Talk:CE

Comments

---

Also note the politically correct tendency is to use the abbreviation "C.E." (Common Era) and "B.C.E" (Before Common Era). These abbreviations are an attempt to avoid the religious connotations of the Latin abbreviation. In spite of the name change, B.C.E. and C.E. still divide history according to the life of Christ. [1]

some readers may be surprised that I have retained the essentially Christian system of dates "B.C." and "A.D." instead of the increasingly popular "Common Era" or "C.E." and "B.C.E." This is because the "Common Era" is common to Jews and Christians but still excludes Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. It is therefore is a very misleading term. For this reason I prefer the traditional Western usage to a modern innovation which does not even have the saving grace that it developed in a homogeneous society. [2]

---

Anyway, there's a lot of overlap between the CE and Common Era articles. I think we should merge them. --Ed Poor

---

With all due respect, Ed, this is, in my view, a classic example of the way the term "politically correct" is misused, and in my view it is a smear against people who happen to think that CE is better than AD. I would point out that, from a religious perspective, AD is not common to Jews and Christians, since Jews couldn't give a rat's ass about the birth of Christ. It is "common" not in the religious sense, but in the sense that just about everyone in the West, regardless of whether they are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists, use this calendar, and furthermore I believe that it has become fairly commonly used throughout the world, not just in the West; and in any case it really has nothing to do with the birth of Christ in reality since nobody knows when he was born and it probably wasn't in year 1. Thus, far from being misleading, it is both a much more respectful and accurate term, since it isn't actually the "year of the Lord"--certainly not for Jews, who use it but don't consider Jesus their "Lord", nor for Christians, since it doesn't actually represent the date that their "Lord" was born. soulpatch

The argument that I've always subscribed to, and I don't think its been mentioned here, is that there is an excellent reason to use BC and AD as opposed to CE and BCE. With CE and BCE we use Jesus' birth (approximate) as a dividing line for no good reason AND with no historical context for why we do so. With BC and AD we still use the same dividing line but at least it is OBVIOUS as to why. It seems the PC posse dropped the ball on this one. As long as the dividing line is "biased" by being Christian-centric it seems appropriate that it be CLEAR that it is biased. Calling it BCE and CE just makes things more confusing. At least if its AD everyone KNOWS that the Christian mode is prominent. --Dante Alighieri 21:56 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the dividing line is somehow based on Christianity. Nobody cares about that. The issue isn't what dividing line we use, which can be anything at all, but how whether we choose to give it an explicitly religious reference whenever we mention dates. So what if the original purpose Christian? Why make that more prominent? The original purpose can easily be just as irrelevant and lost in the mists of time as any other origin related to the calendar, including the names of the months, or the etymologies of words, or whatever. The issue is how we continue to refer to those dates today. soulpatch

Ack. My fault for posting it to both articles, we need to chose one article and stick to it for now. :) --Dante Alighieri 22:08 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, soulpatch. I only prefer AD and BC because it's what I've seen most often in my life. As you say, so what if the original purpose was Christian?

I don't think we should change usage, merely because some scholars (as the article said, even before I started tinkering with it) FEEL that it forces people or excludes people. Anyway, it's not such a big issue. There are very few contexts where we have to distinguish dates with the symbols in question. Nearly all our articles simply omit the AD (or omit the CE, if that will make you happy!) when speaking of years since, say, the Enlightenment.

We can always go back on the mailing list and kick it around some more... --Ed Poor

Ed, the issue in this article is not whether we should change usage or not. I know that some people are unfamiliar with CE and BCE, and are used to using AD and BC. But you know, there are also some people who do not understand quantum mechanics and who do not know about the life of FDR or the history of the Vietnam War -- and they come to an encyclopedia in order to learn about these things. SImilarly, many scholars and many non-scholars already use BCE and CE in place of BC and AD. The encyclopedia article should not argue whether this is a good or bad thing, it should simply explain the practice for people who are unfamiliar with it or do not understand it. Isn't this what an article is about?

Now, there is the other issue of what wikipedia usage should be -- I do not think this is the place to argue it, I am sure there are more appropriate places. For what it is worth, as a Jew I am offended by any one using AD or BC in a non-Christian context, and like it or not many Jews feel the same way (of course not all Jews, but then again there are some Jews who have Christmas trees too; no communicty is homgeneous and there are always exceptions -- and in this case I think it is those Jews who are not offended by AD who are the exceptions). As Soulpatch suggests, the reason the Gregorian calendar is dominant is a reflection of European domination of the world capitalist economy, and Western domination of global culture. I think it is this state of affairs, precisely, that CE is referring to, and I would expect many Muslims and Hindus to agree -- the quote from the professor at Calgary, above, is in my opinion wrong and just plain silly. Slrubenstein

CE = century??

Is that really true that "CE" is used to abbreviate "century"? If not, I suggest to remove this entry because it is misleading. E.g, I found an article in which the term "12th century CE" was used, and when I tried to look up CE on wikipedia, "century" was the first suggested meaning, but what really was meant is "Common Era". I found that quite confusing and would therefore suggest to remove the "century" entry here to avoid the ambiguation. Or, perhaps, at least move it to the lower section for "ce" instead of "CE"? Tempel 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Century is usually 'abbreviated' as cy, not ce. My first thought is to remove it. What do other editors think? Should it be removed, should a citation be requested via Template:Verify source, or should it be demoted as suggested if a citation is not forthcoming? — Joe Kress 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it WP:BB. If someone cares to put it back and document it, so much the better; I agree that it's confusing as it was. --Alvestrand 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Wikipedia works :) Tempel 10:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

C="clear all" CE=erase ?

I'm not sure... and I don't speak english very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.2.255.244 (talk • contribs) .

If you are referring to the keys on a calculator, they mean:

• C -> Clear (all, everything)
• CE -> Clear Entry (that is, just the numbers you're typing in right now)

Atlant 12:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.2.255.244 (talk • contribs) .

Renaming article title

how come this article is not named as CE (disambiguation) when it is a disambiguation page. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

CE → CE (disambiguation) – By far the most common use in wikilinking to "CE" is an intended reference to "Common Era", which makes intuitive sense. I think it would be best to move the current content to "CE (disambiguation)" (retaining the two-letter capitalization as per WP:DPAGE), then make "CE" itself a redirect to "Common Era", and place a {{Redirect|CE}} at the top of "Common Era". ("CE (disambiguation)" itself has only a two-line edit history.) There are a small number of redirects to CE that would need to be adjusted. Probably all of the two-letter capitalized ones should just redirect to "Common Era". oh my yes (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• comment I tend to think "Computer Engineer(ing)", "Civil Engineer(ing)", "Consumer Electronics", "CopyEdit(ing)", "Christian(Common) Era", WinCE, calculator keypad "CE" (clear), are prominent enough to dispute the primarity of each other. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There are a great many meanings associated with this two-letter combination. bd2412 T 17:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Both "BCE" and "AD" are redirects to "Common Era" and "Anno Domini", respectively, even though both also have multiple meanings. Their pages just get a {{Redirect}} hatnote. "BC" goes to a disambiguation page, but in my opinion "Before Christ" for "BC" is a lot less WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than "Common Era" for "CE". oh my yes (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are far too many meanings associated with this abbreviation to give primacy to one of them. I don't see any evidence that "Common Era" meets the test of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is that it is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (emphasis added by me). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't meet the criteria for primary meaning, and it hasn't even been claimed that it does. This is a controversial area, so it's a place where we should err on the side of the guidelines (rather than WP:IAR) if anything, but that doesn't appear to be necessary anyway. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Christian Era vs Anno Domini

JMF (talk · contribs) added this line:

• "Christian Era", better known as Anno Domini

I changed it to * "Christian Era", also known as Anno Domini.

As far as I can tell, the phrases "Christian Era" and "Anno Domini" are equally well understood. It's possible that "CE" is not as well understood as "AD". Another problem is that when one encounters "CE" there is a seldom a statement in the work about whether the author thinks of it as an abbreviation for "Christian Era" or "Common Era". This makes it hard to assess how many writers expect readers to know that "CE" could stand for "Christian Era". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)