Talk:Aelia gens

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Classical Greece and Rome List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles List This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthroponymy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This should be merged somehow with the entry Aelius. Also, on the analogy of other Roman gens entries, perhaps it should be renamed Aelius_(gens), with the parentheses (cf. e.g. Claudius_(gens)). Frippo (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sugesstion on date format, particularly on pre-Christian issues:

• more neutral term
• more acceptable for non-Christians
• BCE/CE is becoming more standard anyway

That is my intention. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a religious debate. As a Jewish writer I can certainly appreciate the feelings of other cultures towards the use of dates based on a religious occurrence that doesn't have great significance to me. If there were any hope of changing to a secular calendar based on something else, such as the foundation of Rome (A.U.C.) I would gladly accept it. But of course any early date would naturally reflect either ethnocentric values (whose foundation myth?) or a sense of historical revisionism (i.e. before or after the beginning/end of the first/second World War). And there's no prospect of it happening anyway.

It can't be denied that CE and BCE are merely substitutes for A.D. and B.C. They don't refer to any other event and have no independent reason for being, other than avoiding a religious reference in the terms themselves. But as they've long been relegated to the status of abbreviations, even in ordinary speech, that's not a serious issue. Even though I would prefer the calendar not to have a religious basis, I would rather use the actual terminology than substitute euphemisms for it. A.D. and B.C. are familiar to the general public, irrespective of religion, while CE and BCE are used primarily by academics. Since Wikipedia is intended for the general public, there's no reason to substitute less familiar terms.

I don't believe that people researching ancient Romans are offended because the dates are described as A.D. and B.C. They're there for convenience, not for religious reasons. There's no compelling reason to impose an alternative terminology that isn't found in most of the literature and isn't familiar to the general public. P Aculeius (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when something new is made, it takes time that this new will get more familiar among the people. I am not a scientist, but an ordinary person. However, even I am already familiar with the terms BCE and CE. The argument AD BC is more familiar is just a temporary matter which will change. Still remember the case in the dispute about the name of an Indian city ("Mumbai" vs. "Bombay")? With the time, Mumbai made a break through. Similar also will happen with BCE/CE. I hope you can get my point. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even wikipedia admits: "CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style. ". Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not making wiki to a semi-academic page. Meaning using academic standards by not losing the focus in the common people. That would be a great exchange and everyone can benefit from it: higher reputation for wikipedia, masses get adequate information in language they can understand -> win-win-case :) --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument presumes that non-Christians do not understand or are less familiar with A.D. and B.C., which is not the case, or that CE and BCE are preferable, which is also not the case. If "no preference is given to either style," then articles using one ought not to be changed to the other according to the preference of each editor who contributes to the page. Article formatting should not become a football bouncing back and forth between various contributors. You believe that A.D. and B.C. will eventually be supplanted by CE and BCE, so we may as well yield to the inevitable. But I submit that this outcome is uncertain, and that if it occurs, it may be many decades from now.

Nearly all of the scholarly materials being used as sources to construct these articles adhere to the established terms. They are clear and unambiguous, and used simply as chronological references are essentially devoid of religious meaning. If one objects to their religious origin (which is understandable), one cannot resolve that objection merely by renaming them, so long as the reason for those dates is the same. When I started this project I decided which styles and formats to use. Consistency is also a legitimate and desirable goal. Reading a series of articles following different formatting would be confusing. I would prefer to maintain their consistency so far as there is no risk of confusing or misleading the reader. P Aculeius (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a Christianphobic suggestion. The birth of Jesus Christ was absolutely not offensive. Strange concept, should we be saying no one outside England should speak English? Or feet and inches are offensive against metric nations? Etc. Middle More Rider (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're replying to a discussion that was settled twelve years ago, with respect to this article. You might want to review what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says about this issue. That page's talk page archives should contain a record of debates about the same issue, and links to other relevant articles. If you want to debate how eras are presented in Wikipedia, those articles would be a better place to do it—but first I would see what's already been said on the topic. P Aculeius (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion concerns the formatting of dates in this article. Until today they were uniformly designated as B.C. and A.D., terms which have been in common use for centuries, are still the academic standard, and are found in most of the source material. This is how all of the other articles about Roman gentes have been formatted. Today a user decided to change them to BCE and CE, without discussion or consensus. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states:

"AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style."

And also

"Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

This article is one of a substantial series of articles on the topic, treated with a uniform system of formatting. There is no substantial reason for the change; it reflects only the personal preference of one editor. There was no discussion and is no consensus. If there were to be a change, it would need to affect scores of other pages in this series, which is neither necessary nor desirable. Please do not reformat these articles based on your own personal preferences. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to emphasize this: "CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style." As I said again: If something is new, you cannot (always) expect it will be well-known overnight. It takes some time. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must also say: "No preference is given to either style." is an unfortunate formulation, don't you think? I prefer a clear policy. Instead of either style it should be decided, whether AD/BC or the other format. Everything else is an unnecessary confusion. I can live with the decision, AD respectivele BC must be standard here. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know the etymology? I got into an argument with my friend who thinks it's from an old Canaanite language meaning rising. Komitsuki (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems extremely improbable, since the family achieved prominence in the first century of the Republic, and used typical Latin names. I'm not aware of any migration of Canaanites to Italy in or before the fifth century B.C. There probably wasn't much contact at all for another four hundred years, and of course foreigners weren't likely to obtain positions of importance for quite some time after reaching Rome. They had to assimilate into Roman society, which typically took generations. So in the absence of compelling evidence that the Aelii were Canaanites, or Semitic, or foreigners of any kind, this sounds like a good case of folk etymology ("this sounds like that, and nothing else does, so it must be derived from it"). P Aculeius (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]