Talk:Gregorian calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Gregorian calendar is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

October edits by Ewawer[edit]

The edits made on or near October 4 by Ewawer introduce errors and ambiguities. Specifically:

  • "The motivation for the Gregorian reform to the Julian calendar was to reverse the calendar drift since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD..." (emphasis added) can be read to understood that the drift between the calendar and some unnamed kind of year or astronomical event is the same magnitude after the Gregorian reform as before, but the direction of the drift is opposite.
  • "...the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD set the relationship between the Julian calendar and the dating of Easter." Not exactly. They council set some goals, but the exact computation was not settled upon until Dionysius Exiguus some 200 years later, and that computation took considerable additional time to spread throughout all Christendom. See Computus.
  • "The length of the Julian calendar, the period between the vernal equinoxes, is 365.25 days, while in fact it is almost 11 minutes shorter." No calendar has a length equal to the period between vernal equinoxes because that period is not an integer number of days. This sentence is just a mess from end to end. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course the primary purpose was to "restore" the calendar to the Nicaean values, otherwise what was the purpose? Point taken re what was actually set down at Nicaea - I will revisit that at another time. However, the period of mean length of the year of 365.25 days is not mine. It was there before. I just tidied the wording up a bit by deleting repetitions of the same point.05:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
With respect to the vernal equinox falling on March 21 as it did near 325, there were two actions. One was to restore the equinox to March 21, by dropping the 10 days by making Thursday, 4 October 1582 Julian be followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 (or other dates in counties that adopted the new calendar later). The second action was, in every period of 400 years, to convert 3 leap years into common years. So the secular drift of the calendar with respect to the vernal equinox was, as far as the reformers could tell, eliminated. If they had reversed it they would have converted 6 leap years in each 400 year period to common years.
As for the sentence "The length of the Julian calendar, the period between the vernal equinoxes, is 365.25 days, while in fact it is almost 11 minutes shorter" the most glaring problem is that it does not say "mean length, it just says "length". Also, it would be better to say "Julian calendar year" because there are a number of lengths associated with a calendar, so it's best to be clear you're talking about the year length. Also, "Julian year" has a special meaning among astronomers, so it's best to specify calendar year. Finally, even Julius Caesar's advisers are thought to have known that the new mean calendar year length they advised was not exactly equal to the mean tropical year, so it would be more accurate to say that the mean length of the Julian calendar year was designed to better approximate the mean tropical year. Finally, the mean length of the tropical year changes over time and whether it is defined at the vernal equinox, autumnal equinox, or the modern definition. For the period 325 to 2012, the various varieties of tropical year are only different by a second or less, but some readers may be aware of the differences but not know the magnitude of the differences. Thus it would be best to cite a reliable source for "almost 11 minutes shorter" and the source should specify vernal equinox tropical year, and should specify that "almost eleven minutes" is equally applicable to 325 or 2012. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Calendar[edit]

There is an alternative calendar to the Gregorian Calendar that is not listed on this wikipage's proposed reforms. It is called the Ehoah Globus Kalendar, with two other associated calendars that make it up - one for each hemisphere. There is no page on wikipedia on it, but it is a legitimate calendar that is out there and is worth noting.

65.92.205.173 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop promoting the calendar you created as hobby. Your IP address can be blocked and the website can be blacklisted. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If I have got it right, it seems that on this particular cited website it is said (I quote) "the Gregorian calendar currently in major use is solar in time span, but does not revolve around the solar changes".
I must be stupid! I have no idea at all what this is supposed to mean given that the Gregorian calendar has in my own opinion always based very carefully upon the solar year action in all respects within our own world (it seems to myself that I do indeed have it right to suppose that this as here quoted from this website as here the title of which is mentioned on 15 March 2013 is not correct and indeed may be considered I am sorry to say as a complete nonsense?).
Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.93.253 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

table edited[edit]

"Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates" table has been edited. If we reach a year which is a Julian leap year but not a Gregorian leap year (as in 1700,1800,1900,2100), the difference will grow by 1 day when the Gregorian calendar reaches March 1. This is because that year's Gregorian calendar omits February 29 (going directly from Feb. 28 to Mar. 1), but the Julian calendar, which is behind the Gregorian to begin with, has to go through February 29 to reach March 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

INTRO very bad[edit]

The intro is terrible, muddled, real BAD. All the mathematical stuff, the detailed explanation regarding leap years, etc. should be transfered to core of the article (but it's there already!). The intro needs to be streamlined and reduced to half its present length. --Lubiesque (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese tradition of numbering the months[edit]

It seems that the article finds it odd that China keeps numbering the months. What's the problem? Isn't this better than giving stupid names? Moreover, weeks are also numbered, so Monday is simply called "weekday 1". It's really easy for learners. Besides, many children are confused and sometimes need to count in order to know which number is the month. This doesn't happen to Chinese people because of the more convenient system.--2.245.101.191 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Data for Map of countries using the Gregorian Calendar[edit]

I was thinking of doing a map (or someone else could beat me to it) showing what countries use the Gregorian calendar officially and what year it is in the countries that do not.

It is currently officially considered 2014 in every country of the world except for these:

  • Israel: 5773
  • Thailand, Sri Lanka: 2555
  • Nepal: 2069
  • Ethiopia: 2005
  • India, Cambodia: 1936
  • Saudi, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrein, Emirates, Qatar, Oman: 1434
  • Bangladesh: 1419
  • Iran, Afghanistan: 1392
  • Myanmar: 1375
  • North Korea, Taiwan/ROC: 102
  • Japan: 25

These are the official calendars, note there are many other non-official and religious calendars in use in these and many other countries throughout the world. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to finesse the word "official". For example, it might be entirely reasonable to think that the United States Constitution assigns authority over calendars to the several states, so one might have to look to the statutes of the 50 states to decide which ones had "officially" adopted the Gregorian calendar.
Dogget wrote "The legal code of the United States does not specify an official national calendar" in the "Calendars" chapter of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (2nd ed.) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The only calendar that has been used in all statutes anywhere in the US is the one that counts this as 2014, ie the Gregorian, no other has ever been used I'm pretty sure, so that's what I count as "official use" even if none of the statutes make this explicit. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Gregorian calendar is in general use for civil purposes in the US. I'm just saying that "official" might not be the right word. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
India does not use the Gregorian calendar officially? I see on the official Indian goverment site that the President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, was very busy yesterday, 1 January 2014, receiving delegations after delegations of Indian federal and states government officials, business groups, etc in celebration of the passage to the new year: 2014.
In their case they do have a statute (actually a Constitutional provision too I think) making Shakta calendar official, even if they are de facto using Gregorian on their website, I would assume they are not being "forced" to do this by any identifiable agency. But since you gave a sounder reason for removing "accepted", I won't edit war on that minor point any more. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't the United States use the concept of (I'm sure there's a technical name for it) incorporating the laws of preceding regime (i.e. Great Britain's laws as of 1776) unless and until they are superseded? After all, the rebelling states and the new federal government could not have instantly passed all the laws needed for governance in their first sessions. So Great Britain's law making the Gregorian Calendar official in 1752 is probably still in effect in the United States. Indefatigable (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all the states except Louisiana have adopted English Common law through Reception statutes. However, they are worded in various ways. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if these reception statutes include only the common law, that is, decisions of courts, or also includes UK statutes. I understand that although 49 states have reception statutes, the federal government does not. Also, it is not clear if the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate calendars; that might be considered a power reserved to the states.
One rationale the federal government might use is that unless there is a law or rule to the contrary, words have their ordinary meaning. Since people in the US ordinarily use the Gregorian calendar, dates with no calendar specified are in the Gregorian calendar because that's the calendar everybody uses. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I guess the category would be "official or de facto use"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)