Talk:Hebrew calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Hebrew calendar is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 11, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
June 12, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Table in Seasonal Drift Section [Dec 2012-Jan 2013][edit]

In the section on Seasonal Drift, the table "Comparison of vernal full moon to actual dates of Passover: 2001–2020" has nothing to do with the drift; it just gives the full moon during one 19-year metonic cycle. I will delete it sometime unless there is discussion to the contrary.

To really see the drift, one should give the time and date in Gregorian (or better yet, how long from the equinox) of the Tishrei molad at the same year of the cycle (or, a multiple like every 95 years) over the course of several centuries. Stone-turner (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest going to the Jewish Calendar Studies page of Kalendis (see hyperlink under "Date Converters," then surf around that site). Dr. Irv Bromberg covers this exhaustively. If anyone ever tackles this here, the proper comparator is Nisan 15 and the northward equinox—not the Tishrei molad and the southward equinox—because the halachic calibration requirement is for Passover to be "in the [northern hemisphere] spring." StevenJ81 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA [Feb 2013][edit]

This page was established with the AD/BC labels for the Dionysian era and should retain them. No, Jews themselves do not believe in Jesus's divinity; yes, taking the NT literally would mean he gestated for about 8 years.

Nonetheless, yes, we have to mention it because not doing so would be a disservice to our readers; yes, the era is based upon his birth regardless of how one expresses it; and, more to the point, yes, this is Wiki policy and should stop being reverted from its repeated restoration.

Using AD no more "endorses" Christianity than AM "endorses" a need to revise the age of the Earth article. — LlywelynII 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Noticed the archive above. Seems specious, though, since consensus seemed to have been imposed by fiat. Maybe the current editors are in disagreement with my take, though, and we can settle this by being more clear:
Retain AD/BC
[Page creator]
Avoid AD/BC owing to article focus
Joe Kress
Humus sapiens
— LlywelynII 09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You said, "Using AD no more 'endorses' Christianity than AM 'endorses' a need to revise the "Age of the Earth Article." Is that really so? Jews (and I am one) are very sensitive on this issue. After all, anno domini certainly means "The year of the Lord," and is often rendered as "The year of our Lord" (as if representing the more extended Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi).
Whether people are too quick to change era styling in topics of general interest–and more particularly whether they try to block reversion in topics of general interest–is a topic broader than I care to address at this time. You would have a hard time arguing, however, that even in articles of general interest, use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD makes the article less understandable. I think most people understand both sets of styling.
On Jewish topics–and WP:NPOV not withstanding, this is a Jewish topic–it is customary (even if only as a matter of cultural courtesy) to use BCE/CE styling, not BC/AD styling. And with respect to the WP:ERA, I would argue categorically that this is squarely within the bounds of "unless there are reasons specific to its content". Here, there are.
Finally, even if you want to argue under WP:ERA that the styling should not have been changed, it was–eight years ago. Since then, this article has consistently been styled using BCE/CE. Accordingly, I think the burden of evidence at this point would fall on one who wishes to change the styling away from BCE/CE, not one who wants to leave it as is. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I only noticed you actually made those changes after I read your note on the talk page. I truly wish you had come here first, instead of moving unilaterally. I tried to be careful and only revert actual styling changes, not grammar, and you are certainly correct about things like AM 5773 instead of 5773 AM. However, I would appreciate it if you would not make further attempts to restore "BC/AD" without establishing a consensus here first. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of the documentation above (along with the back-and-forth edit warring documented by the page's history) is that the page was already "moved unilaterally" to CE/BCE from AD/BC without a strong consensus. It's basically "she started it" except we can document who did and it was your side.
Regardless, (a) It's hard to be mad at someone classy enough to acknowledge the article improvements made by the guy they're arguing against & to take the time to change just the bits they disagreed with.
(b) I can understand (though personally disagree with) the idea that the contents of the article are so inherently "Jewishy" that Jewish conventions should supersede general policy in the way that an article on fish and chips should be written in British English regardless of how it started. (My own feeling is that [regardless of nomenclature] the AD/CE calendar is the Christian calendar in precisely the same way that this AM calculation is the Jewish one; that CE/BCE is not an inherent part of the Jewish faith; and that, being calendars, there's no religious animus, disrespect, or wounded feelings in recognizing that.)
(c) There was a previous discussion I hadn't noted and are (barely) more editors at present who support the move to CE/BCE.
So, yeah, while you have the onus backwards here, it's been a year or two since the last edit war over this and I'm fine with letting it sit the current way while other editors chime in and break the deadlock one way or the other. Yashy coach. — LlywelynII 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Resolved to status quo ante (avoid AD/BC owing to article focus) at User talk:LlywelynII#HCEraStevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
[Added strikethrough to above comment to avoid confusion.]
That overstates it, though, buster. [See point (b).] I added yr name to the appropriate column above and we'll just let the other editors chime in over time. — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. (Are you "Lly" above?)
Let me respond briefly to your (b) above. First, a question: What is "Jewishy" enough content, then? I would argue that this topic is at least as Jewish as "Fish and Chips" is British. (Personally, I like fish and chips ... and vinegar.)
Second, if people really translated anno domini according to the Latin in front of us (i.e., "the year of the Lord"), I could almost buy your argument. But in almost any work in English, the equivalent language is written out as "the year of our Lord", as in

Done in the city of Washington, this fifth day of February, in the year of our Lord the Two Thousand Thirteenth, and of American Independence the Two Hundred Thirty-Seventh

In other words, AD is almost always used as shorthand for the longer phrase Anno Domini Nostri [Jesu Christi]. And in my view, once you add in "our", things are different.
That said, in the section that was most about parallel calendars (i.e., the calculations section), I left the AD and BC references in place. As you suggested above, once you are talking about the Julian or Gregorian calendar per se (and leaving out the possibility of using ab urbe condita for Julian), it is reasonable to use the AD/BC styling, even in this article. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar [Feb 2013][edit]

Unrelated issue: with all of the compound modifiers this article uses, kindly remember to hyphenate them. " the 2nd century" is fine, but "the 2nd century computation" ain't. — LlywelynII 10:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here, I agree with you 100%. The whole article needs a fair amount of work. But I can't tackle it right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits to transliteration scheme by user [Feb 2013][edit]

Both in this article and in its included template {{JewishCalendar}} I have reverted the transliteration scheme added recently by (talk · contribs). Frankly, I was not going to fuss with it here. After all, the scheme that user introduced is intended to guide pronunciation to some extent, and that is a reasonable goal per se. However, I noticed the table in the section Names of months was also changed, and not to the better. In that table, which is actually Template:JewishCalendar, many of the names of "Holidays/Notable days" were converted to the same transliteration scheme. But in that position, they are not consistent with WP:HE, among other things. If that user would like to explain and justify here, I'd be more than happy to give an ear. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah Postponement and Other Recent Edits [Feb 2013][edit]

  1. I reverted "avoid" to "prevent" (as in "prevent illegal year lengths"). I think "prevent" is the more appropriate word.
  2. I removed the sentence about "not using [the second two postponement rules] in combination with other postponements" entirely. I don't really think it adds anything, and in fact, it's not quite correct. The third postponement rule (GaTaRaD) is more correctly stated that if the molad occurs on Tuesday after 9 hours and 204 parts, Rosh Hashanah is postponed to WEDNESDAY, but then is further postponed to THURSDAY by "Lo ADU."
  3. Question on your edit about "The calculation would be different in terms of the proleptic Gregorian calendar as the average Gregorian year length is shorter." I don't think the calculation is actually different. Julian year 1 CE and proleptic Gregorian year 1 CE are the same year (other than the few days' difference in their start date), so I think the previous version--adding 3760 [or 3761] to the Julian or proleptic Gregorian CE year yields the AM year--is correct in practice. I didn't change this yet, though, because I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was missing something. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I made a change as per the above, along with cleaning some things up in the general neighborhood. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction Possible Error [Feb 2013][edit]

The third paragraph of the introduction states that the Hebrew calendar is roughly 6 minutes longer than the solar year, but that it falls a day behind the solar calendar every 224 years. I believe the author meant it will be a day ahead. Can someone with knowledge on the subject please clarify. Emvern (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I think is confusing things—and we should talk about how to handle it.
Let me use as an analogy the Gregorian vs. Julian calendar. The mean length of a Gregorian year is 365.2425 years (see Gregorian calendar#Accuracy). The mean length of a Julian year is 365.25 years—or .0075 years too long. (OK, Gregorian has its errors, too, but let's take it as correct for now.)
If we assume the correct solar date for the Spring Equinox is March 23, then in the Julian calendar March 23 gets later and later compared to the equinox, because the Julian year is too long. But look at it a different way: the date of the true equinox gets earlier and earlier on the Julian calendar. This year, Gregorian March 23 is Julian March 10. So the Julian date of the equinox has fallen behind by 13 days, exactly because the Julian year is too long.
In our case, figure that the equinox should fall between Adar 14 and Nisan 15, so that Passover is always within 30 days of the equinox. (Whether that is exactly the rule or not is not entirely clear, but it will serve to illustrate.) Since the Hebrew calendar year is too long, the interval of Adar 14 – Nisan 15 drifts later compared to the equinox—or, alternatively, the equinox date falls behind, so that it is now something like 7-8 days behind the solar calendar. That is, the equinox falls between about Adar 6 and Nisan 7; in years where the equinox occurs before Adar 14, Passover starts more than 30 days after the equinox.
I hope that helps explain. Whether we should edit the introduction is a different question. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple of other issues with the text. Firstly, references are made to "present solar year" and "modern solar year". Presumably this refers to the Gregorian year. If so, that should be clearly indicated. Secondly, the point is so marginal in the Hebrew calendar that I don't think it should even rate a mention in the introduction. In fact, it is not even part of the Hebrew calendar, but comparing to other systems. The point, though marginal, is best understood in the context of comparing various calendars, which appears within the body of the article. Also, what does "Seasonal references in the Hebrew calendar reflect its development in the region east of the Mediterranean and the times and climate of the Northern Hemisphere." mean? I think that should also go, or a home should be found for it within the body of the article with relevant examples.Enthusiast (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure—I didn't write it—but I think that "solar year" phrase is referring to the current length of the northward equinoctial solar year (that is, the length of time from one astronomical March equinox to the next), not the Gregorian calendar. (The sentence in the introduction talks about the Jewish calendar drifting from the solar year by one day in 224 years, and from Gregorian by one day in 231 years.) I think it is reasonable to show the comparison to Gregorian—that is the everyday calendar most people would compare it to. But you're certainly free to disagree!
As far as the other goes, I think someone was trying to be politically correct and not be Northern-Hemisphere-centric. I personally agree with you on this, but just didn't feel it was worth the effort to deal with. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits by user Ounbbl [Mar 2013][edit]

Hi. I am a little troubled by two edits you made yesterday, although I am most appreciative of your care in making them correctly. I am inclined to change/revert them, but want to discuss with you first.

  1. Concerning reckoning the Jewish calendar day starting at sundown: "Based on the unproven interpretation of this text..." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an "unproven interpretation". It seems to say that you might be questioning the classical rabbinical interpretation—either that it is not correct, or that different interpretations have been used in different times or for different purposes. However, that is entirely irrelevant, except perhaps historically. Certainly over the last several centuries, and most emphatically since Maimonides wrote out the calendar rules in Mishneh Torah, the Jewish calendar has used this interpretation. If you want to say "Based on the classical rabbinic interpretation of this text ..." I'm ok with that. But the unprovenness is irrelevant: that's the interpretation that is used. This is not a forum for challenging that fact.
    • As far as it goes, I'm not sure why you felt a need to include the "sunrise" vs. "sunset" calendar bit at all, except to the extent that it might be used for proving certain New Testament chronologies. The truth is that "day" is used colloquially in Biblical, Rabbinic and modern Hebrew in both ways, even though on the Hebrew calendar legally a day is defined as starting with sunset. I would be inclined to delete your edit, or move all of it to an explanatory note looking something like the following. However, I don't feel strongly about this.

    Some experts (such as Doag) believe that a "sunrise" calendar (i.e., days that begin with sunrise rather than sunset), lends itself better to interpretation of certain chronology. See [add reference].

  2. Concerning the rules for intercalation: The problem with your edits here is what follows them: "...that the months be determined by a proper court with the necessary authority to sanctify the months" (citation omitted). So in principle, you are correct: Passover (whether we are talking Pesach on 14 Nisan or Ḥag HaMatzot on 15 Nisan) should not fall before the full moon [on or] following the northward equinox. But look at the next paragraph. The rabbinic court has other criteria to follow besides the date of the equinox. If at the beginning of Nisan, the court feels everything is ripe enough, they can choose not to intercalate, even if Passover falls a day or two before the equinox. I'd be more comfortable with "As Passover is a spring festival, it should fall on a full moon day around, and normally just after, the vernal equinox. If the twelfth full moon after the previous Passover is too early compared to the equinox, a leap month is inserted at the end of the previous year before the new year is set to begin." But, again, I'd welcome any thoughts you might have on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewish calendar [July 2013][edit]

As i'm relatively new to this article, does anyone know if there is a reason that the primary name of this article is "Hebrew calendar" instead of "Jewish calendar?

Most sources use the two terms interchangably - as we do in this article.

Some sources differentiate between the two terms (e.g. [1] and [2]) on the basis that "Hebrew" refers to pre-exile and "Jewish" refers to post-exile. Or to put it another way, "Hebrew" is the calendar as described or implied in the Tanakh and used by the Ancient Israelites, and "Jewish" is the calendar as codified thereafter and used today in the modern world.

The current article is primarily about Jewish codification of the calendar over the last 2000 years, as opposed to the biblical calendar, which would suggest that the primary name of the article should logically be "Jewish calendar". Unless one takes the view that by "Hebrew calendar" we mean "Hebrew-language calendar".

Either way we use both terms in the article as they are both used in common speech - I am just questioning the right primary name.

Grateful for views here - am i missing something?

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has had this name for a long time. If nothing else, that means you probably ought to have "clear and convincing" evidence that "Jewish calendar" is a better name if you really want to change it. And as both terms are used in modern English more-or-less interchangeably, I doubt you could achieve "clear and convincing" evidence.
As for why ... there is a discussion at Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 2#name on the matter. I personally think the reason is because the usual Hebrew name is haluach haIvri; that is, "Hebrew calendar". Why, in turn, that is might go along the lines you will find in the archived discussion. And the normal Yiddish name is "Jewish calendar".
Anyway, that's my two cents.StevenJ81 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good find - I looked in the archives, so not sure how i missed it. A couple of editors made the same points better than me:
  • Joe Kress noted that "In the Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics two articles appear, one entitled "Calendar (Hebrew)" for the ancient calendar and another entitled "Calendar (Jewish)" for the modern form... I prefer Jewish calendar because it is used by the followers of the religion, whether or not they are ethnic Hebrew or even speak Hebrew."
  • Gorovich noted that "The term Hebrew calendar ought to (but doesn't always) refer to the original lunar calendar of the Torah (see the earlier comment here about the Essenes) which was entirely different to the modern lunisolar calendar used today and known as the Jewish calendar."
I take your point that this question could easily fizzle out like last time, unless momentum is created to discuss it widely. And I suspect the biggest barrier to that will be because it doesn't really excite people to fix what is basically a technicality. I don't think that means it's not worth a try though. Although some editors showed ambivalence, noone in the previous discussion stated the opposing view - i.e. the suggestion of "Hebrew calendar" being more appropriate to this article than "Jewish calendar".
One way of solving this would be to follow the "Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics" and have two separate articles.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd ed, 2007), available for free here, calls it "Jewish calendar" consistently throughout. On balance I think that is more correct, though the case is not overwhelming. McKay (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple of points:
  1. I would be opposed to two separate articles. I went and looked at Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics yesterday, and the distinction seemed a bit artificial to me. In any event, it felt to me as if the article names were chosen in order to distinguish one from the other, not because they were so inherently "correct".
  2. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with McKay: "'Jewish calendar' is probably more correct, but the case is not overwhelming." But where that makes me come out is that because the case is not overwhelming, we shouldn't move it. There is a certain amount of administrative overhead necessary to move things, and because this article has been in place, under this name, for a long while, there are probably a fair number of links. Most would be fixed by the redirect, but why bother risking broken links?
Interestingly, names on other Wikis are about evenly divided. Latin and Romance languages tend to go for "Hebrew". German and related languages tend to go for "Jewish" (probably under the influence of Yiddish). Slavic languages are split. Simple English follows here.
So, look, Oncen: If you really, really, really want to do this, you can definitely justify it. And if the situation were reversed, you really couldn't justify it. However, I don't really think it's such a good idea. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Steven, i agree with your thoughts - it's a good summary. I am the type of editor who likes to fix difficult problems, so I am not put off by the effort that would be needed to tidy it up afterwards.
Having said that, there's clearly no rush here. What i might do is focus my attention on the article itself first, which having read it in detail could do with some work on tidying up the structure. Then I can look at this question of title again afterwards.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. The article can definitely use work. If you tackle it, that would be great. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Amusingly, when Google Translate is applied to the Hebrew article, it translates הלוח העברי and its variants as "Hebrew calendar" in some places (like the heading) and as "Jewish calendar" in other places (like the first sentence). McKay (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Now, that's fascinating! StevenJ81 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've spent some time tidying up the structure and making it more logical. In the process it has become obvious that this article contains a large amount of duplication of information that will need to be simplified over time. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely true. I've been watching over this article as much as anyone over the last year or so. But I just haven't had a chance to tackle it in earnest. I've been busy here upgrading the Jewish holidays article, which I think I'm now pretty close to finishing, and having a chance to take to GA, at least. I've also been busy adding some basic Jewish content at Simple English Wikipedia. I probably would have started untangling this on my own some time after the Jewish holidays are over in late September. If you want to tackle, and have me kibitz/correct, I'm more than happy to do it that way. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Metonic Cycle Formula[edit]

IP editor added this note just before "Rosh Hashanah Postponement" section. I assume good faith, but didn't think it belonged in the article in this form. I'm pasting here, and will look at the formula myself next day or two.

READER'S NOTE: There is something wrong with this last formula (involving division by 13). This always yields numbers larger than 0 or 1, unless the Jewish year plugged in is 0, 1 or 2. If actual year #'s (such as 5773) are plugged in (rather than cycle-year #'s such as 1 thru 19), the results are MUCH larger than 0 or 1. If I could tell what the formula was supposed to be, I'd correct it myself. (Alas!) Perhaps the person who posted it could review their notes / calculations and correct it. I'm sure it's interesting! The other formulas certainly are (particularly the musical one).

StevenJ81 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the formula with 13 is strange. Rather than trying to figure it out, though, I propose deleting the final paragraph of the section "Leap Years" altogether and adding the following at the end of the first paragraph. This puts all the math together and doesn't require as much long multiplication and division.

To determine whether year n of the cycle is a leap year, find the remainder of (7 x n)/ 19. If the remainder is 6 or less it is a leap year, if it is 7 or more it is not. The remainder of (7 x 16)/19 is 17, so the Jewish year 5773 is not a leap year.

Thus years 3, 6, 8….

--Stone-turner (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

However, 5773 is a leap year according to the table. I replaced the paragraph by a similar formula that goes directly from the year number to whether it is a leap year. Please check me. McKay (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
But according to the table right above this, 5773 is not a leap year, but 5774 is. This agrees with a convertor I checked. Did you get that from somewhere else?
You are right, I was misreading the table. McKay (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I still think putting my sentence with "remainder of (7 x n)/ 19" at the end of the first paragraph is useful. It tells where the well-known series 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 comes from. So I suggested starting the second paragraph off with "thus."
Also for the year, " the remainder on dividing 7 x n by 19" seems to work. . --Stone-turner (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No it is 7xn+1 divided by 19, as Karl states below. I don't think a formula for making the numbers 3,6,8,11,14,17,19 is much use as remembering and applying the formula is no easier than remembering the numbers. However, being able to go directly from the year to the leapiness saves a step and so is worthwhile. McKay (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I wonder if the musical scale stuff in the previous paragraph is useful. I understand musical scales, but I don't understand that paragraph. McKay (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can follow the scale stuff, if I read very carefully. The pattern of Whole and Half steps in a major scale is WWHWWWH. On the other hand the pattern of 1 or 2 years between leap years is 2212221. But whether that is useful is another matter. I wonder how common that is.--Stone-turner (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A year Y is a Hebrew leap year, if and only if the remainder of (7*Y + 1)/19 is less than 7. The + 1 ensures it works for year 8 and 9. I'm not sure whether this should be mentioned in the article. Karl (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That is correct and earlier I was misreading the table. I changed the article to agree with this. McKay (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I fixed your math there. 5773 is a common year (and its remainder is 18). 5774 is leap (and its remainder is 6). Do you guys have an outside source for this? Add a reference, or this could be tagged as WP:OR. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. I placed a couple of tags, so someone should look at those.
  2. I moved the calculations to a subpage (Template:Hebrew calendar/c) acting as a calculation template. This way, it will be easy to change

The remainder on dividing [(7 × 5773) + 1] by 19 is 18, so the year 5773 is not a leap year. The remainder on dividing [(7 × 5774) + 1] by 19 is 6, so the year 5774 is a leap year.


The remainder on dividing [(7 × 5774) + 1] by 19 is 6, so the year 5774 is a leap year. The remainder on dividing [(7 × 5775) + 1] by 19 is 13, so the year 5775 is not a leap year.

without a whole lot of fuss. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph has been updated with variables now available in the MediaWiki code. It should update itself correctly each Rosh Hashanah, though I can't rule out that the page cache would have to be flushed. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

External links section[edit]

The external links section of this article contains links to a large number of different bits of software. It seems to me that this is inappropriate. WP:EL provides some guidance with respect to advertising and conflicts of interest. For a start, I propose that only entirely free software (not even shareware), and only web converters that work for free without registration, be linked to. What does everyone think? McKay (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent proposal. AstroLynx (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I would generally favor this approach. When I'm back from my Wikibreak, I'll look at what's there and see if there is anything that is so excellent that it deserves an exception. I doubt that will prove true, however. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Target date: 31 December. I've got too much going on now to address it. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Torah calendar"[edit]

An IP editor has recently added (over several edits) a section on something apparently used among some Messianics called the "Torah calendar". I'm frankly inclined to suggest it be removed or spun out into its own article, rather than be left here. But I'd like some consensus on that before I do so. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is some fringe thing that is being promoted. McKay (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done To the involved IP editor: Your discussion of the "Torah calendar" (sic) involved quite a number of Wikipedia policy violations, including inter alia WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOPROMO.
The only way you can include this in Wikipedia is by having your calendar published by a reliable source. Even at that, you'd probably be better off creating a different article, because this article is substantially about the currently-in-use calendar and predecessors. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

hebrew calendar, minor clarification[edit]

The wikipedia article says,"The era used since the middle ages is the Anno Mundi epoch (Latin for "in the year of the world"; Hebrew: לבריאת העולם, "from the creation of the world"). As with Anno Domini, the words or abbreviation (A.M. or AM) ..." sounds like you're saying that Anno Domini is "A.M. or AM".

Maybe try adding (added text in bold), "As with Anno Domini (A.D. or AD), the words or abbreviation for Anno Mundi (A.M. or AM) ..." might be a little clearer in the sentence's intention? (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done And removing duplicate request that follows. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed provided here[edit]

Under "Usage in Contemporary Israel" I have a citation for the section that talks about rabbis denouncing New Year's Eve and secular Jews desire to celebrate it. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Chrimill (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Question of Passover 2019, calendar drift, and so forth.[edit]

Hi, everyone. We seem to be having an edit war here on the subject of Passover 2019. Apparently, the proponents of these edits wish to include it as an example of how calendar drift can push Passover to the second full moon after the equinox rather than the first. So ...

  • Proponents: Do I correctly state the case?
  • Opponents: Leaving aside for the moment the question of where in the article this might go, why is this an inappropriate or confusing example? Alternatively, is the example ok, but the wording poor? Side question: is there a year closer than 2019 when Passover falls on the second full moon after the equinox?
  • Everyone: Again, leaving aside for the moment the question of where in the article this might go, am I missing anything else that is causing this edit war?

I propose we answer these questions here and come to a resolution, and then decide where (if anywhere) this edit should go.
Until we solve this here, I propose to revert any attempt to put the edit back in the article. Note that I am not taking sides—I only want to settle this without further edit warring. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed it once, only because it seemed out of place. I have no specific knowledge regarding the questions asked above. It is a technical detail, a highly technical and rather minor detail, and as such seems unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Similarity to Turkish names of months (and perhaps Arabic).[edit]

Anyone is welcome to insert the information into the article, I just couldn't figure out how to do it best. Turkey uses the same calendar used in the Western world and the names of the months in Turkish (English in paranthesis) are -starting with the first month in the Hebrew calendar: Nisan (April), Mayıs (May), Haziran (June), Temmuz (July), Ağustos (August), Eylül (September), Ekim (October), Kasım (November), Aralık (December), Ocak (January), Şubat (February), Mart (March). Best. --Stultiwikiatext me 12:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So 4 months, February, April, July and September are like the Hebrew names Shvat, Nisan, Tammuz and Elul. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)