Talk:Hebrew calendar

Edits to transliteration scheme by user 174.18.85.148 [Feb 2013]

Both in this article and in its included template {{JewishCalendar}} I have reverted the transliteration scheme added recently by 174.18.85.148 (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]

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)

 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]

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]

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)

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewish calendar [July 2013]

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

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.

to

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

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"

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)

 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

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?

23.242.25.68 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Citation needed provided here

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. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163462#.Upe6pJuA2rY 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.

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)

I hope this is where I can ask my question. It seems to me that Passover in 2016 fell on the second full moon after the equinox. The Equinox was Sun. Mar. 20. The following full moon was March 23. The next one was April 22, which was the date of Passover. So here's my question. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to use the Hebrew calendar to determine Nisan 14, so that they can celebrate that. This year (2016) they celebrated on March 23. Did any Jews celebrate on Mar 23? I'm a bit overwhelmed by the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that this past Passover fell around the second full moon after the equinox. No Jew that I am aware of celebrated Passover on March 23. You need to understand the following, all of which is somehow included in the article, but might not be obvious:

• At this point, we do not use the astronomical equinox to calculate anything. Our leap years fall in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 of a given 19-year cycle, regardless of the true equinox date. At this point, Passover falls around the second full moon in years 8, 11 and 19.
• If JW use the Hebrew calendar, they should not be celebrating on March 23. More likely, they are using the principles behind the Jewish calendar, which in theory prefer Passover to be around the first full moon. Even at that, though, when the Sanhedrin actually decided the issue, the Sanhedrin was allowed to defer Passover to the second full moon, in that they could also use crop ripeness or the condition of roads as part of their decision-making paradigm. This wasn't common, but apparently did (rarely) happen.
• Further, we no longer use lunar observation to set months. Accordingly, Hebrew calendar months do not necessarily start on the day of the astronomical new moon, meaning Passover does not necessarily start on the day of the full moon. (This is true absolutely, and even more true where postponement rules (q.v.) apply.) If your almanac says that the full moon falls on Wednesday, Passover might very well start Thursday, and even possibly the following Saturday.

If this article is overwhelming, consider looking at the corresponding article in Simple English Wikipedia (that is, simple:Hebrew calendar). I was the primary writer there, and made an effort to be complete for a lay audience without letting the details of the calculations become overwhelming. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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. --Stultiwikia^{text 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)

Links to redirects are acceptable

Two editors think that a link to Marcheshvan is inappropriate, because the acknowledged common name is Cheshvan. They quote WP:COMMONNAME. That policy/guideline tells us what the name of that article should be. How we link to it in this article is a completely different question. See WP:NOTBROKEN, which says that links to working redirects are completely acceptable, and they should not be "fixed" just because.

If people want to change the redirect here, any change should be based on discussing what the best name should be here in this article. WP:COMMONNAME is completely irrelevant, and requests about what we put on this page should be talked about on some other article are silly beyond belief. Choor monster (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN only tells us that the fact that a link goes to a redirect is not in itself enough reason to change it. In this case the reason to change the link is that the common name is Cheshvan. That also happens to be the reason why Marcheshvan is a redirect to Cheshvan and not the other way around.

Whatever the reason, WP:NOTBROKEN is surely not a reason to use a redirect instead of the article name!

You are edit warring. Let me warn you. Do not revert again without obtaining prior and clear consensus, or you will be reported for edit warring. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You stated in your edit summary here that your justification was to bypass the redirect. NOTBROKEN says that is not a valid reason whatsoever, and I pointed this out. No one said NOTBROKEN justifies a link to a redirect. It simply says we don't really care in this article what the COMMONNAME is over there, period, and your mentioning it in your edit summary was simply clueless. We choose the link to the redirect or not based on what's appropriate for this article. You and the other editors have yet to state a reason relevant to this article why we should link to Cheshvan instead of Marcheshvan.

I am working with the clear and prior consensus. It has been Marcheshvan until this slow motion edit war began 5 days ago. If you or some other editor thinks this page should be changed to link to Cheshvan instead of Marcheshvan, then you need to obtain consensus, not waltz in and claim your changes are the consensus. See WP:BRD for a highly recommended way to proceed. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken in reverting you, because in fact the status quo ante here was for this table to say "Marcheshvan", not "Cheshvan". I apologize.

That having been said, I am going to try to establish a consensus here: I believe that the WP:COMMONNAME is Cheshvan, and this table should use that terminology, not Marcheshvan, which is pretty much never used except in formal synagogue settings. (For the record, in my opinion, linking to a redirect has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I'm staking this out directly on WP:COMMONNAME.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BRD conflict, obviously WP:BRD must make way, since it is only a procedural rule, while WP:COMMONNAME is about the essentials. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the spelling is "Marcheshvan" throughout the article. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• To repeat this nonsense about COMMONNAME yet again is pure incompetence. COMMONNAME is about what title to give an article. Nothing more, nothing less. We are not having, and never will have, a discussion based on COMMONNAME, because COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the contents of any article.
• One may like the philosophy behind COMMONNAME and wish to apply it to other WP issues, however, that has the status of mere opinion, nothing more. And a mere opinion is certainly not grounds for single-handedly ignoring BRD and edit-warring against the established consensus.
• The consensus before July 10 was Marcheshvan. Those editors how did a (-3) change in their edits removed the "Mar", those who did a (+3) put it back. OK? Now you've self-reverted, so I'll wait awhile to see what you're holding by. Choor monster (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's move on here ... Let's discuss consensus.

At this point, @Choor monster, you're lawyering. I will concede for the record:

• The status quo ante was "Marcheshvan". So in my opinion, we need to hold there until/unless a different consensus emerges.
• WP:COMMONNAME strictly speaking applies to article names, not body text. (I looked it up.) So we can potentially use it as a directional concept, not as a hard-and-fast rule that takes priority over anything else.

That having been said:

• "Cheshvan" is the version that is found in practically all printed calendars, and Israeli media sites, etc. The notable and outstanding exception to this rule is in the detailed ritual calendars (Luach dinim u'minhagim) that print details of religious observance, which are more divided. (The Heichal Shlomo printed calendar uses "Marcheshvan". Ezras Torah and Myzmanim.com use "Cheshvan".)
• I realize that the following is OR and is not from a reliable source, but: do you know anyone who regularly calls this month "Marcheshvan" except when they are reciting the blessing for the month or printing wedding/bar-bat mitzvah invitations? I don't.

  Similarly, if you ask people if they know the name for that month, everyone (who knows the name at all) will recognize "Cheshvan". Not everyone will recognize "Marcheshvan".

• The wikidata item (d:Q643051) shows 29 Wikipedia articles on the subject, of which I can make out the alphabet on 27 of them. 25 of the 27 use "Cheshvan". A recent random tour that I made of articles on the Hebrew calendar suggested that Cheshvan was the primary name cited nearly always, with Marcheshvan as an alternative/predecessor.

I just rebuilt a stub article on the Hebrew calendar at la:Calendarium Hebraicum. There I got consensus to choose Cheshvan first, and Marcheshvan as an alternate, even though most classical Latin sources use Marchesuan. But: I included both names there, and I think we should include both names here. I'd put Cheshvan first, but I'm not willing to fight over that. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I am not lawyering whatsoever. I have been objecting to those misquoting/ignoring policy/guidelines. In particular, COMMONNAME is never applied outside of the issue of article titles: some kind of policy/guideline is essential for article titles since article titles are essentially a one-shot, and very rarely changed. Within an article, the appropriate policy/guidelines are more broad-minded.
  • So long as we're all clear that you are applying the spirit of COMMONNAME here, that's fine.
  • I don't have strong feelings if it's with or without Mar-. I honestly don't know which I've seen more often in English. However, I believe the article should have an overall consistency. I also don't find the usage in the other articles too relevant. Because this is the page on the calendar itself, I favor using the correct name of the month, consistently so, and let other pages be more informal for what I presume are typically one-off usages.
  • We can't really draw conclusions from the title name choice at Cheshvan. That was the name given by whoever first created the page way back when, nothing more. There was one attempt at a renaming, with no one contributing evidence or even an opinion either way. The move did not happen because of "no consensus".
  • As we discussed on my talk page, the Latin wiki has its own guidelines, and any consensus there is irrelevant here (and vice versa). Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, agreed that WP:COMMONNAME is only an inspiration for this discussion, not a hard rule we have to comply with.

I also agree there has to be consistency, and I hadn't noticed before that this article uses "Marchashvan" throughout, and that was definitely my mistake.

After these two things have been cleared up, let's indeed go forward:

I just typed "Cheshvan" in my Google and then "Marcheshvan". The results is 340,000:29,200, less than 10:1. I think that is a conclusive argument to use Cheshvan here as well. Debresser (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Note that English spellings vary a bit, as usual. "Kh", "Ch", "H" and "Ḥ" are used, and sometimes it's a "-ban" instead of "-van". In my summary below of what I found in various sources, I am ignoring these variations, and use a single English spelling which may or may not be the same as the original, but the "Mar-" part is accurate. Those that had Hebrew and English were internally consistent.

1. Ezras Torah Luach (English) 5774: Cheshvan.
2. Spier/Mandelbaum, Comprehensive Hebrew Calendar, front-matter and calendars: Cheshvan.
3. Encyclopedia Brittanica (Calendar entry, Macropedia): Cheshvan.
4. Rambam Hilchos Kiddush ha-Chodesh (Moznaim bilingual): Marcheshvan.
5. Bushnick, Understanding the Jewish Calendar: Marcheshvan.
6. Feldman, Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy: Marcheshvan.

I also checked my daily zmanim calendar (those ubiquitous—at least in most Orthodox circles—computer-generated complete lists of a dozen or so daily zmanim for a specific lat/long for a given Hebrew year, one month per page, landscape) and it listed "Cheshvan", except on the front page where it summarizes the overall features of the year, including how many days "Marcheshvan" has.

I also checked several traditional Hebrew sources. Tur, O.C. 428, for example, has Marcheshvan. The one surprise was Sefer ha-Ibbur (R. Avraham bar Chaya), which listed "Cheshvan". This was in a table spelling out the 19-year cycle, so it may have reflected space considerations.

And I checked several siddurim, wondering whether any name the months as part of Birchas ha-Chodesh. Not even Artscroll named them, but the new "Annotated" Chabad siddur did list the months in Hebrew. It was "mar-cheshvan", with a hyphen! That made me laugh. Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I was asking him about an "a" where the segol goes. (I think we're all sticking with -ch- for ח and -v- for ו, at least for now.) And you wouldn't be able (necessarily) to go by a siddur if it named the months at that spot, because everyone agrees you should use the name "Marcheshvan" there. (Topically, you are also supposed to say "Menachem Av" there.)

I suspect that the result we are seeing—and the one I frankly expected to see—goes like this:

• About a 50-50 split in written sources
• Marcheshvan used more in older, academic/halachic and formal settings
• Cheshvan used more in newer, everyday and less formal settings

(It does look like someone went in and find-replaced them all at some point, doesn't it? I say that because just before the month table, you get the very odd wording "... Marcheshvan (חשוון) ..."!) So where do we go from here? Based on the concept (not rule) of COMMONNAME, I think we should generally be using Cheshvan. We unquestionably need to cover the duality of names at first appearance, one way or the other. So I propose as follows:

1. First appearance in section 1.2.2: Change both appearances to "Cheshvan". On the first appearance, either:
   • Append "(or Marcheshvan)", with a link to the table in the next section, or
   • Footnote stating (More formally, Marcheshvan.)
2. Table at 1.3: "Marcheshvan" (or Cheshvan)", with the link on the shorter name that is the actual name of the article.
3. Table at 1.3.2: No change. (This table is actually {{JewishCalendar}}.)
4. Astrology lists at 1.3.3 and 1.3.4: I don't care. Take your pick.
5. All others—all body text, especially in places where there is a lot of technical discussion, like in sections 1.3.2 and 1.4.6-1.4.7—"Cheshvan"

That's my proposal, anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My comment at the beginning was referring to the fact that the English sources I looked up did not all have the spelling "Cheshvan" as such, but all sorts of variant transliterations, and it is of course pointless to try and keep track of those differences in this discussion. I noticed what your reply to Debresser meant.

I very weakly support the status quo, borderline indifferent. In general, on WP we strive for writing that strikes a balance between informal and formal, ease of reading and correctness. I think that this article is about the calendar counts as a nudge towards greater precision regarding calendar-specific material, while COMMONNAME-the-spirit takes precedence in all non-calendar related articles.

Perhaps better would be to have a project-wide RFC on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, with options including project-wide consistency versus recommended rules for deciding. Because of WP:CONLEVEL, we cannot make exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME so far as article titles themselves are concerned, but we can agree on recommended styling rules within articles to our hearts' content. Of course, since pretty much only two articles are affected (this and Cheshvan) it might be supremely silly to bother. Choor monster (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

These two articles are the most greatly affected, that's for sure. As one marker, I searched within this Wikipedia (spaces: Main, Template, Wikipedia, Help, but not their talk spaces) and got 89 hits on Cheshvan, but only 16 on Marcheshvan. So does that represent a measure of consensus? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. Separate articles tend to have their own default consensus, whatever happened to get there first. But I'll note what we have now seems to accord with my favored resolution: "Marcheshvan" when that extra bit of pickiness is actually relevant, otherwise, don't be ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've had enough of this. I don't really care enough, we only have three people here discussing this, and 2-1 is not enough to establish a consensus.

• I really think that the table in 1.3 needs to say "Marcheshvan (or Cheshvan)". Put the hyperlink on whichever (or both) you want to, I don't care. But the article must really give the short name somewhere. And the table at 1.3.2 is not sufficient; it's a technical table, and many people will skip it. The table at 1.3 is the "go-to" list of month names, and it needs to have both. I pretty much insist on that.

Beyond that, I'm going to make one other proposal. If you can live with it, @Choor monster, fine. If not, I'm not going to argue the point further, and you can keep Marcheshvan throughout the article.

• I'd like to change the body text in the technical sections of 1.4.6-1.4.7, where it keeps going "Marcheshvan ... Marcheshvan ... Marcheshvan ..." to "Cheshvan".
• Just before the table at 1.3.2, that one sentence should read, "Hebrew names and romanized transliteration may somewhat differ, as they do for Marcheshvan/Cheshvan (חשוון) or Kislev (כסלו): the Hebrew words shown here are those commonly indicated, for example, in newspapers.

Otherwise, leave it alone, already. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there is a 2:1 consensus, and on such articles as this, which are not much watched, that is all you can expect. In addition, all the good arguments point to the same conclusion. After all, it is the arguments that count, not just the vote. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There are currently 42 watchers of this page who have recently checked out changes to this Talk page. I'd like to here more opinion and/or a new argument. If you want to close right away based on what you've seen so far, I'd rather have an outsider make the call. You are right, it's not a vote, but once we got past the misapplications of WP policy/guidelines, all the arguments have been good. It's good to write with precision and exactitude, it's also good to write with simple, familiar clarity. And it's good to keep in mind context. At the moment I believe Steven has offered a good balance. Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I did some further research. These are all based on discussion about Bereshis 7:11, referring to the downpour beginning in the "second month", and the dispute over which month this is.

1. The Midrash Says, parshah Noach: Cheshvan.
2. The Stone Chumash (ArtScroll), parshah Noach: Marcheshvan.
3. Rashi on parsha Noach (I believe this is from the old bilingual edition, pre-ArtScroll/Metsudah) [3]: Marcheshvan.
4. Mesechta Rosh Hashana 11b-12a (ArtScroll): Mostly Marchesvan. The Hebrew has Mar-, the running English commentary and footnotes keep the Mar-, but there are two tables, one a timetable of the Flood, which uses Mar-, and one a chart of the months and their Zodiacal signs, which has "Cheshvan". A bit odd, my guess is that chart was cut-and-paste into place. Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I too would be happy to implement Steven's suggestion. Let me post on WT:JUDAISM and see if some other editors can be made to give their opinions. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Well, we've sure had a flurry of interest the last two weeks. Not. I imagine we can go ahead along these lines. I'll try to get to this next week. שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No offense to Debresser, re Google counting, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that guideline. But it is allowed to use Googlehits as an indication, especially in cases where the ratio is as decisive as in this case (10:1). Debresser (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, we already have a solution lined up, it doesn't especially rely on Google hits, and I'm going to implement it sometime today (US Eastern). StevenJ81 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

More on Cheshvan vs. Marcheshvan

This discussion was initiated by an IP sockpuppet of a banned user, and as such, his concerns are irrelevant.

I've read through the discussion. I see no reason to change my view expressed at User talk:StevenJ81#Marcheshvan that "Cheshvan" is an abbreviation, not a name. You said that yourself on my talk page. You also said yourself on 16 July that there was no consensus to use abbreviations in an article listing the names of the months. As for Gregorian months, May is never abbreviated. The frequency of abbreviation of the others is roughly proportional to their lengths (in letters, not days). Marcheshvan is abbreviated not because its name has been changed (if that had happened the Chief Rabbi would have notified everyone) but because in some situations (e.g. small tables) it is inconveniently long. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics has "Marcheshvan". The Book of Calendars by Frank Parise, New York 1982 has "Marheshvan". A pocket diary for 1955 issued by the Children's Welfare Committee, London has "Marcheshvan" in Jewish letters. Whitaker's Almanac has "Marcheshvan". Cassell's Popular Biblical Educator, London 1855 alternates between "Marcheshvan" and "Marchesvan". A Dictionary of the Bible, (ed. James Hastings), Edinburgh 1904, vol. 4 p. 765 says "Marcheshvan ... Dillman and Stade see in the Bab. name of this month a relic of the oldest method of counting the months by numbers and not by names." Vol. 3 p. 243 notes "MARCHESHVAN ... Mish. Taanith, i.3,4; ... Jos. Ant. I.iii.3)." The Works of Flavius Josephus tr. William Whiston, London 1849 renders this passage as 3. This calamity happened in the six hundredth year of Noah's government [age], in the second month, called by the Macedonians Dius, but by the Hebrews Marchesuan; for so did they order their year in Egypt; but Moses appointed that Nisan, which is the same with Xanthicus, should be the first month for their festivals, because he brought them out of Egypt in that month: so that this month began the year as to all the solemnities they observed to the honour of God, although he preserved the original order of the months as to selling and buying, and other ordinary affairs. The Bible Hand - Book, Joseph Angus, London 1854 has "Marchesvan" on p. 270. Ancient Israel, Roland de Vaux, London 1980 has "Marheshwan" on p. 186. A Companion to the Bible, T W Manson, Edinburgh 1950 has "Marcheshwan" on p. 490. I would normally wait before reverting, however already people are claiming that the rushed revision is stable. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry you missed the previous discussion. It was accepted by everybody that Marcheshvan is the correct name and that Cheshvan is a much more common informal usage. As such, you are not telling us anything new, just providing more sources. Just as some editors were originally mistaken here in believing that COMMONNAME means we must always use the common term, you are just as mistaken in thinking that there is some guideline CORRECTNAME that we're supposed to apply. There isn't, so you're arguing for no purpose whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC) In addition, I am not sure that Cheshvan is an abbreviation. Do you have any sources for that? The way I understand it, is that "Marcheshvan" is "Mar"+"Cheshvan", where the "Mar" part is optional. I would be personally interested to know if this is true. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @86.134.217.6, why do you care that much? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Debresser: you have it backwards. Marcheshvan has always been the name of the month. I supplied numerous references above, the anon has added more. Cheshvan is a later shortening. The idea that we say "Mar" + "Cheshvan" because (whatever) is a later invention. StevenJ81: let's not go there? I doubt it will be productive. The anon can have his POV for whatever reason he wants, but what's important is that we proceed according to WP's policies and guidelines. Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) You're right of course, but we've told this user in several places how we came to the decision, and this user nevertheless decides to revert. I was curious. But never mind. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC) FYI, this is not the first time that certain London area IP editors have advocated and made these sort of changes at this article. See: By this IP - Special:Contributions/86.134.217.6: 10:00, 2015 August 4' [4] Undid revision 674508528 by 86.134.217.6 (talk) I looked there before I made my edit, and I looked there again now, and I do not see what you are referring to. 12:07, 2015 August 3 [5] didn't know you were planning this. There is no inkling of it in the history. Restoring stable version. There is no consensus for change. Replacing the name of a month by an abbreviation is stupid. It's "September", not "Sep." By London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change: 09:21, 2015 July 14 [6] Article says "Marcheshvan, sometimes shortened to Cheshvan". The Jewish Yearbook has "Marcheshvan". 11:58, 2015 July 10 [7] Rv unexplained change JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Do you want to take this up at SPI? If not, I will. Choor monster (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC) IP user was just blocked for a week. See User talk:86.134.217.6. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @NeilN: How do you feel about semi-protecting this page for a few days? (Alternatively, you can pending-changes protect; I am a reviewer.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @StevenJ81: If Vote X comes back yet again, I'll protect. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

High latitudes

"At higher latitudes in summer, when the sun does not sink below the horizon, a day is counted from midday to midday, and in the winter, when the sun does not rise above the horizon, from midnight to midnight."

Is that correct? Shouldn't it be the other way around? That is, when the sun is up all day, shouldn't the new day start when its at its *lowest* point, i.e., "midnight", and likewise when it's below the horizon all day, at midday? Like, the day before that prolonged daylight would begin at sunset, when the sun briefly drops below the horizon. Noon would only be 12 hours later than that, so if you're defining the day as midday to midday, then you'd have a 12-hour day when it switches from sunset to midday reckoning, whereas 24 hours after that last sunset would be the sun at its lowest point, just skimming the horizon XinaNicole (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It contradicts the last sentence of Jewish law in the polar regions. I suggest it be removed from this article altogether. McKay (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. AJD (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So do I. This seems counterintuitive. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Formal" speech is "correct" speech

Even though the full name is "Marcheshvan", the common name is "Cheshvan", and the latter is the name that will be used in most cases. - close reverted. See discussion for reason.

A message on my talk page led me to Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays in which it is opined that the template is using a colloquial name for the eighth month as opposed to its formal name. The formal name is presumably correct - if you are given the name "Solomon" you wouldn't expect to see "Solly" on your passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate or driving licence. To give another example, this morning I was on Caledonian Road, which is a thoroughfare in north London. This is popularly known as "The Cally" or "Cally Road", but when it's written down, on street signs, in directories, in letterheads, as a postal address, in fact everywhere, it's "Caledonian Road N 1".

It seems to me unarguable that the name of the eighth month is Marcheshvan, but if someone has an argument that it isn't I'm prepared to listen. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I could simply refer you to WP:COMMON NAME. The idea is that a formal name is not always the name an article will be at, if the less formal name is in wide use, especially when that wide use includes official use, like in this case.

Also, this is actually more like a case of two official names, of which one is a little longer than the other, perhaps like "Yeshaya" and "Yeshayahu". Debresser (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, about three thousand years ago the Jews adopted the Babylonian calendar, in which the name of the eighth month was arach - samna. By a process of linguistic change this morphed into "Marcheshvan". You're now suggesting that the month was given a second official name, "Cheshvan". I would like to ask you

• who gave it that name (for example the Sanhedrin/Beth Din keep records of all their decisions)
• when did they do it?
• why did they do it?

I would have thought it highly unlikely that anyone would give a month two official names because it's a recipe for confusion. I'm not aware of any month in any calendar which has had this done. Actual practice seems to be the reverse. For example, during or after the Second World War the Turkish government dropped the Roman names of some of the months and replaced them with Turkish ones. Everyone stopped using the old names. They didn't run them in parallel. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheshvan is in official use on calendars, Israeli government publications and elsewhere. We don't need more than that. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser and NeilN: I'm highly suspicious that this is another sock of the one who has been periodically causing trouble here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So what does that prove? Consider the common calendar. In informal speech it's common to abbreviate, for example "I start work in Jan.", or "She's coming in Feb." Nobody is making any claim that these abbreviations are the actual names of the months. They are seen frequently on calendars, but in ordinary written English the use of such abbreviations would be considered slovenly. Some abbreviations may not be considered bad style - for example the initials "BBC" are generally written in place of the cumbersome "British Broadcasting Corporation", but where the names of the months are being listed on a template it is correct to give the name and not the abbreviation. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are no more comments I'll add the name of the eighth month to the template. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no more comments. Everything has been said that needs to be said. Specifically, and just to make sure you understand what precisely has been said, there are two other editors here, both highly experienced on Wikipedia and knowledgeable in the field of Judaism, who have expressed their disagreement with you. That means that any edit along the lines you propose is against consensus, both as implied on the article as it is de facto and on the talkpage. Since we are fed up with obstinate editors who think they can ignore the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, called Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of which WP:CONSENSUS is be one of the foremost, any edit like that will not only be reverted, but will likely result in a proposal to revoke your editing privileges. Did I make things clear now? Debresser (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Very clear. That's why you are repeatedly taken to ANI for disruptive/intimidating/aggressive editing. I doubt the knowledgeability of the editors you mention who appear to be unaware that the head of the months is Nisan, not Tishri. Issuing threats as a substitute for discussion usually means that there is no case to be made. Specifically, an abbreviation, however frequently used, is not a name. Example:

Hart-Davis, Adam (2011). The Book of Time. London. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-84533-561-8. On 1 Jan 1972, GMT was officially replaced by Coordinated Universal Time, which is maintained by a collection of 260 atomic clocks in 49 places around the world.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

If you can't grasp this simple fact then it appears that an RfC is the only option. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not that I can't grasp that fact. It is that I (and present consensus) disagree with you. I hope you can understand the difference between these two things. Please note that Rfc doesn't exist for lone editors who disagree with a consensus to waist the precious time of their fellow editors, but it is your right to open one.

As far as poisoning the well with a mention of WP:ANI in regards to my person, please notice that in all three recent cases the story was the same: somebody came along and decided present consensus was not to their liking and started editing against the consensus. I stopped them, and no WP:ANI discussion has proven me wrong yet. That's why two of the three discussions were closed within a few hours, and the third too, eventually. All of them without any action against my person. If you get the impression that means that I probably something right, think about what that means for you, should you decide to edit war about this. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a link between people being hostile and being disingenuous? I have just been alerted to a message by StevenJ81 on my talk page. He claims that there was a discussion in which it was decided that the months should be listed from Tishri. There was no link, and this was flatly contradicted by his earlier post on the template talk page in which he said there was no discussion and the list had simply started with Tishri for a long time. I did investigate this before I edited - I found no discussion then and I find no discussion now.

I also get threats from Debresser who is also disingenuous. He now says there is a consensus that Cheshvan is not an abbreviation for Marcheshvan. What was actually said was this:

• Debresser: you have it backwards. Marcheshvan has always been the name of the month. I supplied numerous references above, the anon has added more. Cheshvan is a later shortening. The idea that we say "Mar" + "Cheshvan" because (whatever) is a later invention.

- Choor monster 14:07, 4 August 2015.

StevenJ81 offered no opinion so I make that a 2-1 consensus against your claim, which I note is entirely unsourced. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

StevenJ81 did not offer an opinion because he assumes the anon is a sock of a banned user. If that is the case, the anon's opinion doesn't even count.

However, for the record, Cheshvan passes the test of WP:COMMONNAME. Period. Pretty much nobody calls it Marcheshvan unless they're writing a formal document or blessing the upcoming month. (If you do, you're a very unusual person.) Yes, Marcheshvan is the correct, formal name—even Debresser knows that—but I will not support the use of Marcheshvan in this setting, based on WP:COMMONNAME.

(And yes, I know that WP:COMMONNAME only applies explicitly to article titles. Just don't go there. I do not support the use of Marcheshvan in this setting.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Cheshvan, per WP:COMMONNAME, as exemplified by Google hits about 10 to 1. I tend to agree now that this IP user is a sock, because otherwise why would he raise the Cheshvan issue, which was solved a while ago after a long discussion on this very same talkpage? Debresser (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the first month of the year is Tishrei, while the first of the months is Nisan. This is old news, see archived post 1, archived post 2 and archived post 3. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

To dispose of this point, all the sources say that the year numbering changes on the first day of the seventh month. In the same way the New Year for Trees is (I believe) 15 Shevat, so that's the first month of the agricultural year (presumably). In Britain, until the eighteenth century, New Year's Day was 25 March. The Romans had a multiplicity of new years, but the months were always displayed January to December, (as they have been since). The only sane way to list the months is with the first at the beginning and the twelfth at the end. This is in line with the Bible (Exodus 2 is the reference I believe). A small group of anonymous Wikipedia editors (happy fifteenth birthday, Wikipedia!) can do many things, but I was not aware that changing Divine ordinance was one of them. The links display the disingenuity, because they say nothing of a discussion on where to begin the list of months on the template.

On the other point, what do we have? StevenJ81 correctly points out that WP:COMMONNAME is only relevant to article titles, which is right and proper, because otherwise policy would require us to report that the public service broadcasting organisation is chartered in the name of "The B B C", instead of "The British Broadcasting Corporation". What is fatal to his argument (and that of Debresser, which is identical) is that they provide no reasoning other than citing this irrelevant policy. The consensus is assessed on argument, so the closer will discount these !votes. In contrast, the reason for my !vote is that this is supposed to be an informative encyclopaedia. A member of the public may come across the word "Marcheshvan", may turn to the template to see if it is one of the Jewish months, see it is not listed and conclude (wrongly) that it is not one.

Google hits are misleading. There are 788 million for "B B C" and a mere 20 million for "British Broadcasting Corporation", but to argue from that that the name of the corporation is "The B B C" would be a grave error. Similarly, many calendars refer to JAN, FEB, MAR etc., which will be translated into Google hits, but nobody suggests that we should go about referring to the months by their first syllable.

Choor monster said:

I am working with the clear and prior consensus. It has been Marcheshvan until this slow motion edit war began 5 days ago. If you or some other editor thinks this page should be changed to link to Cheshvan instead of Marcheshvan, then you need to obtain consensus, not waltz in and claim your changes are the consensus. See WP:BRD for a highly recommended way to proceed. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

So it's easy to see what side of the fence he is on. Also there is a local consensus for "Marcheshvan" - see Flourdustedhazzn (14:59, 20 July 2008) and @Jfr26: (14:56, 3 November 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.168.63 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody please back up and tell me what we're arguing about here? Seriously?

We came to a consensus in August and implemented it. Most cases remain Marcheshvan. The principal table says "Marcheshvan (or Cheshvan)", because regardless of what 79.78.168.63 says, a lot of people (most people, probably) call it "Cheshvan", so that principal table needs to say so somewhere. In the technical sections (such as Hebrew calendar#Deficient, regular, and complete years) we changed these to Cheshvan because the constant repetition of Marcheshvan was tedious.

And as far as the template goes, it's designed to help people navigate, not to be a definitive statement in and of itself. Most people think of Tishrei as first, and most people use the name Cheshvan, so the template is designed in that way.

As far as I can see, 79.78.168.63 is wasting all of our time with pedantic drivel. 79, if it will make you feel any better, I will be happy to concede that you are formally correct. OK? Happy? But nevertheless there is absolutely no reason to change either the article or the template now. So get off this and leave us alone already. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we cut out the personal attacks? Leaving out the weasel word "formally" the version which Debresser reverted is admitted to be the correct one. Furthermore, it was stable throughout 2015 (I didn't look any further back) until an IP with no history and no previous discussion changed it. During this discussion Debresser and StevenJ81 have had ample opportunity to advance reasons why the incorrect version should be retained. Obviously they aren't going to do that, and the best they can come up with is there is absolutely no reason to change either the article or the template now. So why the mad scramble to stuff Wikipedia with incorrect information? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this again.

1. You say that Marcheshvan is correct. So it is. You say that Cheshvan is incorrect. There, you're wrong. (Let me repeat: You. Are. Wrong.) They are both correct, and are both used, in various types of settings.
2. Given the above, please answer my question: What, specifically and exactly, do you wish to change? Why? What is bothering you so much about this, really?

Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We have now established that "Cheshvan" is a correct abbreviation for "Marcheshvan". "Sep" is a correct (if ugly) abbreviation for "September". It is used all over the place, and Wikipedia is no exception: Computus#Week table:Julian and Gregorian calendars. If you look at the article, you will see that the names of the months are written out in full. This is especially important in a table listing the names of the months, because there a representation is being made that what is in the table is the name of the month, not an abbreviation. The "frequency of use" argument is a red herring. In Britain since decimalisation the penny is universally referred to as a "p". In the article it is nowhere described as a "p", except where it is described how the denomination is shown on price tickets, e.g. "2 1/2 p". 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Cheshvan is not an abbreviation. It is an alternative name. Maybe it was once perceived as an abbreviation. That is not relevant any more. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "omnibus" was devised by George Shillibeer to describe the passenger - carrying vehicle he introduced about 1829 - it was abbreviated, as so many words are (for example, "postie" for postman). The abbreviation was "'bus" (note the apostrophe). Last century there was the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company (the "Midland Red") but the word has now fallen completely out of use and nobody writes bus with an apostrophe any more.

Another nineteenth - century invention was the telephone, often shortened to "'phone" (note the apostrophe) and again the apostrophe has fallen out of fashion but the two words co - exist and anybody who claimed that "phone" was not an abbreviation of "telephone" would not be taken seriously. It's the same with Marcheshvan and Cheshvan. You're entitled to your view, of course, but you're not entitled to foist it on Wikipedia unless you can cite a reliable source. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Still no source for your claim that "Cheshvan" is not an abbreviation of Marcheshvan. And since you're arguing on my talk page please do not twist my words.

You say that Cheshvan is incorrect
— User:StevenJ81 21:32, 15 January 2016.

No I didn't. I said it was a familiar abbreviation. And since you can't tell the difference between a name and an abbreviation we may need an RfC here. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking up HighInBC's invitation to continue the discussion here, the matter is settled. The consensus arrived at was that the name of this month is Bul (no jokes, please) but as far as Marcheshvan/Cheshvan goes, it's "Marcheshvan". 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

79, may I ask why in the h--- this is so important to you to change? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That question should not be addressed to me. The stable version of the article used "Marcheshvan" throughout, but then last summer Debresser came along and edit warred to change it to Cheshvan. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I nevertheless address you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your premise is mistaken. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, Debresser gained consensus for his change. You then edit-warred without attaining consensus. But since I'm sure we will never agree about that, I want to put that question aside.

Instead, I will point out that you are entirely in error when you continue to describe "Cheshvan" as an abbreviation. I'm sure that it is easier for you to think of it that way, as a parallel to the Sept./September sort of issue or even the p/penny issue. But the truth is that if "Cheshvan" is anything, it is a short name or nickname, not an abbreviation. I am not aware of any language that treats "Cheshvan" the way it treats an abbreviation, while I am aware of many languages that treat "Cheshvan" as a name in its own right, albeit perhaps as a nickname or short name.

Now, while we don't ordinarily see the concept of a nickname in the world of calendars, we certainly do see it in many other places. Elsewhere, I've brought the example of Rhode Island, and with respect to personal names, this is quite common. We do not insist on naming articles after William Jefferson Clinton or Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.—or even just plain William Clinton and Albert Gore—because their short names—Bill Clinton and Al Gore—are the names by which they are known.

So, too, in this case. Hebrew calendars for general use nearly always call the month "Cheshvan". People talking about Hebrew dates nearly always call the month "Cheshvan". Just about the only time "Marcheshvan" is used is in academic or religious-academic literature, or in formal settings like reciting the announcement of a new month in synagogue. (Hey, by the way, at risk of creating more headaches for myself, do I see you looking to replace "Av" with "Menachem Av"? Just wondering.) And since most people looking at things like this on Wikipedia have heard of "Cheshvan", but have not necessarily heard of "Marcheshvan", that makes "Cheshvan" a much more useful name here.

Over the course of time, Debresser and I have worked to create compromises on this issue, and to leave the name "Marcheshvan" far more often than we actually think is appropriate here. And most others who have happened by seem to have found that a satisfactory approach. You are the only one who is not willing to meet anyone else partway. And frankly, in the Wikipedia community, that makes you a troublesome contributor.

So do us a favor. Meet us partway here. We are all spending far too much time on this subject. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be a WP:SPA. You've done nothing else in the past month. Are you majoring in "Dimorphism in Calendar Month Names"? Let's just recap.

In the nineteenth century Alexander Graham Bell invented the "telephone". People found it convenient to shorten that to "phone". Nobody stood up and said 'Hey everyone, I'm going to invent a completely new name for this object. I'm going to call it a "phone"!' Nicknames are totally different, for example Mr Clarke may be nicknamed "Nobby". The words are completely distinct. You claim that "Rhode Island" is a nickname. Do you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about?

You are still attempting to apply WP:COMMONNAME to article content although policy forbids that for good reason. To take an example nearer home, Jimmy Donal Wales has the nickname "Jimbo". Practically everyone calls him that. Now turn to his article, Jimmy Wales. The nickname "Jimbo" is mentioned at the beginning but never again.

On your last point, if you explained the meaning of the word Menachem I might be in a position to comment. Wasn't there a prime minister called Menachem Begin? But please don't bother. You are just becoming tedious. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is you who obviously is a sock and a single-purpose account. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the title of the article is Marcheshvan, and that redirects are free, I think the article should be housed at Marcheshvan with a redirect from Cheshvan. Even if common people would type in cheshvan, they'd get to marcheshvan, from the redirect and learn that it's really marcheshvan, similar to an index in a paper encyclopedia where you look up cheshvan and it says, "see marcheshvan." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we need a RPM or just do it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, right now the title of the article is Cheshvan, and a redirect exists from Marcheshvan. I'd personally rather leave it that way. But if there is really consensus to go the other way, then by all means there should be a redirect from "Cheshvan." StevenJ81 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In any event, such a move needs to be discussed at Talk:Cheshvan, not here. Last time it was brought up there, there was no consensus to move. And regardless of what the body text ought to say, WP:COMMONNAME does apply to article titles, so Cheshvan is probably the correct title there. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I see StevenJ81 wants to go against consensus again. Just to recap, above Sir Joseph says the name of this month is "Marcheshvan". I agree. So does Debresser. Ah, and I see that StevenJ81 is of the same opinion. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Choor monster to that consensus. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How many more times? WP:COMMONNAME applies to article TITLES, not article content. Your message on my talk page has been noted. I will be delighted to meet you at ANI. You are becoming a fixture there. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

when zealots edît wikipedia

this passage appears to me as... NOT NEUTRAL

". However, left-leaning Israelis, who revere Rabin as a martyr for the cause of peace and who are predominantly secular, hold their commemoration on 4 November. In some years the two competing Rabin Memorial Days are separated by as much as two weeks" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)