ&sig=AX5Lsc2SR5Mw003-_sXFTNTNySs and to http://books.google.com/books?id=VrHER1jYzhIC&pg=PA10&dq=Annals+of+the+World+%22years+before+the+christian+era%22&ei=5em9R9-eM4rMiQHF1O3NBQ&sig=mGoEzkftAJY-UNljDa-7Yb8ZZqk to see the effect of the editor --JimWae (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been presuming his work was translated because Joe said that - but he wrote in English, no? --JimWae (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that The Annals of the World of 1658 was USSHER's posthumous ENGLISH edition of the 1650 LATIN original entitled Annales veteris testamenti a prima mundi origine deducti (The Annals of the Old Testament, Deduced from the First Origin of the World). If he used neither Before Christ nor BC, we can infer they were (at least) less commonplace in 1658--JimWae (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Epistle to the Reader at http://books.google.com/books?id=VrHER1jYzhIC&pg=PA10&dq=Annals+of+the+World+%22years+before+the+christian+era%22&ei=5em9R9-eM4rMiQHF1O3NBQ&sig=mGoEzkftAJY-UNljDa-7Yb8ZZqk is dated 1650 (year of Latin version) and it is unlikely BC would have been used in Latin --JimWae (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded these pages from James Ussher's 1650 Latin version Annales Veteris Testamenti and the 1658 English translation Annals of the World. The modern publication [3] has been changed so much as to be almost unrecognizable. I suspect that the 1658 English translation was not by Ussher himself. First, it was not published until two years after his death, and second because of the errors on page 1 alone. At the end of the first paragraph of the text, the translator replaced "Periodi" with "Calendar", an error that Ussher himself would not have made. The Julian Period is a sequence of years having almost nothing in common with the Julian calendar. The numbers in the columns at the right, 710 and 4004, were erroneouly swapped in the translation, possibly by the printer. Later years were sometimes omitted from any of the three columns of the English translation even though they appear in the Latin version. Although the lefthand column of the Latin version, "Anno Mundi", correctly appears in the English version as "The year of the World", year 1a in the Latin version is missing from the English version. Ussher often subdivided the AM year into four seasons a, b, c, d for autumn, winter, spring and summer. The section in the modern preface stating "I used the following abbreviations: AD, AM, BC, JP, NK, SK" does not appear in either the 1650 or 1658 versions.

The applicable text in the upper right in Latin, "Anno ante æram Christianam", was translated somewhat freely into English as "The year before Christ". This non-literal translation indicates that "before Christ" was well known by the mid 17th century, notwithstanding the almost literal translation of "annus vulgaris æræ Christianæ primus" and "anno vulgaris æræ Christianæ MDCL" in the Latin "Lectori" as "the first of our Chistian vulgar account" and "in the 1650 year of the Vulgar Chistian æra", respectively, in the English "Epistle to the Reader". "The year before Christ" continued to appear at the upper right of every page until the end of the English translation at year 73, shortly after the beginning of Vespasian's reign, even though "Anno æræ Christianæ" (without "ante") began to appear in the Latin version at year 1, four years after the birth of Jesus. The editor apologized to the "Reader, In the third Columne of the Numbers, being the Title over the pages, [The year before Christ] hath escaped in stead of [The year after Christ] from page 792. to the end: Which over-sight be pleased courteously to mend with your pen." The square brackets were used by the 1658 editor. This indicates that that editor did not intend to use either Anno Domini or AD.

[4]'s statement "remembering that there is no year zero" does not imply that Ussher used a year zero. 4003 whole years and a few extra months and days before the Christian era means that Creation was within the Julian year 4004 BC counting from 1 BC immediately before the Christian era. Although the English translation does not use "before Christ" in its preface, it is used once on every page throughout the rest of the Annals (907 times). The abbreviation BC does not appear anywhere in the 1658 English translation nor does any comparable abbreviation appear in the Latin version. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Early English Books Online has over 125,000 titles published between 1475 and 1700. Unfortunately, it only contains page images (of two facing pages), so cannot be searched for a particular phrase. You must already know the author and title of a book that may contain a certain phrase. A digital text version is being developed, but I do not know how many books have been digitized to date. That project may have been affected by the digitizing efforts of Google and others. It is available at subscribing libraries. By chance, I found a small 1651 book entitled "Christmas" by Mocket that used "A.C." where we would use AD. I do not know whether that was a abbreviation of Anno Christi or After Christ. It did not stand for Ante Christum because it dated modern events. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed verification

What is currently Ref#4 and reads

The approximation of the year in the old Persian calendar attributed to Omar Khayyám is 365.2424 days, which is very close to the vernal equinox year, but requires a 33-year cycle. The definition by Milutin Milanković, used in the "revised Julian calendar", is 365.2422 days, which is very close to the mean tropical year, but uses unequal long-period cycles

has been flagged as Failed verification|date=February 2008. It looks to me like the footnote wandered off from where it belongs. To support the clause, used to number years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars, how about using Time Measurement and Calendars, page 1278, from Whitaker's Almanack? And restore the above footnote to where it belongs? Pawyilee (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree, but the reference you suggest does not use the exact phrase "Christian Era". I suggest insted using Doggett, who is already in the reference list. I suggest a citation of "Doggett 1992, Ch. 12, § 1.4." which says

This epoch was established by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was compiling a table of dates of Easter. An existing table covered the nineteen-year period denoted 228-247, where years were counted from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian. Dionysius continued the table for a nineteen-year period, which he designated Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532-550. Thus, Dionysius' Anno Domini 532 is equivalent to Anno Diocletian 248. In this way a correspondence was established between the new Christian Era and an existing system associated with historical records. [Emphasis added.]

I don't think the existing footnote is pertinent to this article and it should be deleted. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat different topic, I don't think "failed verification" is the correct tag to use. Notes don't always have to provide references; they can also provide additional information. That is what this note does. In this case, I think it is irrelevant and should be deleteded, but since it was never intended as a reference, it can't fail verification. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy update??

I saw on the discovery channel (I think) on a show called Jesus: The complete story on march 17 2008 that he was born on 6 BC. I am wondering if this is a more accurate and new calculation. Maybe it's just the theory they chose, but I don't see it on the article. I leave this in you peoples capable hands.

Maybe there should be a list sorting of dates with outside source content markers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.151.13 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Before Christ

Lanitrix: I've searched 5 times through the article - I cannot see anywhere that it states BCE stands for "Before Christ". Please read the text again & let me know where you think it is -- --JimWae (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else find Lanitrix's edits simply bizarre? I think he is claiming that BC does not mean Before Christ. His only communications have been repetitive with some threat of reporting to administrator User:Edison, where there is nothing from him --JimWae (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Centuries/Decades

I noticed this edit and subsequent revert [5]. I thought AD has been used for centuries. It even says so in the third paragraph. Is this not the case then? Do we have any sources for this or anything? (Note I am not the IP who made the edit, I am just curious as I want to dispel/reaffirm knowledge I have). Deamon138 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone was having fun, yes. The terms "AD" and "BC" have been in use for centuries. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 08:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the year counting system introduced Dionysius Exiguus has been used for about a millenium, the passage in quesiton is about how long it has been a world standard. Considering the large number of people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, China, and India who have cultural tradiditions substantially different from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, where the system first took hold, can we really say it has been a world standard for centuries? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Parody

Thank you to the anonymous editor for your good faith edit. Hoever it has to be deleted in accordance with the trivia rule. --Red King (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "trivia" was the problem with that Parody section, more that it wasn't notable. Some sort of "In popular culture" section is fine for articles, so long as the references to the subject aren't just passing ones, as I think that Parody section contained. Deamon138 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

hi

anno domini is cool and sik to learn about. I wish I could learn more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.65.227 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Year Zero ??

Can somebody authoritative give the correct/definitive answers to the following:

• Was there a year zero? i.e. do we count 2BC, 1BC, 0, 1AD, 2AD ?

(my reading of the astronomy section suggests that there was not a year 0).

• When was Jesus born? As I understand it, there are several possibilities, including the canonical 25 Dec, AD 1; a revisionist

number of {AD,BC}{4,6}, (and of course the perspective that there was no such historical person as Christ; though that debate isn't relevant here).

• When is the turn of the Millennium? 999->000, or 000->001  ?

(If we take Jesus' birthday as 25 Dec, AD 1, then He was aged 1 in AD 2. The common analogy of "your first year of life ends when you celebrate your first birthday and become 1 year old" would then be misleading.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want something authoritative, see Doggett's "Calendars" chapter in "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac" which was written by many of the world's leading experts on time and astronomy. Dogget writes "given an initial epoch, one must consider how to record preceding dates. Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1 (see Colgrave and Mynors, 1969). In this system, the year A.D. 1 is preceded by the year 1 B.C., without an intervening year 0" which settles your first question.

As is explained in this "Anno Domini" article, Dionysius Exiguus did not leave any information about how he estimated the Incarnation of Jesus. It isn't clear if he meant to place it in what we would call 2 BC, 1 BC, or 1 AD. It is generally agreed his calculation was a bit off, because some of the events described in the Gospels have been dated and don't agree with any of those years. It isn't clear if Dionysius meant to count from the conception (Annunciation) of Jesus or the birth of Jesus. It is generally known that December 25 is only a ceremonial date, and was never intended to be the historicaly correct date for the birth of Jesus; see Nativity of Jesus.

Since we don't really know which event Dionysius intended as the starting point (Nativity or Annunciation), and we are not sure which year Dionysius intended to place it, we don't know when the third millenium started. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was most likely born in 6 AD, not year 1. Ptolemaios I (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC." Would it be more correct to say that there cannot be a year zero as Roman Numerals were used and the Romans had no zero? 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.208.160 (talk)

No, because Bede, who decided not to use a year zero for historical years, did use the Latin word nulla for the first entry in his table of epacts. Nulla was translated by Faith Wallis as "zero" in her translation of Bede: The reckoning of time. He or one of his colleagues even used the symbol N, the initial of nulla, in this table. Although in general the Romans had no zero, it was used by all medieval computists, from Dionysius Exiguus in 525, through Bede in 725, and all later medieval computists. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with that part of this Article

There actually was a Year 0 based on present-day retracing of time before AD 1, unlike the Julian systems of the computists to whom you refer. [6] The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the &ltref> elements don't work very well on talk pages.

Second, the web site mentioned is by an anonymous individual and so it carries no weight. It isn't worth discussing. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the ref tags with square brackets. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to alow consistency

is stated in the talke below is is felt that A.D dose not me Christian era. Many articles state that x date to x date Christian/common era i feel and it is evident that this is incorrect. i feel that it should be changed to Anno Domini/Common era. allowing for no argument and correct terminology over whats used.Alec88 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin spelling "uero" or "vero"

In the quote from Bede, ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus, it seems likely that "uero" should be "vero", which is Latin for "true". I have not changed the article because web searches for both ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus and ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus give non-Wikipedia hits. I suspect that the confusion is traceable to the fact that classical Latin writing used the letter "V" for both the vowel that we now know as the letter "U" and the consonant that we now know as the letter "V". —AlanBarrett (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit in the Latin Wikisource copy of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum convinced me that I was correct about the "v", so I am now changing "uero" to "vero" the English Wikipedia Anno Domini article. —AlanBarrett (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

in latin there was no real difference between u (a vowel) and v (a semivowel), like between i and j. Take as example the word bel(l)ua and its adjective bel(l)uinus, in italian they became respectively belva and belluino 84.223.133.56 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Contested statements removed to talk

• Most Syriac manuscripts written at the end of the 19th century still gave the date in the end-note using the "year of the Greeks" (Anno Graecorum = Seleucid era).{{Fact|date=January 2007}}

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 02:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does BC redirect here?

I fail to see why BC directs here. OK, if you are looking at BC you may also want to see the information on AD, but for goodness sake, BC is now commonly used simply to mean dates in the BC calendar. BC is a specfic acronym and is often used as a pair with unsuffixed/prefixed dates as a pair. 1970, 1970BC

Moreover I've seen people use BC and CE as a pair.

This article really needs to decide whether it refers to an era (the christian era) and encompasses all dating acronyms referring to that era., OR whether it is an acronym so that BC and BCE etc. can have separate articles which go into these very different acronyms.

79.79.255.62 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was originally about all aspects of the era centered around the Dionysius estimate of the incarnation of Jesus. However, BCE/CE attracted so much controversy it had to be put in a separate article so that this article wouldn't be so much of a battlefield. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Incarnation

Dionysius assumed that the annunciation & nativity were 9 months apart - so it is not clear to me why we have to repeatedly say "the year of the annunciation OR nativity" - either would be right since he assumed they were Mar 25 & Dec 25. Whether he was using Jan 1 or Mar 25 as the start of the year, they were still in the same year. Even if he only said ambiguously "incarnation", the nativity and the annunciation were, for him, in that one year. It just seems cumbersome to state both at every occurrence--JimWae (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

His choices for the start of the year were not limited to March 25 or January 1. For example, in Alexandria, where the Easter rules that Dionysius based his table on originated, the year started on 29 August, the date, more or less, when the emperor Diocletian took power. This continued to be used as the first day of the year by astronomers and astrologers even after Diocletian ruled that Egypt should follow the Roman method of designating years by the names of the consuls rather than the regnal year of the emperor. The astronomers and astrologers (including those who computed Easter tables) continued in this fashion even after Diocletian died.

Blackburn and Holford-Strevens mention this possibility on page 778: :...if Dionysius, whose calendrical rules or argumenta make September [in the Gregorian calendar], not January, the beginning of the year...."

Also, the only place I see where Dionysius supposedly said that March 25 was the annunciation and December 25 the nativity was in argumentum 15. I can't find it at the moment, but I have read that many scholars believe only the first few argumenta were actually written by Dionysius. On page 774–5 Blackburn and Holford-Strevens criticize one of the argumenta, I believe number 15, when they write "The feriae [day of the week] for the Annunciation and Tuesday for the Nativity are also propounded in a calendar rule appended to those of Dionysius Exiguus but making nonsense of his era, for they imply 4 BC, AD 3, or AD 8". Notice the wording suggests someone other than Dionysius added the rule.

Finally, it would be nice to know whether Dionysius thought the conception or birth was more important, and more worthy of being commemorated by his year-count. One is right, one is wrong, and we just don't know which is which. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The arguments by Dionysius versus those added later are discussed in Dionysius Exiguus#Easter tables. This is from Charles W. Jones, "Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar", in Bedae opera de temporibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1943), 1–122. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

aD?

This edit claims that aD is an abbreviation for Anno Domini. Is there any source to support this claim? Please bear in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and it does not attempt to give synonyms in other languages unless it is some how related to the derivation of the term in English. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.silverlakemusic.com/enigmaI.jpg

You're right of course there are not many references to this particular abbreviation beyond this album cover of these tasteless musicians. However, I thought it would be logical because there are many more references to "anno Domini" itself with small a but capital D.Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but many words become capitalized when shortened to initials. For example, "as soon as possible" is often written "ASAP". I believe a serious reference is required to justify "a.D." no matter how logical it might be. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative birth theories

An editor, Dgillig, added the following passage to the Date of birth section:

Or, a different Quirinius named Publius Quinctilius Varus could be the one to use and that would support a 5 BC date for the birth. Or, one could use the Book of Daniel and find support for 5 BC with the crucifixtion in April of 30 AD. Then Luke is not incorrect and one doesn't need to discard Luke.

Considering the vast number of theories about when Jesus was born, and that this article is not the main article about his birth (Nativity of Jesus is), it is important to limit theories in this article to those held by a substantial number of scholars. Are there any citations to indicate any of the theories in the passage are held by a substantial number of scholars? --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And in any case, the actual date of the nativity is irrelevant to this article since AD is not based on the true date, it based on an arbitrary best guess. Everybody else has been happy with that for about 1500 years so I guess we just have to go along with what is, not what anyone of us thinks it should be. --Red King (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OR 1 template

I request that User:Swungpoke justify the addition of the OR 1 template. The article contains extensive citations. Unless a more specific complaint is registered I will remove the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since no explanation has been provided, I have removed the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Should Julius Africanus be Credited?

According to Diarmaid McCulloch's new book "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years", Julius Africanus was the first to date the "Year of the Lord" and his work became embedded in the work of later scholars. Quote from the book: "...this calculation became embedded in the work of later historians, such as the sixth-century Dionysius Exiguus ('the short'), who has often wrongly stolen credit from Julius for fixing the first Year of the Lord (annus Domini)" (McCulloch, 82).

This is my first comment, so before I made any edits to the article I wanted to check with those who have been active in editing and maintaining it. It seems that at least some credit is due to Julius Africanus for the work he did in dating annus Domini and the influence he had on Dionysius and others.

--Mattdv (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Matt DeVries

The surviving relevant material from Dionysius Exiguus is sparse and contaminated with additions from scribes. Thus it is hard to decide whether Dionysius took an idea from Julius Africanus or reinvented it. My recollection is that Julius Africanus would not have assigned exactly the same number to a given year as Dionysius, which would favor the reinvention idea. Also, modern ideas about plagiarism did not necessarily exist in the 6th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems sensible to me to include the calculations of JA, if there are citations. We can't say that DE's calculations were independent or not [though I suppose that we could say that we can't say, if there is a citation for that]. But the basis for AD is on the work of DE, and thus JA's calculation is an interesting aside, no more. --Red King (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If a significant number of people numbered years from the birth or conception of Jesus, as calculated by JA, then it might be worth mentioning in this article. If not, I think any mention of the calculation belongs in another article, such as Chronology of Jesus, Nativity of Jesus, or Incarnation (Christianity). Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. What I thought worth including is that DE's calculation is not the only one but, as you say, there is a risk of getting bogged down in material that belongs in other articles. If material is included, it needs to be very limited. --Red King (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any reference should be light. I am trying to find out if there is more evidence as to the degree that DE may have been influenced by JA. I found an article that looks promising, but haven't gotten a copy yet. --Mattdv (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found three Christian eras in use during during the 5th century, the century immediately before Dionysius Exiguus, but none during the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries, including none by Africanus. During the latter three centuries, only world eras (anno mundi) were used, even though all Christian writers during that period deduced years for Christ's Incarnation/Nativity and/or his Crucifixion/Resurrection. Among the sources I consulted were: (1) Georges Declercq, "Dionysius Exiguus and the introduction of the Christian Era", Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002) 165–246; and (2) George Ogg, Hippolytus and the introduction of the Christian era, Vigiliae Christianae, 16 (1962) 2–18. Declercq has the best discussion (pages 209–210), but does not mention Africanus.

Declercq mentions two eras from the Crucifixion/Resurrection: Prosper of Aquitaine (455) began his Passion era in AD 29, while Victorius of Aquitaine (457) began his Passion era in AD 28. Declercq also mentions Annianus (c. 412) who began his Incarnation era in AD 9. It was always used alongside the Alexandrian world era, whose year 1 was 5492 BC, also invented by Annianus and used by many Byzantine chronologists. The first known use of Annianus' Incarnation era was during the middle of the sixth century by Cyril of Scythopolis. It is still used as the Incarnation era of the Ethiopian calendar. Ogg concludes that Hippolytus neither invented a Christian era himself, nor did anyone else base their Christian era on dates given by Hippolytus.

Declercq concludes:

In this context, the invention of our Christian era by the Scythian (and thus eastern) monk Dionysius Exiguus in AD 525 appears to be less of a novelty than is generally thought. His innovation was therefore not so much the use of a Christian era, not even the calculation of a new date for the incarnation of Christ, but rather the introduction in the West of the incarnation as the starting-point of the Christian era, instead of the Passion which western chronographers and computists had preferred until then.

Much of this is already in the article under Other eras. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Controversy section

Suddenly, there is no controversy over the use of A.D. But these sources imply there is one:

• Trinity University trustees keeping 'Year of our Lord' on diplomas
• 'The Year of Our Lord' - Diploma Trouble in Texas
• Controversy over the use of "CE/BCE" or "AD/BC" dating notation Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anno_Domini&diff=359264526&oldid=358943843 Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC) What if I restore the "Controversy" section without repeating the CE information? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There does not need to be a controversy section. The Common Era section can include mention that there is some controversy--JimWae (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Trinity University controversy goes beyond usage of "AD" and the CE/AD controversy in that at Trinity the full translation "in the year of the/our Lord" is used.--JimWae (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

According to ReligiousTolerance.org, there is a controversy about even using A.D. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added more references to back up the assertion that there is a controversy over using the BC/AD dating system. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course a controversy exists - and now I see you have already re-added a controversy section. The Trinity issue could be added there (as that is not about Common Era). You weren't thinking of removing things from the Common Era section though, were you? The refs should relate to the sentence they follow - the ref immediately after "Attempts to use secular year designations have also stirred debate" does not relate to that debate. Put refs at end of (sometimes even within) relevant sentences - not at end of paragraph JimWae (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports. If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References#Inline_citations Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If the paragraph were all on the same "side", that might be reasonable here. As it stands, the refs are just a jumble & one cannot quickly tell which sentence each supports.--JimWae (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Attempts to use secular year designations have also stirred debate" (and its refs) are about Common Era - and can go in that section--JimWae (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The trinity U controversy is NOT about "basing the world's dating system on the life of Jesus". The objection is not to putting 2010 on the diploma - It is specifically about "in the year of our Lord"--JimWae (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll edit that line to address your concerns and mention "year of our Lord". Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ref 30 does not go to cited reference, and cannot be confirmed. Please find new source or delete. Ref 31 does not indicate sentiment in article!! Controversy section isn't needed of course. Any reference to discord should be placed within rest of article (there's plenty of room!)98.249.185.122 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented out the link in Ref 30, per WP:DEADREF. However, the link is still verifiable by obtaining a paper or microfilm copy of the paper, so the reference is still valid.

Ref 31 does support the concept that Anno Domini is a relic of Western imperialism, although it does not necessarily support the rest of the paragraph. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no move Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Anno Domini → Christian Era — I know many will probably be urged to oppose such a move because BCE/CE are sometimes used to indicate Christian Era, but here are a few reasons I think it should be moved: (A) it would make this article more analogous to Common Era, reducing confusion and making any comparisons of the two easier, (B) this article describes the Before Christ notation as much as the Anno Domini notation, so naming the article after only one of these notations is misleading and insufficient, while using the name "Christian Era" encompasses both terms, and (C) the term "Christian Era" is already widely notable, and not only as a backronym for the BCE/CE notation as some may think, but often as a proper namesake for the AD/BC era without any mentioning of the BCE/CE notation.

In addition to these three reasons, the move would allow us to add a paragraph to the intro that could link to and explain Common Era, while also stating that the terms "BCE" and "CE"—though used primarily to indicate "Common Era"—are also used to mean "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era". Thoughts?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – This was discussed earlier at Talk:Anno Domini/Archive 2#Move this page to Christian Era?. Christian era is not specific enough to cover the many Christian eras that have been used and have their own Wikipedia articles, including the many Anno Mundi eras used during the first millennium by Christian chronographers, especially the Alexandrian era used in the early Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine era used in the later Byzantine Empire and Russia, the Spanish era used by Spain and Portugal until the Middle Ages, the Era of Martyrs now used by the Coptic Church, as well as the Era of Incarnation now used in the Ethiopian calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But are there any reliable sources that indicate the general term "Christian Era" as meaning anything other than the AD/BC era (or BCE/CE notation)? I think it's pretty clear that Exiguus' era is the primary topic for the term "Christian Era", especially seeing that Christian Era already redirects here. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons spelled out by Joe Kress. A person who is searching for the title of an article does not necessarily know if it is a generic descriptive term, or a specific title for a particular thing among many similar things. So even if, when used as a title of a year numbering system, "Christian era" always refers to "Anno domini", the person who has not yet found the article cannot be expected to know it isn't a generic term. Also, as much as possible, I think the lead should be written so it makes sense to someone who has arrived here by choosing any of the redirected titles; the closer we come to that goal, the less it matters which title is the main title and which are redirects. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose it is called "AD" -- Anno Domini. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles are normally named after the name most commonly-used in reliable sources. Oppose if “anno domini” is more commonly-used. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, since "Anno Domini" insufficiently describes the topic covered in this article. "Anno Domini" is not the name of the date system, nor the name of the era described; it's descriptive of only the last 2,010 years. However, I am troubled by the overlap evinced by the two articles Anno Domini and Common Era; strictly speaking, both articles describe the exact same year numbering system, and so by convention they should be merged into a single article. Powers ^T 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • And what greater span of time than 2010 year is Christian Era descriptive of? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was. But "Christian Era" at least is a noun that refers to the era itself, rather than being adjectival as "Anno Domini" is. That's what I meant by "descriptive". Powers ^T 19:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The lay reader isn't familiar with the term Christian Era in this sense but AD and Anno Domini are commonplace. --JaGa^talk 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and merge with Common Era. The chief purpose of article titles is to tell the reader what article she is reading; inventing a term she will not recognize is not helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• So wait, are you proposing a merge of Anno Domini with Common Era or vice versa? Which namesake are you looking to retain, and if neither, what is the new article title you would propose?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Place the merged article at Anno Domini as the more common - and, on the whole, less ideological - usage. (After all, to claim a Christian miscalculation as Common to mankind is as much Christian hegemonism as the established form.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's not what the "Common" in "Common Era" means. It doesn't mean "common" as synonymous "mutual", or "shared", or "usual"; it means "common" as synonymous with "vulgar" or "popular". You can read about it here, oddly enough. Powers ^T 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • That would be Vulgar Era, which has, like Christian Era, fallen out of use since Joseph Priestley's time (we note an esoteric exception, but not a reputable one). Those who wish to revise and amend the English language should do so elsewhere; if they succeed, our article titles will follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • "Common" is a synonym in this case, and obviously the more popular one of the two. Since the phrase's origin was indeed in "Vulgar Era", that seems to be strong evidence that the intended meaning is indeed "popular", not "mutual". Powers ^T 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously. _wjemather^bigissue 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but what's obvious about it? Powers ^T 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Century start date

In recent edits, Ec.Dommowall has amended the text to claim that non-experts think that centuries begin with the years ending in 00, and millennia begin in years ending in 000, "except for the first century and the first millennium (beginning with year 1 AD)." I am reluctant to believe this. It seems to me that non-experts who think centuries begin in years 00 have not thought about what year the first century began.

I suspect one could find people who make a reasoned argument that centuries begin in years ending in 00, but these people would argue the first century began in the year 1 BC. Since it isn't clear when Dionysius intended to place the incarnation, nor is it clear what date Dionysius used as the beginning of the new year, a variety of arguments could be made, just so long as there aren't any centuries that are 99 years long.

The burden is on Ec.Domnowall to supply citations to show that the same non-experts who think the 3rd millennium began in 2000 also think the first millennium began in 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Millennium bug, for example? Or newspaper comment referring to people who wanted to wait another year as pedants and boring old farts. EcD is right, but seriously – is it worth the space in an already long article? --Red King (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Red King, you miss the point. Sure, there are people who think the third millennium started in 2000. So what would those people say if you asked them when the third millennium started? 0? 1? 1 BC? Would they say they didn't know? No source with an answer to these questions has been provided, so it is wrong for the article to state that they would answer 1.

Since the name of centuries and millennia is connected to the year numbering system, it should be addressed to some degree. Perhaps it is enough to point out the view of most reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right to say that people talking of 000-millennia have not thought about the first year of Anno Domini. That's precisely why they have no problem using two different rules: they don't really care. People don't look for difficulties: they consider that millennia begin in 1000, 2000 etc because it is simple and easy, and at the same time they count years of the common era from 1 AD because we all count "one" "two" "three" etc (and because a year 0 has been created late and is seldom used). They don't realise that they have a different reasoning pattern for each case. The result is a de facto rule where people are wrong for millennia and right for year 1. It is not logical but it is always so. Even you probably answered that way in the beginning, before you took interest in these matters.

In short, since everybody starts Anno Domini with year 1, all those who prefer to begin millennia with 000-years necessarily make an exception for the first millenium. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ec.Domnowall's reasoning seems plausible, but I don't know of any reliable source to support this reasoning. To be sure if this is actually the case, one would have to conduct a public opinion poll, or sort through a substantial number of letters to editors of various publications. That would be original research, which is fine if it appears in a reliable source, but not acceptable if done by a Wikipedia editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several. His line of argument reminds me most of Stephen J. Gould:

Questioning the Millennium, but we should not make his arguments, or the opposing ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditional/Astronomical

For one thing, it would look pretty weird to say that 1900 was not part of "the 1900s." That aside, one can argue that the 1st Century and 1st Millennium began in Traditional 1 BC or Astronomical 0, both of which are 2 names for the very same year. (Of course, one should always take dates before Jesus' birth with a grain of salt due to the 1 year difference between Traditional and Astronomical BC dates.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"After Death" and the limits of good faith

I am reaching my limits for my ability to assume good faith.

First, there are the anonymous editors who insist on repeatedly insert the claim that AD means "After Death". I'm talking here about a whole set of IP editors, each of whom repeatedly inserts this crap. In the case of repeat offenders, I refuse to believe they actually believe this, they are just editing to provoke a reaction. They are vandals.

Second, there is Zargulon, who, without recourse to this talk page, repeatedly questions with {{who}} or {{when}} templates the concept that people often erroneously think that "AD" is an abbreviation of "After Death". Two sources have now been presented that show this error is indeed commonplace. The {{who}} template is to prevent Wikipedia editors from inserting their own opinions of what the general public, or a significant subset of the general public, thinks. It is not to prevent conclusions from reliable sources about what general public opinion is.

If Zargulon really thinks the After Death misconception is not commonplace, the time has come for him or her to provide a source showing that it is not commonplace; a source better that the two sources for the opposite position. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you think that I think the After death misconception is not commonplace? Zargulon (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was not sure what you believed. Apparently you do believe the misconception is commonplace. Obviously it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to conclude from his/her own personal experiences that any concept is or is not commonplace in society, and put that conclusion in an article. But given that one reliable book and one website that might or might not be reliable have concluded this is a common misconception, what do you consider the best way to express this in the article?

• Alternatively, perhaps you think a source should be disregarded unless it has a statement along the lines of "according to a scientific poll conducted by the authors of x,xxx Americans in June of 2000, xx % held the opinion that 'AD' is an abbreviation for 'After Death'". --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why is it apparent to you that I believe the misconception is commonplace? What does Ryan's book actually say? If it is a reliable source it will probably not use weasel words. Zargulon (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• A preview is available on Google books. It says

Many people think that because B.C. means "Before Christ," then A.D. must mean "After Death". Not so. First of all, if that were the case, you'd have to add about 33 years to your actual date to account for the tenure of Jesus' life on earth and then come up with a special term for dealing with those years. And, from a theological point of view, Jesus was only dead for a couple of days before being resurrected anyway.

I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to add a {{who}} template to a statement based not on what the source actually says, but rather how the editor imagines the author would have written the source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• What makes you think that was my basis for adding the template, despite my repeatedly saying it was WP:WEASEL? I'm glad we established that, contrary to your implication, the texts that I pinned the template to weren't what the source actually said. Nonetheless, the source's actual words are bad style according to Wikipedia, and I completely agree.. don't you? Who exactly is Ryan, and what was his audience? His condescending style sounds like a children's book rather than a reliable source. Zargulon (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source for the "After death" misconception, but I don't think we even need a source for the clarification bit about the missing 33-or-so years, it's a simple mathematical conclusion; Jesus lived 33 years, and if BC is "Before Christ" and AD is "After death", then there would be a 33-year gap in the calendar. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is still WP:WEASEL. Zargulon (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "it is sometimes incorrectly concluded that AD means ʽafter deathʼ" is weasel wording. The source indicates that AD is in fact commonly mistaken to be an acronym for after death; we don't need to know who exactly thinks this. It has been shown that many do think this. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I disagree. I think it would be helpful to know who Ryan's target audience is. Zargulon (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need Ryan. Like I said, it's a mathematical conclusion. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL only applies to what Wikipedia editors write. It is wrong to write "[The general impression of Wikipedia editors is that] the After Death misconception is widespread enough that it needs to be pointed out." On the other hand, an author entrusted by a recognized publisher to write a book, thus putting the reputation of the publisher at risk, is entitled to write about his general impressions of what misconceptions are worthy of mention, and Wikipedia editors are entitled to put the author's general impression into a Wikipedia article. It is nonsensical for a Wikipedia editor to attempt to impose Wikipedia's internal guidelines on an external author and publisher. A sufficient source has been provided; the burden is on Zargulon to provide a better source before disturbing the article any further (unless he/she wants to edit to make the article more closely follow one of the sources provided).

As for not needing Ryan, we don't need him to establish that AD is not an abbreviation for After Death, but we do need him, or a source like him, to establish that enough people entertain this misguided idea that the idea is worthy of mention. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "WP:WEASEL only applies to what Wikipedia editors write" is not true, at least not in the way you mean. WP:WEASEL applies to article content, whether it is original text of editors or indirect quotation (X says that ..). The only thing it doesn't apply to is direct quotation (X said "..."). WP:WEASEL is like any other style guideline in that regard. I would sooner see the whole paragraph removed since I think it reads poorly, has the air of an urban legend, and is completely peripheral to the article. It is particularly strange to find it in such a prominent position. Zargulon (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan is right. If he were wrong, we wouldn't have all these IP editors coming along trying to insert "AD means After Death" into the article. So, what is your positon?

• Ryan is wrong, hardly anybody really thinks AD means After Death.
• Ryan is right, but he isn't competent to write what he wrote, and we should ignore him because his book isn't a reliable source on this topic.
• Ryan is right, his finding should be in the article, but his finding should be expressed in a way that follows WP:WEASEL. If so, how should it be expressed?
• Something else. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Rather than giving me multiple choice, why can't you just read what I wrote? You talk about Ryan's "finding" as though his words carry some scientific authority. Do they? Do you know what Ryan's background is, or his book's background? If you don't care about that, but only about whether he is "right" or "wrong", then my friendly advice is that Wikipedia will not provide you with much enjoyment and you should probably quit. I personally don't know who Ryan is, or whether Ryan's book is of fact, religion or entertainment. The only clue I have is his writing style from the above quotation, which being WP:WEASEL is not that of a serious author writing for adults from the standpoint of authority. Zargulon (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I have added another source, this time a web page of an English professor who published a book (based on his web site) that is specifically about common errors in English. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Self published webpages probably don't meet reliable source guidelines, not that it matters; the sentence we are talking about in the article is just as WP:WEASEL as ever. Why don't you refer to some sources that actually make the mistake and state that A.D. stands for "After Death"? According to Ryan, there should be "many" such sources. According to your English professor, they should be "common". It shouldn't be too hard for you to find then! Zargulon (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • but none of those would be reliable - nor could even 10 establish "commonness". I think the 2nd source should settle this issue. The 2nd edition is available at http://www.wmjasco.com/89-9sample.pdf and includes the text about AD.--JimWae (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• JimWae, your source says about himself "I do not hold a graduate degree in English, literature or other discipline. I merely find language fun and can't seem to restrain myself from sharing my weekly discoveries." This is a work of entertainment. That is probably why even his title is WP:WEASEL. Zargulon (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • well, you sure got that wrong. Look again. The Foreword was not written by Brians. Brians is a Professor Emeritus of English.--JimWae (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • Acknowledged. Anyway, it doesn't matter, I don't have a problem with the references section. Zargulon (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • Zargulon is standing WP:Reliable sources on its head. First of all, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So the web site should be OK. Second, the issue is not if one or two examples of misuse can be found, the issue is whether it is widespread enough to mention in the article. Since readers have no idea whether Wikipedia editors have read enough material in the subject area to judge what is commonplace and what isn't, a reliable source must be used to establish that. Furthermore, the issue isn't whether the misconception is commonplace in reliable publications (which would be the only things I could cite) but whether it is commonplace in general society. Ryan does not say how he determined it is commonplace, but it is reasonable to surmise that the English professor would have encountered it in the course of teaching, or whatever research he did in the breeding grounds of common English usage errors. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Jc3s5h, you are the only one standing on your head. Every edit and post I have made has referred to WP:WEASEL, but you keep banging on about reliable sources. WP:WEASEL deals with subjective language, which compromises reliability even when the authors are qualified on the topic. The reason is that one person's "many" is another person's "some" or few", and one person's "sometimes" is another person's "commonly", "often" or "rarely". You shouldn't have taken away my 'who' and 'when' templates, they were completely in order. Zargulon (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is established that the After Death error is commonplace. So how would you phrase the passage in the article so that our readers will be informed of this? --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Are you just pretending to be stupid? Please review my posts, WP:WEASEL, and reinsert my templates until you find a solution. Zargulon (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL explicitly states "The key to improving articles containing weasel words is ... to name a source for the opinion (i.e., attribution)", hence weasel words are permitted if their source is identified (three sources are given here), especially "when contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one". Here "AD means After Death" is the minority opinion. — Joe Kress (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• JoeKress, the key word you missed was "opinion". The weasel words in question in this article are being presented as fact corroborated by the sources, rather than opinion attributed to the sources (which, as you point out, would be acceptable according to WP:WEASEL). So the templates should go back until this is resolved. Zargulon (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• So we can say something like "'AD' is not an abbreviation for 'After Death', because if it were, there would be a name for the period before the Jesus's incarnation, (BC), a name for the period after he died, but no name for the period when he lived. Three commentators have observed this is a common misconception. [references]" Would that meet with your approval? --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Change "observed" to "reported" and remove "common" and we have a deal. Zargulon (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Changing "observed" to "reported" is fine. However, dropping "common" is wrong. We don't need the three sources to say it is a misconception, we know that through thousands of sources that clearly define what AD means. The sources are being used to show that the misconception is common. If you won't accept this, then it would seem it is out-of-bounds for Wikipedia to ever call attention to a common misconception. What, if any, type of source would you accept to show that a misconception is common? --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if Zargulon would also take exception to the statement "Grand Central Terminal (GCT) — (sometimes incorrectly called) Grand Central Station..." in the lead of theGrand Central Terminal article?--Jc3s5h (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the Grand Central quote is WP:WEASEL - why don't you go fix it? Why are you talking about it on Talk:Anno Domini? What you wrote, suggesting that the three sources say it is common, is incorrect. Ryan doesn't say it is common, he says "many people think it". The third source presumably says something different again. What you suggested writing, "Three sources observe/report that it is a common misconception" is simply untrue. I suggest you use my alternative as a simple and uncontroversial way of summarizing the authors' statements without using subjective language. Zargulon (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is wrong to say "'AD' is not an abbreviation for 'After Death', because if it were, there would be a name for the period before the Jesus's incarnation, (BC), a name for the period after he died, but no name for the period when he lived. Three commentators sources have reported this is a misconception. [references]" The problem is that saying something is a misconception might be interpreted as being synonymous with saying it is wrong, with no implication at all about whether, or to what extent, people actually believe the misconception. If a reader interprets it that way, the reader will regard the statement as redundant, and think we couldn't find any better source than three commentators to confirm that AD actually stands for Anno Domini.

gotQuestions.org wrote "it is commonly thought...". Ryan wrote "Many people think...." Brians wrote "...as many people suppose." The article says "it is sometimes incorrectly concluded...." The article's phrasing is a fair paraphrase of the sources. So is my proposed "common misconception". I see no difference between saying something is a common misconception and saying may people think or suppose the misconception. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinions but they are facile, ignorant and against well-established Wikipedia guidelines. Please restore the templates which you expunged in a fit of self-importance. Zargulon (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Zargalon has a intriguing stand on this whole WP:Weasel guideline, but I'm not sure its tenable in the current evolution of this encyclopedia or documented human knowledge on the whole. Mostly wikipedia guidelines are interpreted to guide the style of writing on wikipedia, describing a world outside of wikipedia, and to a big extent outside of the internet, or the written word in general. Just like style guidelines at a newspaper apply to the newspaper articles - often dealing with imperfect sources. This new approach would apply wikipedia guidelines to all external source information, it would seem to limit to only the more rigorously peer reviewed, and exclude a world of imperfect writings, speeches, documents. Unfortunately, this effort to wipe out all content or quotes that contained weasel words could decimate half the reliable sources on wikipedia. I just don't think the bounds of human communication are ready for this new standard of applying wikipedia guidelines in all of our writings and communication.Cander0000 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I child I thought AD meant After Death, I admit to not thinking logically about the 33 year gap. But since I was not fluent in Latin abbreviations that was the best I could come up with at the time. OK, AD is Anno Domini starting on 1/1/1 with Christ's birth but now I don't know why Christmas is not on January 1. QuentinUK (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The year numbering system has been applied with a number of different start-of-year dates. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 had been established for a long time before January 1 was generally recognized as the start of the year. January 1 as the start of the year goes back to Rome long before the birth of Jesus, but there were several other start-of-year dates used for various purposes. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing BC chronology

In the first paragraph of this article, we have the sentence:-

"This dating system was devised in 525, but was not widely used until after 800"

This is misleading for young newcomers to this dating system. BC chronology means that 800BC is BEFORE 525BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.65.149 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that we're talking about 525 and 800 AD, not BC. LarryJeff (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Date format

This edit on 2004-JAN-19 seems to be the first to introduce date format to this article. It used "January 1" (month-day). --JimWae (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at what seemed to be the majority date format of the current article. I also note that I can't find any words that would have different spelling in the US vs. the UK, so making the date format and spelling agree is not an issue. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, it is first-usage, not majority, that determines which format the article is to carry.--JimWae (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so. WP:MOSNUM states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." The first format would be resorted to in case no one format predominated.

This is a sound guideline, because there could have been a consensus on the talk page to change to a particular date format, but that consensus would probably be missed if one just searches for the first version with a date. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's only one archive + this current page. This is the only section I could find that even mentions date format--JimWae (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The current guideline says if the article has evolved using a certain format, continue to use it. The present version of the guideline says not to change from the style used by the first major contributor, or if he/she didn't use any dates, the first contribution to use a date after the article is no longer a stub. However, that isn't what the guideline always said. If you want to justify a change, you would have to find when the day month year style was introduced, and what the guideline said at that time. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On 2008-DEC-31 March 25 appeared also as 25 March - but still wikified. This 2009-MAR-31 edit seems to have initiated an incomplete change to DMY, after which both MDY and YMD appear until 2010-MAY-04, when it made consistently DMY - changing 11 MDYs to DMYs. I see no discussion.--JimWae (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is about date formats in the body of the article. On 2007-12-07, the accessdate format was introduced as YYYY-MM-DD. There has been no discussion establishing a consensus to change the accessdate format. --JimWae (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)