Talk:1000s BC (decade)
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
- Add new text under old text.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
I believe that, in all of Wikipedia, "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" should be changed to "Before Common Era" and "Common Era", Respectively. I don't think every Wikipedia user worships Christ. Religion should not be a part of things that have nothing to do with religion. Thhhh (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
- Use of BC and AD does not nowadays imply any religious belief. Don't change instances of BC ot BCE. You might just as well change the names of the days of the week. They are derived from gods. I've reverted your changes. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Reply
- I have no idea what the "official" policy is. I remember hearing in school that the "new" system is CE and BCE, but people don't normally seem to use it. Although I think religion is mythology meant for social control, I'm still not offended by CE and AD if this is the "standard" system which most people recognize. As you said, the days and months are based on religion as well. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Reply
- How is BC/AD offensive in any way? They simply describe a period of time which Jesus (he was a real person, ya know? :V) was not alive. Four hundred years from now, something is gonna happen and mankind will probably swap to a new system that's a lot easier, but for now, there's no need to changed something relatively vague. 24.7.141.45 (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Reply
- I have no idea what the "official" policy is. I remember hearing in school that the "new" system is CE and BCE, but people don't normally seem to use it. Although I think religion is mythology meant for social control, I'm still not offended by CE and AD if this is the "standard" system which most people recognize. As you said, the days and months are based on religion as well. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Reply
This might be touching on like a controversial/sensitive subject, but the article says something about Proto-Dravidian being dated in 2005. It does not cite any sources, and the existing article on Proto-Dravidian does not make mention of any direct, archaeological evidence for the existence of Proto-Dravidian (a reconstruction, like other proto-languages). As far as I can tell, there is no direct archaeological evidence of Proto-Dravidian being written down (in a way anyone today has been able to read). The statement is also very unclear; presumably it means that the "Archaeological evidence" dates to c. 1000 BC, but again I haven't been able to find anything supporting this claim. I have deleted the line; someone who is more familiar with the subject should revert the deletion if the statement is true:
"c. 1000 BC—Archaeological evidence obtained from inscriptions excavated in 2005 dates the Proto-Dravidian language, a classical language spoken in India." Zarathusa (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Start-Class Time articles
- Mid-importance Time articles
- Start-Class Years articles
- Mid-importance Years articles
- Start-Class Years articles of Mid-importance
- Start-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles