Talk:1 BC

I'm not sure that's it's worth creating a separate article for every year back to 10,000 BC (which is as far as the millennia pages go).

Proposal: redirect every year 1 BC - 3000 BC to its relevant century. redirect every year/century 3000 BC - 10000 BC to its relevant millennium.

---

Now that I think about it, we really shouldn't say very much at all in the year pages. All of the interesting stuff is at Jesus Christ, which is the link that anybody will follow to find out more. So I'm going to make everything as simple as possible, here, at 4 BC, and at 1. -- Toby 04:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

User:Stephen C. Carlson is already doing this as well! -- Toby 04:52 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Why? I've been saying one to two sentences on year and day pages for months now and I'm not about to change. Without explanations these pages become little more than lists - I fail to see how that is useful. --mav

We shouldn't discuss the controversy surrounding Jesus' birth date here (and in 4 BC, and in 1), when it's already being discussed at the proper place: Jesus Christ. I'll look at some examples to see what you're talking about, but it was my impression that these pages were never meant to be anything more than lists, and they are useful as that. -- Toby 04:56 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I don't mind explanations that can be concisely given, but the birth year of Jesus Christ is not one of them, so the current "widely accepted date" and "date given by Dionysius Exiguus" are good, properly concise examples. Anything more detailed short of the article is liable to be incorrect in some way. Stephen C. Carlson 05:08 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

For example, the explanation "according to the Gospel of Matthew" is not quite correct since D. Exiguus also thought he was following Matthew, but he had the wrong date for Herod's death. Stephen C. Carlson 05:11 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Not when they don't establish the context for the things being listed. Year and day pages are not just supposed to be lists. Adding a reasonable amount of info to them just makes them more useful - not less. --mav

Stephen's point is that a reasonable (that is, concise, for a list) amount of information is likely to be so in complete as to be misleading. Do you think that what used to be on 1 is of reasonable length? If (as Stephen and I seems to think) it is not, then how would you rewrite it to be both reasonably concise and accurate? As for the larger point (what should appear on year pages), I've looked at some more and am more inclined than I was for longer texts, although not as long as what 1 used to have. So I will go and see if I want to lenghten anything now, with that it mind, while I wait for further discussion to appear. -- Toby 06:35 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well I've only been concerned about the larger issue. The text at 1 wasn't great but somebody probably could create a sentence or two that would work. --mav

I'd like to know if you think that I ended up with something reasonable. -- Toby 07:18 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dionysius didn't determine a "traditional date", his date was accepted and became the "tradition". Dionysius assigned a date of birth, he didn't "calculate" it. In the Julian Calendar, the dates for Easter repeat every 532 years. Dionysius "assigned" a historically feasible birthyear to Jesus so that Dionysius's Easter tables could start in 532 AD, coinciding with the (2nd) repeating cycle of "Easter" dates. -- Someone else 06:57 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Toby, I'm reasonably happy with it as is, (with the addition of a comma, to which I think you'll not object) appreciating the difficulty of making any statement that is both concise and accurate. I (previously) excluded the other "estimated" dates because they don't mean much: yes, some would assign a historical date of 4BC; others 5BC, others 6BC, etc. and I don't know why we should choose any of these here rather than merely saying the date is in dispute? -- Someone else 07:33 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Should AFAIK be 4 BC or earlier, shouldn't it. Since 4 BC is the year Herod died. -- Egil 07:44 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the "or earlier" bit is the best idea yet. -- Toby 06:20 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)