Talk:Common Era

For Wikipedia policy on use of AD/CE and BCE/BC notation, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Era style.

CE/BCE are also abbreviations for Christian Era/Before Christian Era

Given that CE and BCE are also abbreviations for Christian Era and Before Christian Era respectively, it would be better to include clarifying notes at the beginning of the article, near CE an BCE, stating that they are also used as abbreviations for Christian Era and Before Christian Era.

Ref: CE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary CE Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

BCE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary BCE Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary EXANXC (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it would just be clutter. This article is "Common Era". It is not CE (disambiguation). (The latter explicitly includes Christian Era as one of it possible interpretations.) CE does not redirect here. To put your proposal in context, an equivalent proposal would require the Anno Domini article to have a hat note explaining that AD is just one way of denoting years our current era according to the Gregorian calendar and that Common Era is the other. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's confusing for JMF to use the link "CE (disambiguation)" when that is merely a redirect to "CE", which is indeed a disambiguation page. The page "CE" does not contain the word "Christian". Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is – I gave way to the system nagging me for attempting to use an ambiguous term.

Also my mistake: I was certain that the CE article mentioned Christian Era but I was wrong, it did not: it does now because I've added it. (* "Christian Era", better known as Anno Domini.)

My objection stands, notwithstanding these details. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No matter what new term is used to exclude the Lord Jesus Christ from history, time is still defined as before and after this, the most important life and event in history of mankind, Salvation and Peace are His alone. 2603:8081:8DF0:9560:4804:BD3D:4BD4:EC8D (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

OK AntiDionysius (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

But no, time is not defined by that event. Time existed long before this solar system was formed and will continue long after it has been destroyed. Counting of years in the AD/CE era begins from a moment about five years after the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. This era and its epoch is just one of many: that this one has become the de facto standard civil calendar worldwide is due to economic reasons not religious ones. The CE notation is not "chosen to exclude" your Lord; merely that people of other faiths (and none) have other Lords and choose not to give precedence to your choice. Rather less than one third of the world population are Christian. No-one is stopping you from using AD, no-one is compelling you to use CE. Wikipedia's policy on the topic is given at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That's all fine - except for the logic: the "C" could mean both "Christian" and "Common" - with or without the following "E". So it is not logical but a convention to change the meaning of the "C" to "Common" by adding the "E". However, the ISO requires simply using the minus sign for "BC" anyway, thus avoiding the "C" altogether.HJJHolm (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this article is Common Era, not CE. The ⟨E⟩ abbreviates era. q.v.. No-one 'changed' the C from 'Christian' to 'Common', if anything the reverse is more likely. As is explained in detail the article, the original phrase was Vulgar Era, meaning 'common era' in modern English. In the last couple of centuries, the word "vulgar" changed meaning from "of the common people" to "rude" (another word that has changed meaning!). Finally and most importantly, Wikipedia describes reality as it is, warts and all, logical or otherwise; if you want a sanitised echo-chamber, try Conservapedia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The International Organization for Standardization, short form ISO, has many standards about dates, and each of those has gone through may revisions. Unless you give the number and edition of the standard you are thinking of, your statement about ISO cannot be verified. Also, ISO doesn't require anything. It offers voluntary standards which people and organizations can adopt, or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Common Era/Archive 10#"Christian Era" in lead

@Jc3s5h: Could you show how and where a unanimous consensus concerning the rejection of the abbreviation of Christian Era as CE in the lead has been made? If not, my cited contributions reverted wherein [1] may be restored. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The burden is on you to gain consensus for your change. One of the reasons I disagree with this change is explained in the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence. By putting "Christian Era" in the lead, and especially in the first sentence, you are saying the article you edited is the article about the Christian Era. But if you type "Christian Era" in the Wikipedia search box, you will be taken to Anno Domini because Christian Era is a redirect.

Also, your first citation, to the dictionary.com entry for "Christian Era", does not even contain the word "common". Your second citation to an essay by N. S. Gill states

CE stands for "Common Era" or, rarely "Christian Era." [Emphasis added]

I don't belive a rarely used meaning belongs in the lead, much less the first sentence. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your disagreement does not does imply the inexistence of consensus as seen before in #CE/BCE are also abbreviations for Christian Era/Before Christian Era. Redirects may be changed. Also a rare alternative is still an alternative term, though relatively uncommon as per WP:OBSCURE. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"Unanimous consensus" seldom exists and is not a requirement for keeping a version of an article. Talk:Common Era/Archive 10#Requested move in unison with Anno Domini move and Talk:Anno Domini/Archive 4#Requested move in unison with Common Era move indicate consensus for the current names of articles and redirects, and which topics are covered in each article. Jc3s5h (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Christian Era

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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

---

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

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

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

The community is invited to discuss the following question:

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

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

Support

Oppose

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

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

• This proposal is fundamentally flawed.

• CE is a disambiguation article, it does not redirect here.
• Christian Era redirects, as it should, to Anno Domini (the widely accepted name for the Christian era.
• The term "Common Era" is the one used for our present dating system by non-Christians. This is by far the most widely understood meaning of the term today.
• The etymology of the name is not especially relevant but it is a conversion of the word "vulgar" (which had gained negative meaning, just as the word "common" has begun to do). The word 'vulgar' (of the people) was used to distinguish dating from 'regnal' (of the King, as in 'the first year of the reign of Charles III'). That some sources such as Merriam-Webstee have chosen to define it as "Christian Era" really tells you more about their target demographic than anything deeply meaningful.

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

• Oppose: This claim is only very weakly supported by the article and so hardly belongs in the first sentence of the lead just per WP:LEAD. Incidentally, it looks like the mere use of the term "Christian era" is being invoked in the article to support this as an interpretation of "CE". But that simply does not follow. The abbreviation has another meaning well-established by the body of the article: "Common Era". --Patrick (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an article about the term "Common Era"; it is not the place, and its first sentence is most certainly not the place, to shoe-horn in a trivial claim that the abbreviation of the term might also stand for something else, e.g. the CE mark. NebY (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose per above, I've never seen Christian era abbreviated as CE

  Kowal2701 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Though "Christian era" is a reasonable guess by somebody unfamiliar with the abbreviation, it is pretty obvious that any and all writers of "CE" think it stands for "Common Era". In addition your own dictionary links says it stands for "common era" and not "Christian era", look at the page for "CE".Spitzak (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No sources have been given to support equal time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I already stated in #Talk:Common Era/Archive 10#"Christian Era" in lead. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The relevant guideline, I think, is MOS:LEADALT. An alternative name may appear in the lede ¶ if it is significant, and if there are fewer than three alternative names. Looking at major dictionaries, I cannot tell whether Christian Era is significant as an alternative name for the same period as Common Era. Meanwhile, the OED mentions both Christian Era & Anno Domini in this context; the Cambridge English Dictionary lists Christian Era & Current Era. If it's unclear to me whether or not Christian Era is significant, it's very clear to me that there are at least three alternative names. Surely, if any alternative is significant, Anno Domini has a better claim than Christian Era. The current treatment—in which Christian Era appears in the body of the article but not the lede—appears to me to be the right course. Pathawi (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose as above. The term Christian era is already given detailed discussion throughout the body of the article. Spree4218 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose AD by definition overlaps with CE, but this is not mentioned in the lead. It would defeat the purpose of CE. Senorangel (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Based on the current state of the article body I don't think that it is sufficiently significant to the topic to put in the lead, which is currently an appropriate size relative to the body. If there really is substantial historical scholarship that this is a historical usage, then (assuming appropriate care is taken not to overrepresent due weight) some careful additions might be made to the body, and iff said portion of the body becomes much more substantial, only then should we start to discuss whether to add it to the lead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per JMF McYeee (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It could be mentioned in some capacity in the article as a historical thing, referenced, but it doesn't seem appropriate to include a usage that is no longer common in the lead, let alone the first sentence.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herostratus, GPTZero classifies the opening statement of this RfC as 100% likely to be AI-generated. On the question of a high level of satisfaction, GPTZero has about a 10% false-positive rate, meaning that there is about a 90% chance that the opening statement of this RfC is AI-generated.

For some reason, those who use LLMs get rather defensive whenever you call them out on it (see e.g. this ArbCom case request); unfortunately that seems to be the case here too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...added a block of apparently LLM-generated content that's good and well-sourced....

How about this?

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

Where is the line?

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

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

Is it possible that people just find the editor annoying and are bringing up red herrings on that basis.

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

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

Would some kind soul put us all out of our misery...

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.