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.

Potential WP:SYNTH in Rationales > Opposition

See reference 72. The in-article text says, "Some Christians are offended by the removal of the reference to Jesus," whereas the excerpted text on the reference is: ""'I find this attempt to restructure history offensive,' Lori Weintz wrote, in a letter to National Geographic publishers. ... 'The forward to your book says B.C. and A.D. were removed so as to "not impose the standards of one culture on others." ... It's 2006 this year for anyone on Earth that is participating in day-to-day world commerce and communication. Two thousand six years since what? Most people know, regardless of their belief system, and aren't offended by a historical fact.'" Nothing inside of the article, nor the excerpted reference, mentions Christians being offended by the removal of the reference to Jesus.

Suggestion to add WP:SYNTH template to the section. ~2026-37878-3 (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case, the appropriate tag would be {{failed verification}}. There can be little doubt that evangelist Christians oppose use of the nondenominational term "Common Era" precisely because it fails to provide the required ritual obeisance to their founder. A reader letter to NG was never a satisfactory citation in the first place.

To get to the point, I will now remove it and replace it with a 'citation needed' tag. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for a new opening sentence

What do editors think of this proposal:

Common Era (CE) and Before the Common Era (BCE) are notations used with dates according the world's most coomonly used calendar (or its predecessor), to specify the number of years since, or before, the epoch. They correspond exactly to the Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC) notations: "2026 CE" is the same year as "AD 2026", as are "400 BCE" and "400 BC". BCE/CE are used to avoid religious associations by not referring to Jesus as Dominus ('Lord'). The epoch of the era is about five years after the date of birth of Jesus.

Comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

How wrong the epoch is compared to Jesus birth is not relevant. Would prefer either not talking about "which calendar" at all, or using the normal names for them. This is pretty much the current text. The suffix also does not specify the number of years, the number does that. Spitzak (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The current text links to the general article about epochs as the starting point of any era. There is no information as to what specific event defined the epoch for this ere, so it immediately begs that question. So either we say what it is or we don't mention it at all – which would be 'challenging' since it is the break point between CE and BCE.

Naming the common calendar as Gregorian (which is certainly its common name in the west) seems redundant to me since the significant factor in this case is that it is the worldwide de faccto standard civil calendar. But I'm conscious of weasel wording given that there is no accepted alternative name. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the article doesn't begin by defining the Common Era. It just leaps into the distinction between CE and BCE. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Second attempt to seek consensus

How about this, which at least starts with a statement of what it is and then goes on to compare and contrast the neutral and Christian abbreviations::

The Comnon Era is the calendar era used in almost every country worldwide for its civil calendar. The name is a religiously neutral but mathematically identical alternative to the Dionysian era used by Christians. The abbreviations CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era) are conventions used in the Gregorian or Julian calendar to specify if the year is before or after the epoch. They correspond exactly to AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ): "2026 CE" is the same year as "AD 2026", as are "400 BCE" and "400 BC". BCE/CE are used to avoid religious associations by not referring to Jesus as Dominus ('Lord').

Comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's "Common", not "Comnon". Nobody says or writes "Dionysian era"; Wikipedia shouldn't invent era names. Also, "the Comnon [sic] Era is the calendar era used in almost every country worldwide for its civil calendar" indicates that since "Anno Domini", "Christian Era", and non-English phrases with similar Christian connotations are the collectively the leading era around the world, but this sentence says "Common Era" is used in almost every country worldwide, the two eras are the same thing. But if they're the same thing, why does Wikipedia have two articles? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

They are mathematically identical but socio-linguistically they are entirely different. Worldwide, the large majority of people are not Christians.

And no, I didn't invent Dionysian era, I would be at least 120 years too late.

I thought you better than to make a song and dance over a trivial typo. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• No, hopeless! How do we know what "calendar era" any country uses "for its civil calendar"? Which countries ever say they are using CE or AD officially?? This formulation takes it as read that BC/AD is not religiously neutral, which is highly POV, though obviously believed by many Americans. It is noticeable how few other languages feel the need to adopt their CE equivalents (which I think most have) very widely. Start again (or maybe somebody less personally invested should). Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying "it's the same as AD and BC", along with a link to the article about those, is quite sufficient to indicate what the subject is. Also it does not matter at all whether or not BC/AD is "religiously neutral", the point is that *some* people *think* that CE/BCE is more "religiously neutral", and that is the reason these terms are used. It remains the reason these symbols are used whether or not those people are correct. Spitzak (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but WP should not be saying they are correct. I wonder, incidentally, if for some strange reason countries were in fact obliged to specify an era-style for their "civil calendar", how many would actually plump for CE? Certainly not the UK I think. As it is, the question does not arise. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Obviously I have completely failed to explain what it is that I consider needs to be done. It is simply this: the first sentence of most articles begins with

<article title=''> is ...

but this one does not. Is there another way to write an opening sentence with that effect? Or is there an exceptional reason to ignore convention in this case? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The article currently begins "Common Era (CE) and Before the Common Era (BCE) are conventions...." They are conventions. The "Anno Domini" is the main article about the underlying epoch and ways of counting. This article is about a pair of related conventions for expressing the year. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"related" = identical here! Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The "exceptional reason to ignore convention in this case" is perhaps the difficulty of improving the current opening. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Touché!!

I will be off grid for the next few days so won't be able to respond to anyone. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

References

𝕁𝕄𝔽

Short description

Until @Spitzak changed it a few days ago (to Alternative names for AD/BC), the short description read Modern calendar era. I have reverted the change pending discussion and consensus.

The Common Era calendar is a de facto standard used worldwide and, while it is indeed numerically identical to the Anno Domini calendar founded by Christians, that is incidental. To Christians, maybe, it is "an alternative name for AD", but to the rest of the world (of whom Christians are a distinct minority), it is simply a non-sectarian, non-denominational, or non-religious term for the calendar era that we all use. A better form of words than "Modern calendar era" might be found but Spitzak's version is not it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You getting a bit obsessive about this frankly! I would dispute both parts of "a de facto standard used worldwide". Apart from America, most of the "rest of the world" have never heard of it frankly. You've been told many times before how it puzzles Indians without expensive educations. This is, I'm afraid, just American cultural imperialism, and I suggest you stop it. Spitzak's version has the huge advantage of giving a clear meaning that will be almost universally understood, whereas the older "Modern calendar era" won't convey anything to many readers. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't start this. It was not I who made the controversial change.

From the article: "In 1949, the People's Republic of China adopted 公元 (gōngyuán, "Common Era") for both internal and external affairs in mainland China". That's a few hundred million who might disagree with your analysis.

Yes, I get it that Christian nationalists don't like having their worldview questioned but Wikipedia does aim for a worldwide perspective. And to sling around insults like "American cultural imperialism" and "woke" adds nothing to your argument. Please do not make assumptions about my motives and try to wp:assume good faith.

Please try to stay on topic: this wp:BRD debate is not about the merits or otherwise of Common Era (or Anno Domini), it is about the content of the short description for the Common Era article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

No, you stay on topic, if you can! You don't deal with my or Spitzac's arguments at all. I never used the "w" word. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and "Please do not make assumptions about my motives and try to wp:assume good faith". Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of the SD is to clarify what the article is about very very concisely, in the context of a list of results, for example (WP:Short description). Here are some criteria to debate:

• It must not mention the "common era": "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title" (WP:SDNOTDEF)
• It must mention that CE is a calendar or date notation.
• It should mention that it is related to the AD/BC era, whose only common name is the "Christian era". Some editors argue that mentioning the Christian Era will mislead readers into thinking CE actually stands for "Christian Era". But I don't know how much we can protect against that sort of thing, which seems to be similar to the rumor that the spelling "Xmas" is a plot to "take Christ out of Christmas".
• It must be easy to understand for the general reader; we don't want to define it with a less intelligible term such as the Dionysian era. (WP:SDJARGON)
• It should also clarify its relationship (disambiguate) with very similar articles. What distinguishes CE/BCE from AD/BC is that it is secular and non-sectarian.
• It should be supported by reliable sources.

Here are some possibilities I can think of -- choose one from each list:

• non-sectarian, secular, scholarly, non-religious
• calendar, calendar notation, calendar convention, dating system, year numbering
• for, equivalent to
• the Christian era, AD/BC

For example, "secular year numbering for the Christian era".

I propose that as a framework for discussion. You might object to "dating system", for example, because it might be misinterpreted as a system for going on dates.

I do not think that "modern" either clarifies or disambiguates. The defunct Italian Fascist Anno Fascista (AF) era is arguably more modern (invented in the 20th century, not the 6th), as is the current Japanese Reiwa era (began in 2019). I suppose it distinguishes it from the Olympic calendar. But it doesn't help distinguish it from the Islamic A.H. or the Jewish A.M., which continue to be used in the modern day.

"Standard" suggests that CE is more standard than AD, which is tendentious. On the other hand, "alternative" suggests that AD is more standard, which is equally tendentious.

Note that we are not debating the desirability of using CE/BCE, or trying to characterize who uses it. But I will repeat that it is widely used by Christian theologians and Christian publishing houses, as well as by Christian and non-Christian scholars not just in Biblical studies, but in history, anthropology, etc.

I'm puzzled by the claim that CE reflects "American cultural imperialism". I believe that CE/BCE is widely used in European scholarly publications, although I don't have statistics. I'm afraid I don't know the East Asian, South Asian, or African literature.

As for Reliable Sources for the terminology, we have for example:

• "...the distinction of having fixed the beginning of the Christian era has been accredited to Dionysius Exiguus...": "Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era" in Vigiliae Christianae: A Review of Early Christian Life and Language , by George Ogg (Scottish)
• "The most successful dating system the world has ever known is that based on the 'Year of the Lord' (Anno Domini, or simply AD)... Nowadays the use of what is known as the Christian or the common era is so self-evident...": "Dionysius Exiguus and the Introduction of the Christian Era", in Sacris erudiri: Journal of Late Antique and Medieval Christianity , by G. Declercq (Belgian)

Does that help us move forward? --Macrakis (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Very little, I think. You forgot, or were unaware of, the era the Chinese actually use internally. Not to mention the Republic of China calendar where we are currently in 115). You rightly claim ignorance of usage in most of the world, but are then "puzzled" by statements from those better informed! Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean my comment to be definitive, but to help move the discussion along. What would you change? And how does PRC and ROC usage affect the wording of the Short Description? --Macrakis (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm happy with Spitzac's "Alternative names for AD/BC". No other suggestion seems better. JMF was not happy with that for secularist (nationalist?) POV reasons, and has not engaged with the arguments for it (see above). No one else has said what is wrong with it. This is only a short description for heaven's sake. You and JMF are the ones who keep trying to widen the scope of the discussion, not very helpfully. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

My intent was not to widen the discussion but rather to focus it.

I stated my objection to "alternative names": '"alternative" suggests that AD is more standard, which is equally tendentious.'

I propose: Secular year numbering equivalent to AD/BC. Macrakis (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I could agree Year numbering equivalent to AD/BC. The secular is completely unnecessary and POV - millions of people using BC/AD regard it as "secular" or never think or are even aware of any religious significance to it. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

So you believe that your (uncited) "millions of people" haven't paused for a second to wonder what the abbreviation "AD" means? And do you consider as entirely capricious the strange practice of Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist writers to prefer to use CE?

Meanwhile on Wikipedia, we aim to enlighten rather than to conceal. We explain in our article Anno Domini that it means "in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ" and we give it the short description "Calendar era based on the birth of Jesus". So how does it make any sense to have a vague "nothing to see here, don't worry your pretty little head about it" when it comes to Common Era? Let's at least be consistent in our treatment. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do (essentially). The "strange practice" is not only also uncited, but largely wrong, as people keep having to tell you the great majority of Hindus at least use BC rather than CE, though also having local religious eras they may use. I'm just not engaging with you any more- what's the point. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of a short description is to help users distinguish this article from others.

I don't know whether the great majority of Hindus prefer AD or CE, but it's not relevant to the SD.

That said, some politicians and educators in Tamil Nadu have described CE as "more secular" since at least 2006. ("Common Era dating system redux". The Hindu. 2018-06-27. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2026-07-06.) It was planned to adopt CE in Tamil Nadu schools in 2018, but apparently that was opposed by some legislators and not implemented. ("Old dating system to continue in Tamil Nadu school textbooks". The Hindu. 2018-06-30. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2026-07-06.).

The Indian web site GK Today says "The Common Era (CE) and Before the Common Era (BCE) constitute a pair of secular year notations used to identify years within the Gregorian calendar..." "Common Era". GK Today. Retrieved 2026-07-06.

So even in India, the description "Secular year numbering equivalent to AD/BC" is appropriate. In any case, that description does not say that people using BC/AD do think about their religious significance. --Macrakis (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod, You accused me of "getting obsessive about it", questioned my good faith in opening a WP:BRD debate, implied that my objection to precedence being given to a particular religious designation as being motivated by "American cultural imperialism". Can you really not see why I might decline to engage with you on those terms? I respect too much your expertise in topics on the history of art to put in jeopardy our cooperation in those topics by our falling out over an SD.

So let me reiterate: this discussion is only about the short description for the article. It is thus off-topic to get sidetracked into a discussion about the status of Common Era. Your arguments, such as they were, are primarily a wandering down that sidetrack.

Spitzak's original change (from which they have since resiled, in favour of a more reasoned and reasonable proposal) was akin to proposing the metric equivalent counterpart of the yard as the short description for the metre. I exaggerate for illustrative effect of course since Common Era and Anno Dommini are mathematically identical and yard/metre are not, but it clarifies the need for the short description to be as independent as possible. Finally, WP:HOWTOSD requires that the SD not be a definition, that it should be read in conjunction with the article name, that it should be helpful both to searches and in annotated See Also lists. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll let others read the above & decide who is wandering down tracks. I can't see where Spitzak has "resiled". Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with 'it should mention that it is related to the AD/BC era, whose only common name is the "Christian era".' An abbreviation can be a better known common name that the full term. For example, FM vs. frequency modulation, or NASA vs. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I listed both "the Christian era" and "AD/BC" in "choose one from each list". --Macrakis (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Something like "Secular alternatives to AD/BC" seems fine. CE/BCE does not exist in isolation from AD/BC and never really did. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you see my comment above on why I think "alternative" isn't ideal? Macrakis (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Macrakis I guess I missed it as I was trying to read around the borderline PAs. I think Johnbod's suggestion of "Year numbering equivalent to AD/BC" is agreeable, too. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think "secular" is an important part of the SD, so I would combine your two wordings as "Secular year numbering equivalent to AD/BC" (42 chars). --Macrakis (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree.

In the interest of achieving consensus m, I concede to that wording.

Btw, there is no longer a 40 char limit. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No objections to that one either, but could also potentially be shortened slightly further to "Secular era naming equivalent to AD/BC", which I also think makes a bit more sense for the topic. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

In case it is not clear from this and various other discussions, I have very strong objections to including "secular" in the SD, which is POV. This is of course not because BCE/CE is not secular, but because it more or less says that BC/AD are NOT secular but religious. Also "era naming" is pretty likely to confuse readers without mother tongue English and a couple of degrees. Macrakis, WHY do you think "secular" is essential in the SD? I'd also point out that SDs are relentlessly fiddled with over time & anything over 40 chars is very likely to be shortened. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

How about simply "Year naming equivalent to AD/BC"? We are reapproaching Spitzak's original change, but I do believe that "naming" is better than "numbering", since the numbers are not the difference, the names are.

As an equivalent point to your objection with adding "secular", but from the opposite position: our History section here somewhat implies that "common era" is no more secular than AD, with examples such as "common era of the birth of Christ" and "common era of the Jews"/"Mahometans". Even "non-Christian" would be incorrect given how many examples there are of the term in use alongside Christian terminology. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that may be an over-interpretation of a mid C18 source. The quote reads "And it doth not appear, that they began to reckon from the creation till after their Gemarrah was finished; at which time they fixed that for their common era." Note minuscule c, minuscule e. As the article says, "common era in a generic sense". In modern usage era for Judaism is Anno Mundi (but not the same Anno Mundi recognised by Eastern Christendom). In modern usage, Common Era (majuscule C, majuscule E) means the era used in common around the world, in addition to (or instead of) traditional and/or religious reckoning. It is a calendrical lingua franca. Modern usage of the term is genuinely secular. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I like "year naming", which to me suggests something like the Chinese "Year of the Iron Rat" etc system. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll make one more suggestion: "Agnostic era names equivalent to AD/BC". This could of course also be spliced with the others. I am not sure if "agnostic" is a more appropriate value judgement than "secular", but I thought it would be worth bringing up at the least.

Otherwise, I fall back to "Year numbering equivalent to AD/BC" or "Secular year numbering equivalent to AD/BC", whichever achieves greater consensus. I very much prefer changing the current "Modern calendar era" to any of these others, as there are many modern calendar eras (such as AM as you mentioned, JMF), and the current SD implies this is the one. ~ oklopfer (💬) 05:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who supports the current wording, it is only still there per wp:STATUSQUO and is on life support.

Unfortunately, the word agnostic in this context is associated with a particular belief or non-belief system and thus is insufficiently neutral. Secular has the same meaning but without the baggage.

So may we take it that you assent to "Secular year numbering equivalent to AD/BC" (as with me, not your preferred option but best that can be achieved). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sigh! Still pushing the agenda. As you know (because I said so just above), I strongly object to the "secular" there. Nobody has yet said why this is essential in a SD. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

May I suggest that you say what you have to say without the NPA violation.

This is why it is essential:

• The "Common Era" nomenclature exists.
• The "Common Era" nomenclature does not have any religious association. In other words, it is secular.
• The "Anno Domini" nomenclature is a religious one: "in the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ".
• The "Common Era" nomenclature is an alternative to the "Anno Domini" nomenclature, as you acknowledge.

So what makes Common Era an alternative nomenclature to Anno Domini era for counting years since the same epoch? Might the secular v religious connotation be a clue? That is why we need "secular". Simply to declare that it is "an alternative" without giving any hint as to how is an alternative, just makes no sense to me.

Your opposition to the word is expressed (I believe) in your The secular is completely unnecessary and POV - millions of people using BC/AD regard it as "secular" or never think or are even aware of any religious significance to it. That is your assertion and even if it has any validity, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we do not collude in obfuscation or censorship. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You need to visit WP:SDESC to remind yourself what short descriptions are supposed to be! That does not include fighting American culture wars. Nor bringing out every aspect of the subject - that is for the text. As Macrakis's research & links above have showed, the most Hindu of the Indian states recently decided to keep BC/AD in their schools. You can be sure this was not to promote or retain its supposed religious meaning. I made no violation of NPA, and your continued attempts at sarcasm (which does count towards that) are so weak they cannot be taken as attacks. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use "numbering" in the short description, because that implies the numbers are different! I think "Secular alternative to AD/BC" is about the best we can do. Use singular "alternative" since the title of the article is "Common Era", not "Common Era and Before Common Era". "Secular" is fine as that is exactly the reason people use CE. Spitzak (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

To me, CE implies BCE. The reason people use one rather than the other is almost always because that is what their teachers/professors told them to do. I think "year numbering" is absolutely essential for clarity (as well as saying it is the same numbers as BC/AD). If the SD can get that over its job is done. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Many people certainly use AD/BC with no religious intent or implication, the same way they may refer to Jesus as Christ without believing that he was the Anointed One or the Messiah.

On the other hand, most people who prefer CE/BCE explicitly prefer it precisely because it is does not have religious associations, so "secular" seems like a useful disambiguator in the short description. --Macrakis (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. At the general level, most youngish Americans use it because that is what they have been taught to do at school or college, even though they are far more likely to have Christian beliefs than their equivalents anywhere else. It's unnecessary baggage in an SD, but JMF is a righteous warrior in the secularist cause, and keeps trying to push the article to this POV - see earlier sections and archives. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Learn basic logic. “CE is secular” does not imply “AD is not secular”. Or that it is secular. Or anything about it. The subject here is CE and, like it or not, the reason it is used is to be secular. Spitzak (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a matter of basic English, and I suppose logic. To say "Secular year numbering equivalent to AD/BC" clearly implies that the latter are not (probably cannot be) secular. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This “young Americans” are fully aware that CE is secular. Those evil leftist professors you seem to worry about so much told them, why do you think they would not and lose their entire point??? Spitzak (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this adressed to me? Frankly I can't parse it, but never mind. It's the American cultural imperialism that concerns me far more than left or right, as you'd know if you'd paid attention here. You know nothing about me or my political views, and what you seem to think you know is completely wrong. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that most people who use CE know its motivation. I said that most people who prefer CE do.

In any case, the lead paragraph of the article says clearly that "BCE/CE are used to avoid religious associations" (including by many Christian theologians). The SD should reflect the article.

Calling JMF a "a righteous warrior in the secularist cause" doesn't advance the discussion, and again, I don't see how it's "secularist" to describe CE as "secular". It might be considered "secularist" to promote CE, but that isn't what an SD does. Is it secularist to describe laicism as a "secularization movement"? --Macrakis (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The point is, he insists that "secular" is in the SD, which is completely unnecessary there, though the issue is of course dealt with in the text. WP:SDESC says nothing about "reflecting" the article, in fact quite the opposite - brutally terse summaries are mandated. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod: this discussion is about the short description for the article Common Era. Yes, we get it that you don't approve of the very existence of the notation, that you consider it American cultural imperialism, that there are some – even many – authorities that continue to prefer the traditional abbreviations despite their religious meanings. All of that is irrelevant to this debate, the content of the short description. The article Common Era exists: if you oppose its existence, propose its deletion. Further contributions on its validity or otherwise amount to filibustering and will be ignored.

On the nature of short descriptions, let me quote the lead of WP:SDESC in full: The short description of a Wikipedia page is a brief phrase intended to complement and clarify the page title, particularly in contexts where this is seen in isolation from the page itself. Taken together, the title and short description concisely explain the subject of the page—for example, to help a user identify the desired article in a list of search results. So if we say that "[Common Era] is an alternative to AD/BC" without saying what makes it alternative, we would fail conspicuously to meet that criterion.

On the word 'secular', you argue [if I understand you correctly] that that writers use AD/BC abbreviations without regard to their religious meaning and you declare that to be secular usage. It may well be true that they do so, as writers need sales or citations and it is a brave writer who will risk upsetting a substantial constituency of Christians and traditionalists by using a term that will provoke a negative reaction such as yours. But the inference that this is secular usage is yours and yours alone. We are not here to question the choices that writers make. That is just another variation on the "CE is redundant" argument and irrelevant to the question of the SD. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We must have been interacting for well over a decade by now, perhaps longer, on a variety of topics. One thing I have learnt, by the way, is that you are usually wrong. The above is typical of your bludgeoning propagandistic way of arguing, involving a considerable amount of deception. "Yes, we get it that you don't approve of the very existence of the notation" - firstly don't speak for others, and secondly in earlier discussions here (archives) and elsewhere, you have accepted that this isn't the case at all, and are aware that I use myself in appropriate cases. I have said in the past that I used to use it for my new articles on Indian topics, until I realized that it was especially Indian readers who did not know the term. Or perhaps your memory is going. I don't think that the term in itself is American cultural imperialism; what is that is the imposition of it on the rest of the world, on the assumption that it is obviously the right term to use, and objectors have wierd and suspicious motives. In fact the use of the term is vastly greater in the US than anywhere else. To say "there are some – even many – authorities that continue to prefer the traditional abbreviations despite their religious meanings" and "writers need sales or citations and it is a brave writer who will risk upsetting a substantial constituency of Christians and traditionalists by using a term that will provoke a negative reaction such as yours" shows such a distorted fantasy view of the world, even in the US I would think, that I'm rather lost for words, except to say your aspersion of a "negative reaction" from me is based on absolutely nothing - yet again you turn you opponents into US culture war stereotypes. There is simply no need to introduce anything controversial into an SD, and policy is clear we should not do so. Adding "secular" to the SD is not necessary and we should not do it. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This pissing contest between Johnbod and JMF is tiresome and unproductive, unworthy of two such experienced editors.

But given such virulence, I'm not sure how further discussion would be helpful.

Maybe it's time for a listing on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? --Macrakis (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, it is true that CE/BCE is used more in the US than elsewhere. But even in UK books (as tracked by Google Books, which is of course imperfect), CE/BCE is about 66-78% as common as AD/BC. --Macrakis (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet none of the UK newspapers or broadcasters normally use it, not even The Guardian. Nor the big museums. But it is certainly gaining ground in academia, though much more slowly than many used to expect. This is largely because of the reverse of JMF's ridiculous ""writers need sales or citations and it is a brave writer who will risk upsetting a substantial constituency of Christians and traditionalists by using a term that will provoke a negative reaction such as yours" - UK academics and other authors are increasingly forced to use it by journals' style guides, or the known tastes of American publishers and readerships; that very largely explains the google results. I take you've actually read the article and noted the changes made by the Canadian national museum? Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to the wording of the SD? --Macrakis (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Huh?! I was merely commenting on your researches just above. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

State of debate as at 11 July

I want to go over all of the things it seems we cannot agree on:

• whether "secular" should be included
• whether "year" or "era" should be used
• whether "naming" or "numbering" should be used
  • whether these should be in singular, plural, or gerund form
• whether "alternative" or "equivalent" should be used
  • whether these should be in singular or plural form

If my summary is accurate, then the only component that there is agreement on is that the SD should end with "to AD/BC". I think it would be best to find consensus on everything aside from the usage of "secular" before returning to that question, as all others are merely syntactical, while that one has apparently reached an ideological impasse. The scattered approach is rather ineffective. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)