Talk:Calendar reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] C&T Calendar

As a recent calendar-reform proposal, I thought this deserved mention. I just want to note that I am not Henry, this is not intended to be promotion or spam, it's just that the article is so stubby that adding a paragraph about a new proposal does sort of put it out of balance. But I don't see how to describe it in less than a paragraph... and I think that citing sources is important. If they look too link-spammy let me document them here for the record in case anyone decides they shouldn't all be in the article. I think the proposal is a bit nutty, by the way, and his page describing it contains some astonishingly flippant and dismissive remarks about possible objections. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my quest for reform of the calendars, I have been attempting to update my arguments/thoughts since 1970-71 after my name got 'first time' in media print Via Tribune, Chandigarh (06 June 1971); and then as Time by Metric (Times of India, New Delhi (04 July 1971). Today, I stand in favour for *shifting a day from July (thereby making this month of 30 days; and adding this day gained into the month of February making this of 29 days in all Years* falling in line for my proposed Vij's Gregorian Rhyme Calendar 2005-2006 under discussion with Calndr-L group. Added advantage of this format is that NOT ONLY the four(4) quarters and two(2) half years can have 91-days or 13 weeks in each quarter ON KEEPING THE 365th day & 366th days of the year outside of the calendar format BUT *durations in each month follow the Kepler's Laws (unlike the C&T calendar or International Fixed Calendar). I evolve the period of 373632-years wherein the THREE cycles: 128-yr,(7*128=896-yr/159 Lwks)and the 834-yr_148 Lwks can be made use of/for the CIVIL calendar. 128-yr cycle gains over others by NOT MAKING any drastic change except that the CENTURIAN RULE gets modified from 100/400-yr "Leap Day Rule" to 128/896-yr for making the adjustment for leap day accounting. Luni-solar alignments are possible using (33,33,33,29)years or [(33,31)& (33,31)] i.e. 2*64-yr aligning using 19-year lunar cycle with 235 lunations - alongwith 'rationalised Tithi/ phases' of duartion 138*7-day/965th. Values for Mean Year and Mean Lunation are possibly the best 'comparable with any calendar'.

Brij Bhushan Vij (metricvij AT hotmail.com) 7 January 2005

This article should probably switch focus more to the idea behind calendar reform and there should be created an articles just for C&T

- Singpolyma 14:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think the calendar reform page should not discuss specific proposals as such. Instead, it should outline the concept of calendar reform and discuss the reasons why people feel its necessary. A history of calendar reform would be especially interesting, because it has a surprisingly rich history:

  • Julius Caesar reformed the ancient Roman calendar into what we now call the Julian calendar. The concept of 365-day years with one leap year every 4 years was imported from the Egyptian calendar.
  • Pope Gregory XIII? reformed the Julian calendar into the Gregorian calendar in 1582.
  • February 29 was only standardised as the official leap day in leap years a few years ago. Prior to that, the official leap day was February 24.
  • Calendar reform was seriously discussed at the League of Nations and the United Nations.

--B.d.mills 11:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have modified the page as described, and moved most of the calendar-specific discussion to a new page. --B.d.mills 10:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reformed Reform article

I felt the need to expand this page. Previously, it was stub-like, with a list attached, and said little about these proposals.

I agree with B.d.mills and others, above, that the original revisions of this article - i.e. the long, drawn out explanation of ONE proposal (C&T) - was not appropriate. However, going into the reform of the JULIAN calendar is also wrong, and I'm glad to see that didn't happen. That's done very well in the Gregorian calendar article.

As it stood, there were blanket statements made in the arrticle that do not apply to all calendar reform proposals. It pointed out the flaws of the calendars with "null" or "off-calendar" days, and pointed people in the direction of the 53-week calendar. That's not very complete, and its inaccurate because not all suggested calendars suffer from those flaws.

My revision hits on:

  • Perpetual calendar proposals and
  • 13-month calendar proposals

Each calendar proposal is BRIEFLY mentioned in the text, WITHOUT much elaboration, since that's done in the other articles. But it's an injustice to these proposals to have left this intro as is, since it said little about the reform movement, which has been - and is - quite active.

Comments welcomed, and bear in mind I am not criticizing previous editors in particular. This was a very well maintained short article. Nhprman 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering Years v. Reforming the Gregorian

Japanese Era calendar is simply an established naming system used in Japan, and is not a "reform" of the Gregorian calendar.

The Holocene calendar is a proposal to re-number the calendar from the Holocene epoch. Mention should be made of that proposal on that page. Nhprman 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I compromised and created a separate subcategory re: numbering the years, while I still say these are NOT specifically Gregorian calendar REFORMS, simply renumbering the current year (and in the case of the Japanese calendar, it is not a proposal, it is a FACT and has already been implemented, so it is unlike any of the other proposals. Even the Holocene is a legitimate proposal. Nhprman 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Earth Calendar - exceptions to leap year rule?

The "With exceptions" in the following sentence has been reverted and restored. Before it becomes a revert war, can someone lay out the exceptions, so it's clear what the answer is? -- Nhprman List 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"...The New Earth Calendar does likewise by adding a leap week once every 5 years with exceptions."

The exceptions are those years whose number is divisible by 40, but not 400. See New_Earth_Calendar#Leap_week_rule_and_New_Year 08:00 Karl Palmen

Thanks. - Nhprman List 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lede is wrong

Calendar reform is not just proposed changes to the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar was itself a reform -- and a reform of the Julian calendar, itself a reform. I'm adding some history. Goldfritha 17:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western reforms?

Most reforms, all over the world, were to better synchronize the calendar with the actual year. Does anyone have any reference to substantiate the claim that only Western reforms were thus intended? Goldfritha 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is mainly about reform of the Gregorian calendar. Initially dealing with the reform of the Julian calendar into the Gregorian calendar to make its year (and Easter lunations) more accurate. Later reforms, which have been never carried out were intended to make the calendar easier to use, by simplifying the months and often by making every year start on the same day of week. One could add a section about reforms of non-Gregorian calendars, but such information may be better kept at the page of the calendar concerned, especially if the reform has been carried out. Karl 12:50 3 October 2006 UT
That this article is suffering from systemic bias is no reason to reinforce it. And most reforms of calendars have been carried out to make the calendar conform more closely to the year, so putting in "Western" is to falsely imply that non-Western reforms weren't carried out for that reason. Goldfritha 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I added "Western" because the reforms of the world's lunar and lunisolar calendars are not discussed here, and probably shouldn't be. There have been 50 to 100 reforms of the traditional Chinese calendar over 2500 years, all of which were intended to better fit the average lunar month and the average solar year, but every year differs from a solar year by many days because each year must have 12 or 13 lunar months. There have been at least four similar reforms of the lunisolar version of the Hindu calendar, all intended to make the average month a better match to the lunar month and to make the average year a better fit to the sidereal year. There have been reforms of the 'solar' version of the Hindu calendar which changed the distribution of the days in each month to better match the length of time that the Sun spends in each sidereal zodiacal sign. The same applies to the Buddhist calendar. The Islamic calendar was a reform of the preceding lunisolar calendar which utterly divorced it from the solar year. Not one of the many modern efforts to reform it is intended to make it conform to any solar year. — Joe Kress 06:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Which doesn't answer the question of whether "Western" is misleading.
It would be simpler for you to take that paragraph you just wrote here and put it into the article. That way we don't need to misled readers and your dislike of having a general reference to calendar reform in an article without a discussion of them will be satisfied.
As for the modern efforts -- that the article is suffering from systematic bias is no excuse for putting in more. More historical perspective would do this article good. Goldfritha 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, we could add most of that paragraph to a new section called Reform of Lunar and Lunisolar Calendars. Karl 10:00, 5 October 2006 UT.
Sounds good to me. Goldfritha 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved the paragraph and removed "Western". Goldfritha 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alienation

The months in this calendar totally lack any correlation with the lunar cycle, encouraging an alienation from Nature which was reinforced by other historical factors, and which has reached an extreme degree in the modern world.

Does anyone see a way to revise this into a neutral POV? Goldfritha 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right. I created this new paragraph about our new Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar.Farazcole
Being bold, I am removing the offending paragraph. I didn't like it even when it was all that remained after removing the erroneous info about a lunisolar calendar before Julius Caesar. — Joe Kress 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 13 Month Calendar

How can the following statement be true?

"The 13-month calendar loses appeal with some when it is realized that it actually destroys quarters. Adding the 13th month is considered by some to be a disadvantage because the disruption it causes results in more problems than the calendar it aspires to replace."

One quarter would be EXACTLY 3 months and 1 week in length! 87.80.240.166 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Three months and one week" is not a standard size, by any measure. Nhprman [User:Nhprman/Userinterestlist|List]] 03:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is. With a fixed 28 days in a month calendar, this would always be EXACTLY 91 days in length!
Well, yes, but that's 3.25 months includes that 1/4 of a month, which is not an equal division. But your point is correct, there is a *way* to figure it so quarters are equal. Nhprman List 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Sol and New Earth Calendar references

This article is going to be made worthless, I can see. Someone went on a jihad seeking the deletion of articles, and now, all reference to calendars that were subject of deleted articles are going to be PURGED? It was suggested in AfD discussions that these calendars at least get a *mention* in this main article, but apparently, elimination was the goal. This proves the point I've been making at the AfD discussions - that deletionism is going to make this encyclopedia sterile and a useless resource. Even a paragraph noting that I hope people derive a lot of enjoyment making articles LESS informative.- Nhprman List 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The core policy of attribution requires that information in Wikipedia be attributable to a reliable published source. No such source has been shown for the Sol or New Earth Calendars, so the removal of such information is entirely within policy, noting particularly that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I would also ask you to be more civil in your comments. --Pak21 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that you not be so aggressive and selective in your application of disputed GUIDELINES as if they were settled POLICIES. Your interpretations are flat out wrong, and are damaging to this encyclopedia. I'm sorry if that's not civil, but your actions are not appropriate. There are enough other locations for these articles online that their elimination of them here does not eliminate them entirely from the public record, so it's enough to know that your efforts at throwing them down a memory hole were unsuccessful. Goodbye. - Nhprman List 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are well aware that both attribution and What Wikipedia is not are fully established policies, not guidelines. Please stop misrepresenting the facts. --Pak21 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm afraid I agree. I don't really believe these AfD nominations were made in good faith. Certainly there was no call for deletion as opposed to a merge and redirect to appropriate articles such as Lunisolar calendar and Leap week calendar. I notice this article is being revamped now, I can assist when I have time. Frankly, I had planned to ask for a temporary undeletion eventually so that the material could be included in appropriate subheadings that already exist. Fortunately, while there isn't grounds to keep these articles independently, even Pak21 (who is quite handy at stating 'rules') would have difficulty finding a reason why these well-written articles could not be included under appropriate sub-headings. Wiki isn't made better by these deletions, and the end result will be to the detriment of other v. good articles on calendars and calendar reform. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there was a call for deletion. It was made by me, and supported by the community and the admin who closed the AfD debates. End of story. --Pak21 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think the calls for deletion should have been combined to get to a consensus about what requirements a proposals shall fulfill to remain on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I have now made most of the text more general and commented out most specific proposals so they can be easily re-included if thought valuable enough. It is not perfect of course, so please everybody improve. Maybe there should be an article on proposed calendars separate from this one, which deals with reforms that actually were enforced. Christoph Päper 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of proposed calendars

The problem I have here is once again with the core, non-negotiable policy of attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". This is not some obscure part of Wikipedia, but one of the five pillars which fundamentally define the encyclopedia. If there are no secondary sources for a piece of information, it really has no place on Wikipedia, and the recently deleted calendars seem to have no sources beyond the creator. If someone could explain to me (preferably without making un-civil accusations of bad faith or the like) why these calendars should be mentioned, despite having no sources that would be appreciated. Cheers --Pak21 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Quoting the advice I received:
... appears to think that information can be removed just because the home article for that material was deleted. This is not correct. If someone created an article on Ann-marie de Costa, and it was subsequently deleted as non-notable, we wouldn't then be required to remove "He is married to Ann-marie de Costa" from the Alan Carpenter article. In the same way, a calendar system may be too non-notable to have its own article, yet merit a brief mention in an overview article.
You have received advice from myself and others that WP:ATT deals with articles, not to mentions of these calendars either as redlinks or external links relating to supporting subject matter. Accordingly, the deletions you made to this article and List of calendars have been reverted and (for the most part) appropriate comments have been made in the edit summaries. Please do not delete this material again. In addition Lunisolar calendar will have some material placed on it within the next few days, since you objected to the inclusion of longer passages, and I would appreciate it if you'd consider carefully before deleting it. Thanks. --Greatwalk 11:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't put this more simply than to say that you are completely wrong if you believe attribution deals only with articles. "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." (my emphasis), not "all articles". The point you are missing is that the calendars have not been deleted for being non-notable as in the example you referred to above, but for being non-verifiable. --Pak21 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Independent articles are being deleted because only one source can be found online (mostly to a respected C-programmer ((or his company)) who is a known and also respected publisher of calendar algorithms) ...this is not sufficient reason to purge all reference to these calendars (including redlinks and passing mention) from parent articles. Pak, you know at least two other editors disagree with you on this point alone, please review your approach to WP:Consensus. Please also stop reverting reinclusions of redlinks and mention of these calendars in other articles. Regards, --Greatwalk 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You are once again ignoring the point: the advice that was given to you related to deletions for non-notability, not for non-verifiability. To quote from your own talk page, "on the other hand, if Pak had provided an edit summary that justified removal of the information based on the absence of an appropriate reference, that would be irrefutably correct" is the advice you were given. I have explained the reasoning for the removal here, and you are persisently ignoring the crucial point here: there is not a single secondary source for any of this information. If some evidence could be provided that Peter Meyer is actually a respected professional in the field of calendar research (eg peer reviewed papers on the subject), I can see that some of his inventions may be valid for passing mentions, but without that evidence, these mentions remain pure original research and should be deleted from Wikipedia. With regard to your final comment, I have not reverted any changes on this subject since you actually began discussing it here, so I fail to see why you have mentioned this again. --Pak21 08:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"... a respected C programmer"? Does "Novelty Theory" deserve scientific respect, or is it considered pseudo-science? Do 9/11 conspiracy theories deserve respect? If ideas such as these don't deserve respect then neither does a major contributor to such ideas. If a specific calendar proposal is mentioned online in exactly two places (Meyer's self promoting web site and wikipedia) then I say it completely fails the test of notability and should be completely erased from wikipedia. Respecting the integrity of wikipedia and providing reputable information to wikipedia users is more important than manufacturing "respect" for someone who once had 55 links from wikipedia articles into his commercial web site. I for one absolutely applaud deletion of the articles in question and I vote for purging all mentions of the corresponding proposals from wikipedia. 4.246.231.235 23:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Missing" days

In the section on the change-over from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, it says: "This was perceived by the public as missing those days, although they were in fact committed as several February 29ths during the preceding centuries."

I thought this was a myth; that is, that the public thought they had had 11 days taken from their lives. Wasn't it the case that the outcry was because they would have to pay their taxes 11 days earlier than usual?

I don't understand "committed as" - what does this mean? Wouldn't "restored" be a better term? — Paul G 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750 -- Churchh (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)