Talk:1st century BC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1st century BC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Years Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BC or BCE

A quick question: should the pages about years in this particular epoch use "BC" or "BCE"? I would have thought BCE more appropriate, as it is religiously neutral, and according to Anno Domini is the more commonly used term in academic circles.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) leaves it to the discretion of the individual editor, stating only that it should be consistent within an article. But there have been very long debates on Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (many in its archives), including a current debate at Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal and its talk page. No consensus is forthcoming. — Joe Kress 30 June 2005 01:25 (UTC)

This page has the same information as in 1st century BC, we should chose one to keep and one to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imamathwiz (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for both BC and BCE

The 1st century BC article is also the 1st century BCE article, as a consequence of a redirect. As a general guideline, when multiple terms redirect to the same article, that article usually tries to discuss all the terms, and I see no reason why the AD/BC century articles should be any different. I tried to edit the article to make it discuss both the BC and BCE terms, but my edit was reverted. —AlanBarrett (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should mention both terms. It might be possible to do it more tidily though - maybe mentioning only once the fact that BCE is equivalent to BC, with perhaps more explicit information about and/or links to the meaning of both abbreviations.--Kotniski (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, links to both the Anno Domini article (to explain the AD/BC notation) and the Common Era article (to explain the CE/BCE notation) seem to be necessary. For example, if you follow a link from some other article to 1st century BCE, you should easily be able to find an explanation of what "BCE" means. —AlanBarrett (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm all for mentioning BCE, I just don't think we need to mention BCE everywhere at par with BC. Perhaps we could simply mention it at the beginning, with a link to Common Era? We could duplicate this idea at all other articles for "BC" years. For example:

“

The 1st century BC (or 1st century BCE) started on the first day of 100 BC and ended on the last day of 1 BC. It is considered part of the Classical era, epoch, or historical period. An alternative name for this century is the last century BC.

”

I think that a simple mention at the very beginning is sufficient, since the article's name is indeed "1st century BC". The Common Era link will provide sufficient information about the AD/BC alternative. I'd say any further mention about it would be too cluttering. Anyone have any other suggestions? — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion above looks fine to me. (Except that I'd use non-breaking spaces instead of plain spaces between the number and the "BC" or "BCE" suffix, e.g. "100 BC", which renders as "100 BC" but ensures that there is never a line break between the number and the suffix.) —AlanBarrett (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there are no objections after a few days... I will incorporate the agreed changes. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred and Non-Western History

Do events recorded only in the sacred history of a sect and not generally found in mainstream history textbooks, e.g. Nephite history from the Book of Mormon, belong on the event list?

Also, shouldn't there be more coverage of events outside the Mediterranean Basin for which reliable dating exists, e.g. East Asia, Indian Subcontinent, empires of the Western Hemisphere, etc.? Davidhof (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, only Biblical tales such as the Exodus are included in Wikipedia's list of historical events. While there is an equal amount of evidence and expert opinion supporting the Mormon theory of Native American origins as there is behind the tale of 2 million Jews escaping Egypt, one tale is significantly more popular and is worthy of being included as history. 2.102.160.82 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holocene Calendar

The Holocene calendar has a year 0, so why does it say that the 100th century runs from 9901-10000? Am removing the statement. --24.150.196.3 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]