Talk:Gregorian calendar/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Gregorian calendar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Saint Teresa

I put the trivium back. I find the fact that it is also mentioned at other places not a decisive argument: people reading this lemma are not likely to find it elsewhere. Also I think it is sufficiently interesting to mention it.

With all due respect, don't you think it is more relevant to cite just below the trivia section something like: *see article 1582 for relevant events -- and then expanding the entry on St. Teresa of Avila? I do feel that although the coincidence may be interesting, its relevance to the Gregorian calendar article may be slightly misplaced.

I think it's interesting (in a trivia sense) that a Catholic saint died on the night when the calendar changed in the Catholic world. Seems like a legitimate trivia item. -- Jim Douglas 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

The story about Swedish adoption of the Gregorian calendar currently in the article is not consistent... it says that the extra day in 1712 was required to catch up because the correction had been missed, when in fact the program was to omit days, so any catching up would have been achieved by omitting days not adding them. This external link gives a more complicated but credible story, consistent with this account and this one. I'm not sure how to fix it but will eventually, or if anyone else wants to have a go feel free. Andrewa 09:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My only excuse is that comparing calendars that are changing is an inherently confusing subject. If a whole country managed to stuff it up so magnificently, I'm not doing too bad. I think I have the story right now, and I've revised the text. Cheers JackofOz 03:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency in reversion to 325 notion

Why is it that, though it is often claimed that the intent of Gregory's reform was to restore Easter to the date it occured on at the time of the Nicaean Council of 325, the proleptic Gregorian calendar differs from the Julian calendar by 1 day in 325? Gene Nygaard 15:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is one issue that has concerned me. If the proleptic Gregorian calendar were aligned with the Julian calendar in AD 325, only nine days would be skipped, when the Gregorian was adopted in 1583. Before the Gregorian calendar was adopted it was found that the Vernal equinox was usually on March 10, so suggesting eleven days be skipped on adoption. The decision to skip ten days may have been a compromise.

The root of this problem is that the 21 March equinox date for AD 325 was wrong. It was based on Ptolemy's predictions in which the tropical year was reckoned to be 365.246666..(recurring) days and was by then about a day late.

Karl Palmen 20 Dec 2004.

Raphael's dates

I recently put a query on Talk: Raffaello Santi, asking why his dates of birth and death are quoted using the proleptic Gregorian calendar when he died a long time before the Gregorian was ever introduced. It's had no response so far. I'm posting this message here as well, in the hope that those who know more than I do about this subject can come up with his true dates. Cheers JackofOz 04:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added my comments on Talk: Raffaello Santi. Gene Nygaard 06:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greece not in Eastern Europe

This article says that "The last country of Eastern Europe to adopt the Gregorian calendar was Greece", yet the article on Eastern Europe states that "eastern countries that were never under communist influence, such as Finland in the north and Greece in the south, are never considered part of Eastern Europe".

It seems like Eastern Europe is wrong, then. In this case, the important thing about Greece is that it's an Eastern Orthodox country. In that sense, Greece is Eastern European. Eugene van der Pijll 17:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree--BozMo |talk 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I personally should not use "East"-"West" terminology at all in the article. Because it may have both geographical and cultural meanings. For example, the statement in the first sentence: "used by the Western World", looks like just one half of the Earth, if considered geographically. Considering Europe this also causes misunderstanding (in this case even another, "Cold-War" meaning is introduced): because of geographical meaning (e.g. Greece falls to the East in this POV) and the "Cold-War meaning" (by it Greece rather falls to the "Western Europe" category). Cmapm 18:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Eastern Europe" did not take on the meaning quoted above until the 20th century, and probably not until the 1940's. At the time that most of "Western" Europe adopted the Gregorian calendar, none of Europe yet met the quoted definition.

Clavius year

I am replacing the following paragraph added by Ross UK:

First, it was necessary to accuartely observe and measure the orbital period of the Earth (or, as it was often perceived by many geocentric thinkers of the time, the duration of one complete apparent revolution of the Sun through its ecliptic). Without this information it would not be possible to model accurately the passage of one year between vernal equinoxes. The orbital period was successfully determined by Christopher Clavius. He achieved the task using only the rudimentary techniques and resources available to him; he had no calculator, slide rule or logarithm table, nor were such modern-day axioms as the decimal point in universal use. Yet he obtained a precise result, concluding that the Julian calendar overestimated the year by 664 seconds. The calendar which resulted is accurate to within about 20 minutes per century - or 12 seconds per year - and has accordingly lost less than two hours in the 423 years of its existence; a truly monumental achievement which has earned Clavius fame and a lasting legacy. To date it is unknown precisely how he accomplished his task.

It is not supported by the cited reference Gregorian reform of the calendar, which states that the chosen year was the year used by two major astronomical tables, provided that their more precise years are rounded to two sexagesimal positions, 365;14,33 days. — Joe Kress 04:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification, it is valuable to have access to a source which I have not seen. I would certainly be interested to know more about the role of Clavius if, as you say, he did not perform the calculation. If the tables gave this value, who wrote the tables? See http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/jg/jg2.htm for some of my information. --Ross UK 00:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

When?

When was the gregorian callender developed?

There's no such thing as a "callender". The article is full of detailed info about when the Gregorian calendar was introduced. Have a read and come back if you have a specific question. JackofOz 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the Marie Callender. Don't bite newbies with yer piehole. S B H arris 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the poster being a newbie or an oldie, and there was no biting involved. I was merely correcting an egregious spelling error. -- JackofOz 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage for the British colonial period

George Washington was born on 11 February (OS), his birthday is now celebrated on 22 February (NS).

I am not sure that GW is the best example to give because he lived through the transition. This could just be the anniversary phenomenon see with the Battle of the Boyne. What was usually done in the colonial period for people who died before 1752? And for that matter for those who lived through the transition? Philip Baird Shearer 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

An example of the standard American practice that is often mentioned is: the Mayflower Compact was signed on 11 November 1620 (Julian) but is reqarded as having occurred on 21 November 1620 (Gregorian) [1] [2] [3]. — Joe Kress 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

USSR

The article lists two separate dates for adoption of Gregorian calendar by Russia (1918) and USSR (1922). This got me thinking. USSR was formed in 1922 from four constituents: Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Trans-Caucasian republic. Presumably, the Council of People's Commissars that ordered the adoption of Grigorian calendar in Russia had no power over the other three members. Therefore, either they adopted Gregorian calendar on their own prior to 1922 (in which case any mention of 1922 in this article is meaningless), or they were "switched" to the new calendar on the day Soviet Union was created (December 30, 1922). Which means that there was a whole country out there that "skipped" a New Year - adoption of new calendar must have meant that December 30 was followed by January 13, 1923.

I did some digging, it seems that Ukraine and Belorussia did adopt Gregorian calendar on their own at different times during 1918. I couldn't find any information about Trans-Caucasian republic. --Itinerant1 08:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe, that the date December 30 1922 will be meaningless only if exact or approximate dates will be mentioned for all four republics and all four dates will be before December 30 1922. Cmapm 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to the mistakes above: My friend, Belorussia and Ukraine had been already ONE country - Russia (not A PART of Russia). To make it easy for understanding: You can't divide New York from Washington. It was the NAME (the Soviet Union) that appeared. But the country had been existing for a 1000 years by that time. Please save your time and refer to the source (if you're interested in real facts).

On the contrary, the USSR was formed in 1922 as a federation of the Russian, the Ukrainian, the Belorussian and the Transkaukasian Socialist Soviet Republics. Belarus and Ukraine were part of Russia prior to the October Revolution but not part of the Bolshevik Russia. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

leap year rule

why isn't the rule for determining whats a leap year mentioned in this article

iirc a year is a leap year if its divisible by 4 unless its divisible by 100 in which case its not a leap year unless its divisible by 400 in which case it is a leap year. Plugwash 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned: see section Gregorian calendar#Invention. Eugene van der Pijll 09:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

February

Do we know the reason why February was chosen to have 28 days (usually). Why not 30 days for January and 29 for February?

212.127.15.34 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Norrette

At the time the Roman Calendar was devised, the Romans considered even numbers bad luck. Therefore they tried to make months of 29 or 31 days. But they also wanted the number of days in a year to be odd and close to the length of 12 synodic months, so they made the last month, February, 28 days and the length of the year 355 days. This made February an unlucky month, but fortunately it was the shortest, and even shorter (23 or 24 days) when a leap month was added. By the time the Julian Calendar was invented, even numbers weren't considered that bad, but February still had an unlucky reputation, so its length was kept short, and extra days were added to other months. Indefatigable 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, knowing it used to be the last month has some kind of logic to it. Doesn't help us in programming dates though ;-) 212.127.15.34 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Norrette

What I heard is that February originally was 29 days long (as the traditionally last month), but that as Augustus prolonged the month named in his honour from 30 to 31, February had to relinquish another day. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a historical myth: see Julian calendar#Month lengths for the details. Indefatigable 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Can anyone here help with the discussion at Talk:William Shakespeare#date of birth/death? In particular, see my post today. AndyJones 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. AndyJones 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

ireland

does the statement of britan in this article include ireland? if so it should probablly be changed to british isles. Plugwash 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ireland had its own parliament then, but I assume things were synchronized. Churchh 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian Olympic team

There's a story I've seen several times that the Russian team missed a large part of one of the pre-WW1 Olympics due to Gregorian/Julian disparity, but I'm not sure which. Churchh 22:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it.

-G

Zero year? Cardinal vs ordinal

The article says that the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar (like the Julian calendar) does not have a year 0 and instead uses the counting numbers 1, 2, … Surely it's actually the case that these calendars use ordinal numbers rather than cardinal? Thus 1 A.D. is the first year of Our Lord, not year number 1 as the article implies. Of course the same clearly applies to days of the month, but there is no mention of the lack of a day zero in each month. Dougg 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

George Washington did NOT change the date of his birthday

This was changed for him, as for everyone else, by the Act of Parliament that instituted the new calendar. This also applied to all other legal anniversaries (with a few named exceptions). It therefore makes perfect sense for the US to celebrate his birthday on the 22nd, because that is its legal date. TharkunColl 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Congress can change the date of your birth, but not the date on which you celebrate it. Many people chose to continue to celebrate the old-style calendar day given for their birth in the family bible (one imagines this might have particularly included the group of children whose birthdays fell in the dropped days, who wouldn't have gotten a birthday day that year, if they'd stayed with the government edict-- one wonders if their parents told them they'd missed it, too bad). Washington was one of those who didn't do this, and switched to the new style date. Which was the sensible thing to do, since the new style calender date (not the old) would actually be the date on which people born under the old style calender were chronologically a more or less exact number of tropical years older from their birth. S B H arris 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read that George Washington continued to celebrate his birthday on 11 February, even after it became a date in the Gregorian calendar, but magnanimously accepted Happy Birthday wishes from others who insisted that it should be celebrated on 22 February. — Joe Kress 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Norris and (Sir) Bog Saget???

I'm not sure that the implementation of the Gregorian Calendar had much to do with Chuck Norris and Bob Saget, although it might have involved some "beating the crap out of" certain people. Someone may want to alter this.

That vandalism was removed only 1 hour 22 minutes after it appeared. You had the misfortune of viewing it in the interim. — Joe Kress 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cycles

The article states:

Days of the week in years may also repeat after 6, 11, 12, 28 or 40 years. Intervals of 6 and 11 are only possible with common years, while intervals of 28 and 40 are only possible with leap years. An interval of 12 years can occur with either type, but only when there is a dropped leap year in between. (emphasis added)

The portion in bold is what I have a question about. The examples I can find are intervals beginning with years that end in 90, 91, 97, or 98, none of which are leap years. (For instance, the 12-year interval 2090 to 2102.) --Spiffy sperry 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed the can occur with either type phrase. --Spiffy sperry 16:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Long/short

There have been some changes back and forth. Here are the facts:

Mean Julian Calendar year: 365.25 days
Mean Gregorian Calendar year: 365.2425 days
Mean tropical year: 365.2422 days (not 365.22 as I inadvertently wrote in an edit comment - how does one change and edit comment?)

So the Julian Calendar year was too long. --Oz1cz 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of any way to edit a comment once you have clicked "Save page". That is the reason that the latest Wiki software includes a preview of both your comment as well as the page itself when you click "Show preview". Previewing your comment is especially useful if you include a link or some HTML code in the comment. — Joe Kress 07:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

So, as I understand it, there currently no agreed upon solution for a 1 day discrepancy every 3300 years, nor for the slowing of the earth's rotation, nor for slow changes in the earth's orbit. I realize there is a very generous deadline, but what is being done about it? And, does this mean my descendants could someday wake up at 24:01 on February 30th?--Zerothis 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A calendar is a mathematical construction and as such has indefinite validity. For example, the Julian calendar is still used to schedule feasts in the Orthodox (and other) churches: today (7 January Gregorian) is Christmas day (25 December Julian). If and when some renovation is necessary depends on what criteria people want their calendar to fulfill. Maybe it should track the seasons. But the seasons have different lengths and these slowly vary anyway all the time; the Gregorian calendar was designed to keep the vernal equinox close to 21 March (but does a pretty poor job, with a variation of 53 hours). But in 3 millennia maybe people won't care as much about the seasons as they used to in 1582- it is not up to us to prescribe what they should do. In fact there is no single authority that can decide what calender you should use and what it should look like. In any case, calendars count mean solar days affected by the slowing down of the rotation of the Earth. You cannot have them ruled by more constant atomic or ephemeris time. The accumulated error DeltaT grows quadratically, so this can never be compensated in any existing calendar, because these always have a fixed ratio of so many mean solar days in a year (of whatever type of year). But this can be corrected if desired by dropping an extra leap day occasionally, although preferably more timely than the Gregorian reform which had to drop 10 days at once. Tom Peters 12:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the Leap second. Davebenson 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

4099?

I had cause to look up Easter dates and calculations, and there seems to be an upper limit of 4099 on the year. Is this a Gregorian calendar issue or an Easter issue? I would guess that it's an Easter issue, especially considering the "Approximately every 487 centuries..." phrase that I see in this article. I'm not certain if the article mentions exactly when a day's adjustment will be needed (presumably a dropped leap year), but if not, might want to. --Scott McNay 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no upper limit when calculating the date of the Gregorian Easter (or the Julian Easter for that matter). 4099 is the limit in [4] because its author used a table lookup method. In [5] there is no limit because the internal calculation includes all solar and lunar equations (Easter 4100 is 11 April). The "solar equation" subtracts one from the Gregorian epact whenever a centurial leap day is dropped (3 times every 400 years). The "lunar equation" adds one to the epact 8 times every 2500 years. As long as both are considered, there is no limit. See computus and epact for the details. The Julian Easter uses neither equation — its epacts repeat every 19 years endlessly. — Joe Kress 09:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Slash

I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and am reviewing articles of interest to me for style and format based on what I have read in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In perusing this article, this sentence popped out at me as something to avoid per my study of the Manual of Style:

But because the start of the year did not change until the same year that the Gregorian calendar was introduced, OS/NS is particularly relevant for dates which fall between 1 January and 25 March. (emphasis added)

Rather, the OS/NS might be reworded for less ambiguity:

But because the start of the year did not change until the same year that the Gregorian calendar was introduced, the Old or New Style is particularly relevant for dates which fall between 1 January and 25 March.

Again, I'm new to editing here and don't wish to offend.

Best wishes, Jon Moss 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JonMoss

It is shorthand. If you find it unclear and|or ;-) confusing go ahead and expand. Tom Peters 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

February fever

I am removing the following addition to Gregorian calendar#Months of the year by Ricardo Cancho Niemietz because it is not supported by the references he added. Furthermore, they don't belong here because they apply to the Roman calendar, the Julian calendar, as well as the Gregorian calendar. They belong in February if he can find additional support.

[February is related to fever] due this is the coldest month of the northern hemisphere's winter, and many people died due to influenza on this month during ancient ages. This is also the reason why it is the shortest month: people wanted to reach march, the spring, as sooner as possible. Censorinus (De Die natali, c.20) supports that february was considered an unlucky month.

Except for fever and unlucky, these deductions are his opinion—his references do not make them. Only the article by Neuru in Labyrinth mentions flu: "February was the month for flu as it is now for some. It was also considered the month of atonement. I suppose having the flu punishes one for anything bad done in the past year, but like all bad things it came to an end with the drearier part of the Roman winter. Spring comes at the end of winter. … mid-February was probably the first warmish weather and sunshine after the winter …" Although he mentions winter and drearier, he does not mention coldest or shortest month—indeed, he mentions "warmish weather". Nor does he mention getting to spring as soon as possible.

Censorinus (238) does mention that February was unlucky, but not due to fever, flu, or cold. He stated: "Thus all the months of this epoch [of Numa] became long months and were composed of an uneven number of days, with the exception of February, which alone remained 'short,' and was on that account regarded as more unlucky than the others." [Censorinus, De Die Natali, translated by William Maude (1900), p. 28, ch. 9 (20)] Thus it was unlucky because it was short (explicitly) and had an even number of days (implicitly). Macrobius (430) amplifies this slightly: "February alone kept its twenty-eight days [after Numa], as though the shortness of the month and the even number of its days befitted the denizens of the world below." [Macrobius, the saturnalia translated by Percival Vaughan Davies (1969) p. 92, ch. 13] The "denizens of the world below" refer to the dead to whom offerings were made during Parentalia (February 13-22). Fever was never associated with February by Roman writers—that is a modern relationship. — Joe Kress 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I don't want to start a "war of editions", so I surrender. I feel so unhappy that you think that is more relevant the "twelve months song" than the fever and flu relationship with the origins on february name and shortening. The origins of the months names, as you say, should belong to the Roman and/or Julian calendars, not strictly the gregorian one. Why don't you drop or move that section too? Do is it so relevant into the gregorian calendar article? Or perhaps, as I could suspect, there is an english language-and-modern life-points of view prevalence in the article. Spanish (I'm from Spain) is a descendant of latin language, and Spain in itself was upon a time part of the Roman empire. The relationship between "february" and "fever" is indeed more evident in spanish and all the others romance languages.

I made some efforts to find reliable sources, mainly in english, to support "my" (as you said) statements. The flu season article should be relevant: it is officially estimated that roughly 36,000 die every year due to influenza only in the US. And recall the actual governments' fear to the avian influenza and its possible infection to humans. Influenza, or flu, it is *not* simply common cold; it has been systematicaly dangerous up to the 20th century (recall the so called Spanish flu at 1918). Twenty five centuries ago, the main temperature at mediterreanean sea lands was a couple of degrees (at least) below than the current. Winters were cold (well, not as the canadians ones, I agree :-), flu was recurrent, weak people died (mainly childs, due to by then was too rare to reach elderly), unhealthy conditions were prevalent in the primitive Rome town (see Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, chapter III The sanitary conditions of ancient Rome, by Rodolfo Lanciani published by Houghton, Mifflin and Company Boston and New York, 1898, available in english at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/Lanciani/LANARD/3*.html), there was an absolute lack of knowledge about its origin (viruses) and many religions have highly relevant rules and prohibitions related with purity and health: the kosher of the jews, not to eat pork and to drink liquors among the muslims, not to eat meat at all among the hinduists, etc.; romans were supersticious and flu causes high fever. Even in the original Romulus calendar, the winther months did not exist: simply a blank period of roughly sixty days, almost a taboo season. Numa puts february the last month of his calendar reform, and Augustus increases in one day "his" month by decrementing in one day february. Why not, lets say, october, which was not sacred to any god? Any series of undocumented, very early and strong flu pandemics could, perfectly, impressed so much to that ancient etruscians and romans to fear the winter and to permanently be warned about those bad season months. Very early water floods kept in colective mind as the Universal Deluge in many religions and cultures as a shocking event. Why not a pandemic?

If not proofs, at least this number of clues should be sufficient to keep my note in the article, perhaps with a citation needed or other tag, until I (or some supporter) could found a definitive reference. But you prefer to systematicaly drop it. I think this is not the spirit of the wikipedia. I did not perform vandalism. I did not put mere speculation, only knowledge obtained from, up to date, undetermined sources. What is my sin, then?Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 09:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that even the remaining entry belongs in February. I also suspected that the relationship is more evident in Spanish than in English. Your research into flu in the present and in the past is considered original research (relative to February), so is not allowed on Wikipedia, even with citation needed tags, regardless of how logical it may be. Note especially in Wikipedia:Verifiability (and in the proposed Wikipedia:Attribution) that not even truth is allowed on Wikipedia if no citation is provided (for questionable claims). Any citation you do provide must discuss both flu and February—one without the other is useless (see Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). Your only "sin" was not being aware of these Wikipedia policies. Help:Contents is a good starting point for Wikipedia—Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines is relevant here. They are also mentioned at the top of this talk page. The source for the "twelve months song" and its variations is given in the article. The idea that Augustus increased his month by one day at the expense of February was invented by Sacrobosco in 1235—no Roman source mentions it (see Julian calendar#Month lengths). — Joe Kress 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See the wiki on Februa, better known as Lupercalia the Roman Spring festival of washing, purification, and (basically) Spring cleaning. Helped by associations with rain that time of year. The month is named for the festival, which is older, and probably refers to an Etruscan purification holiday. Fever (L. febris) may indeed be connected with the idea of purging and washing, as fevers produce sweat. So the word similarity is probably not a coincidence. But in that case, the name for the medical condition and the name of the month are both from the same common (older) root even in Latin, and one is not derived directly from the other. S B H arris 06:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To Joe: my very first note was three lines wide. Since then, I wrote *almost a full research* on the matter on talk pages... and I didn't convince you. Can then I cite *myself* as the source? :-DDDDDDD I know, I know, there is a Wiki police that forbiddes that! But seriously. I was aware about the Wiki polices you noted, I always try to follow them and fair play. But simply I never thought that this were original research in english. In Spain (and perhaps in the Latin American countries) is vox populi knowledge: the february name, lenght and fever are intimately related. I agree with the Sacrobosco's invention note about august. But when the Julian calendar reform distributed the days, someone preferred to lasting the summer (one day more in august, then sixtilis) and to short the winter (one day less to february), without no apparent reason. Who and why? The definitive answer only will comes from a really true research! And believe me: I don't want to perform it!

And, dear Joe, you silent about why the Months name section are kept in the gregorian calendar article and it is not moved to the Julian calendar one, leaving there only a link. All we can agree in that the month names are properly part of the Julian calendar, not the gregorian reform (no month names were changed nor stablished with this reform, only mere corrections of astronomical nature) Do you think, perhaps, that non western culture people are more likely to be interested in the "gregorian calendar" than "Julian calendar" and you want they'll read the "month names song" here? Hum...

To Harris: since the first time I said february name is related with "fever", not derived from it.

Harris answers: Yes, but then you continue to post arguments that the name of the month is derived in some way from the symptom of the disease(s) common in it. What's the point of doing that, if you don't believe the month name is derived from the disease symptom name? The best scholarship is that both the disease and the month name are from an older Etruscan word for "purging." The time of year has nothing to do with it, except for February rains. There's no evidence that February flu does, since the festival was already established on other grounds, and the festival is what gives the month the name. Clear?S B H arris 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ricardo replies: as far I can see, I never try to support the idea that february name comes from fever. I only tried to add arguments to support that both words are historicaly related. I don't know from where you are, but february has never been a typical rainy month in mediterranean lands, but, along january, the coldest one. Rainy months are typically (our current) march and april on these lands. I never denied that february name comes from the older Februa festival (we agree with its "purging" root); I always suggest that the name of the festival, its leit motiv and its date were previously related with flu and fever (with very little success, I see), in a supersticious way which origins are lost in the remote past (i.e., my original research). But, as I said, Februa and Lupercalia were not the same festival, so don't get confused. Simply search on internet independently for one and for another to get tons of references. Februa was for to purify, Lupercalia was for fertility. In some way, is like today's confussion about traditional All Souls' Night (a date to give respect to our deceased) and modern Halloween Party (to laugh about death) on the same november 1. This example also denotes how culturally poluted would be any holiday. But, *please*, I don't want to discuss about halloween!Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lupercalia was a festival related with fertility (it includes orgiastic rites) not purify. It is true that, with todays calendars, Februa and Lupercalia overlapped on february. But, believe me: to undress oneself and to keep nude to enjoy casual sex between trees in middle february in mediterranean lands is the *best* way to catch flu! Perhaps, the overlapped dates comes from the "confussion years" preceding the Julian reform, and Lupercalia were most probably realized on our current april. Oh no, I did original research again... :-D (Note: all this last paragraph is purely ironic) Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 09:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to site about the Scottish calendars

Use of calendars in Scotland Warning: This website erroneously claims that Scotland adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1600.

Are you sure it's wise to include this link? After all, it contains at least one known error; who knows what else might be wrong. Shinobu 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the site in its entirety and find two additional errors in addition to an error which is a direct consequence of the cited error (four errors total). The consequence is stating that a ten day error existed until 1700 and eleven days thereafter (there were never any differences in the named days). An additional error is to state that Ethiopia still uses the Julian calendar—it actually uses the Ethiopian calendar, which is similar to the present Coptic and old Alexandrian calendars but with a different way of numbering its years than either. The only similarity to the Julian calendar is that the Ethiopian calendar also has a leap day every four years without exception (a sixth epagomenal day on August 29 Julian). The last error is stating that the present UK financial year retained March 25 Julian so that it now starts on April 6 Gregorian. Because the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is now 13 days, add 13 to March 25 to get March 38. Then subtract the 31 days in March to get April 7 as the equivalent Gregorian date. But the UK financial year starts April 6! The reason is that although the UK shifted the start of its financial year from March 25 Julian to April 5 Gregorian between 1752 and 1800 due to the then eleven day difference, and then to April 6 Gregorian after 1800 due to the then twelve day difference, it forgot to shift it one more day in 1900 to account for the current 13 day difference. See fiscal year in the paragraph starting "In the UK,". Because the rest of the Scotland site offers no unique information that cannot be found on other sites to balance these four errors, I'm removing it. — Joe Kress 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar and the Age of Pisces

I inserted an external link in the main article to http://www.templeofsolomon.org/chrono.htg/chrono.htm . The link discusses the history and evolution of the Gregorian Calendar and most importantly how the calendar alterations all ignored the Precession of the Equinox (how we measure the length of astrological ages. i.e. Age of Pisces). Presently it is a matter of controversy regarding exactly where we are (date) in the present age. John Charles Webb 09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Webb neglected to mention he is the author of the templeofsolomon web site. I have removed the link because the site pushes crank theories. --Gerry Ashton 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: If it is a "crank theory" then could you please tell me where we are (time wise) within the present Age of Pisces? It is not a 'theory', it is a matter of astronomical arithmetic (Orbital Mechanics) combined with a knowledge regarding Precession of the Equinox (1 degree of reverse precessional movement every 72 years). There is no astronomer (calendar keeper) who can tell us, precisely, where we are within the present age and that is because every calendar change (tropical compared with sidereal) virtually ignored calculations of precession. The tropical calendar (Gregorian) was designed to keep the seasons in tune with the calendar (to avoid or reduce 'calendar drift').

The tropical calendar presumes that the Sun enters the first degree of Aries every Vernal (Spring, March 20th or 21st) Equinox but that is not really the case. The actual planetary positions are approximately 25 to 27 degrees 'off' (different, and that is an astronomical 'guess') from what the tropical calendar would have one believe. At the most recent Vernal Equinox (March 21st 2007) the tropical calendar claims that the Sun entered the first degree of Aries but the actual position of the Sun in the zodiac was approximately 5 degrees Pisces (25 degrees difference). The fact is that we do not have a clue where it is that we are presently within the present age, and that is because the Gregorian Calendar did not consider precessional movement when designing all of the adjustments to the calendar. Our 'macro cosmic' time keeping (Ages) is nebulous, at best, and the external link http://www.templeofsolomon.org/chrono.htg/chrono.htm demonstrates, as a function of arithmentic, that there is an unresolved problem with our calendar. To demonstrate the problem simply research (the issue) trying to determine when the present age started. The answer is "we don't know". Every calendar change (some as much as 15 days) shifted the zodiac (1st degree of Aries) so, did the actual planetary positions shift with the calendar change? No, they did not; moving the hands on one's wristwatch does not change the actual time of day. Neither does moving the calendar 15 days shift the beginning of the constellation of Aries.

The main article (Gregorian Calendar), since it is about 'time keeping', should make mention of the Precession of the Equinox and why we wound up not having a genuine clue regarding where it is that we are within the present age. So, as a result, I added the external link because, otherwise, there is a risk of loss of copyright by including the information within Wikipedia and the precessional information is highly relevant to our methods of timekeeping. We presently know the time, day, month and year but have no clear idea about where we are within the age. This slight conundrum is because of an unaddressed flaw in the calendar. To ignore this issue, in Wikipedeia's Gregorian Calendar article, is to duplicate the avoidance issue of astronomers, being... "we don't know so, we don't discuss it". Admittedly, the external link is 'new research', however, the 'research' is self proving because it is a function of simple arithmetic applied to Orbital Mechanics. Changing the calendar 15 days has the result of shifting the precesional timeline by 1080 years which is (approximately) 1/2 of an Age. As a result, we are clueless regarding our MACRO-cosmic timekeeping. The main article does not, as yet, discuss the remaining 'calendar drift' and part of the problem is that virtually no astronomical (astronomy) measurement ever comes out to a whole number without a zillion decimal places. The external link that I provided analyzes the unaddressed problems. John Charles Webb 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The preceeding passage from John Charles Webb does nothing to change my mind that www.templeofsolomon.org is not proven to be a reliable source worthy of inclusion in the external link section. If I don't answer any further posts on this topic, please presume that my opinion remains unchanged. --Gerry Ashton 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: regarding editorial comments (immediately above)

This is a dispute about editorial policy

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Webb included a link ( http://www.templeofsolomon.org/chrono.htg/chrono.htm ) in the 'External Links' Section of the Main Article. User Ashton removed the link without discussion providing the reason for his actions as (Quote) "Webb neglected to mention he is the author of the templeofsolomon web site. I have removed the link because the site pushes crank theories" (End Quote).

Comments

Wikipedia editorial policy prohibits "original research", however, the Wikipedia External Links Policy permits external links to "verifiable research". Regardless, there is no Wikipedia policy that either encourages or permits an editor from trashing another poster's addition by posting libelous comments (at least without first seeing if the linked information is verifiable, See Wikipedia Behavioral Guideline). The disputed external link examines the history of the Gregorian Calendar and the avoidance of any consideration of 'Precession of the Equinox' during any calendar adjustments, and is a part of a body of work that has been nominated for a Templeton Prize annually since 2001.

Why should I need to mention that I wrote the material? The material is easily verified by simple arithmetic combined with a knowledge of precession. Copyright issues compel the use of external links in Wikipedia.

This request is two pronged: 1) regarding libelous comments and 2) whether or not the external link [History of the Gregorian Calendar] contains verifiable information relevant to the Main Article. Ashton cites no Wikipedia Guideline in removing the link, there has been no discussion (other than immediately above) and Ashton commented that he has no desire to reply to any additional comments.

As such, this request has been put into motion.00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your site is not authoritative or scholarly enough to warrant a link in the article. While most of the article (most of the first part) is fairly historically accurate, there are some portions further down the page that are speculative, bordering on nonsense:

The adjustments that have been made to our calendar have NEVER taken precession into consideration. This oversight has produced great confusion and a multitude of inaccurate and diverse opinions regarding where it is that we are (time wise) within the present Age (Pisces). ... We have never, until now, had to deal with the "changing of an age".

The Age of Pisces is irrelevant to the Gregorian calendar.

The 3 day per 10,000 year "difference" has now, in itself, accumulated (since the Gregorian Reform of 1582 AD) to 2.98800 hours of time (notice the association of that number to light speed in meters per second!) ... I am unaware of any subsequent adjustments to our calendar after modern science realized that it takes approximately 8 minutes (2 degrees of Earth's axis rotation) for the Sun's light to reach the Earth and that the Gregorian observers were "seeing the light" but not the actual position of the Sun. The 2 degree difference is significant in the calculation of precession and the determination of where we are within the present age.

What has this got to do with measuring of civil time in general, and to the Gregorian calendar? Some day the civil calendar may be adjusted for that extra day per 3200 years, but it's not likely to be a concern to anyone within the next few centuries. Furthermore, civil time as measured on the Earth is (indirectly) related to the position of the Sun as seen on the Earth. Who cares if the Sun is actually 8 light-minutes away? Relativistically, we can't do anything about it anyway.

The "Pi Factor" states that the precise difference between the solar day/year and the sidereal day/year is a factor of " Pi " (actually Pi + or - a "factor of pi"). In other words no astronomical measurement is a constant, there will ALWAYS be a variation that is related to Pi and any variation within the variation will also be related to PI. It is Pi which provides the perfect ultimate reconciliation between the solar and sidereal systems. ... This difference, if left unaccounted for in our precessional computations, extends the perceived length of the Age of Pisces by 77.696 years every 10 years!!! In other words, we will never enter the Aquarian Age according to the present scheme of The Gregorian Calendar.

Again, what does the Age of Pisces have to do with the Gregorian calendric system? If your web page were strictly limited to a discussion of the historical origins and mathematical limitations of the Gregorian calendar, it might be appropriate to cite as a source. But all that extra stuff about the Age of Pisces and the Pi Factor make it a bad choice for that. — Loadmaster 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it has no place in the article on the Gregorian Calendar. I know enough about astrology to know that there is absolutely no agreement as to how to calculate when one Age ends and another begins. Some say the change from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius happened in the late 19th century, some say it happened somewhere between 1970 and 2000 (see Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In from Hair), some say it won't be happening until 2600, some say it doesn't happen at any one moment of time but over a period of 25 years or longer. Whatever. If the astrologers can ever agree on when such a change occurs, they can then date it according to whatever calendars they choose. It will presumably be one particular date in the Gregorian, a different one in the Julian, a different one in the Jewish, etc etc. This subject (whatever its merits) has as much relevance to the article on the Gregorian Calendar in particular as a discussion of the exact birth date of King Arthur has, ie. none. -- JackofOz 03:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you both for the very civilized and informed responses. I can now effortlessly accept the decision to exclude the link. Initially I was only thinking about the historical information and not the other stuff. I am always appreciative of constructive dialogue. John Charles Webb 06:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw the site in question, I was hoping it would turn out to be interesting. As I read it, some issues arose that lead me to remove it from the external links:

It is a personal website.
The author of the website does not present any convincing evidence to expertise in the field (the award nominations are not convincing, because most awards do not have any threshold for being nominated; only winning the award is significant.)
The site has few references to reliable sources; of course, external sites are not bound by Wikipedia's rules, but Wikipedia isn't required to link to them either.
A favorite technique of crank sites is to use incorrect or obscure definitions of words in order to create confusion. This unfortunate practice casts a shadow on all personal websites; a person who wishes his personal website to be believed would be well advised to carefully define all terms, or refer to a suitable list of definitions (perhaps the glossary of Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac).
Online space is plentiful these days; there is little reason not to present any calculations that may have been done in their entirety (unless the calculations were done in Excel or a similar program; people might be afraid to open a spreadsheet for fear of macro viruses).
The site never makes it clear what goals the Gregorian calendar should have been designed to achive, and exactly how it has failed to achive those goals.

Mr. Webb's interaction here lead me to believe he is sincere, and I wish him luck in making improvements to the site. --Gerry Ashton 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

John Webb's Reply or Galileo's Defense Strategy:

The 'goals', it seems, of the Gregorian Calendar were, in fact, achieved and they were to demolish one of the religions that Christianity was replacing (astrology) and, of course, to design a highly accurate timekeeping system.

The calendar's method of demolishing astrology (an ancient religion) was to continually shift the zodiac with every calendar change rather than changing the date of the Vernal Equinoix to accommodate the zodiac. Choosing March 20th as the Vernal Equinox was seemingly arbitrary but, as a result, we wind up with December (meaning 10) as the 12th month and October (meaning 8) as the 10th month. This was all (it seems) a virtual 'tour de force' against something as 'inconsequential' as astrology.

Another result that the calendar produced is a pervasive blindsiding regarding the start of the present Age (Pisces). JackofOz's insightful comment (above) underscores their success because not even accomplished astronomers know when the present Age started.

This result (no temporal awareness of the Age) may seem inconsequential until one considers that Christianity is considered by many to be the spiritual overseer of the present Age (Pisces, the fish). The current calendar drift (miniscule but significant) and remaining calendar adjustments result in our never leaving the Age of Pisces (Calendar adjustments exceed precessional movement and prolong the present age eternally!).

The motivations and methods (opinion) employed by the Roman Catholic Church's calendar seem (are consistent with) to be designed to erase any detectable possible connection between Christianty and astrology, despite the fact that the New Testament begins with a 'Star of Bethlehem' indicating a divine 'birth'. Why was there an all-out effort to disempower astrology? One reason (my conclusion) for the calendar shuffle is that the New Testament is also a deeply veiled astrological/astronomical allegory of the Sun (The Son and the 12) and the 12 signs of the ancient zodiac, but deeply disguised as metaphor (a 'midrash' or epic tale containing both spiritual truths and additional information that requires specialized knowledge to decode but, nevertheless, taught as literal truth to the masses [non-astronomers]). So the reason (opinion) for demolishing the zodiac was to remove all traces of Christianity's astrological origins, and it appears that the calendar has succeeded in reducing astrology to ridicule and in keeping everyone in the dark regarding where it is that we are within the present astrological Age.

So, why does the Gregorian Calendar ignore precession? Because a 'son born of a virgin' is an astronomical metaphor for 'the Sun' precessing (backwards movement) out of the 30th degree of Virgo (the astrological sign of 'The Virgin') into the 1st degree of the sign of Leo, which is the astrological sign of 'The King'. As such, the phrase a 'son, born as a king and of a virgin' is an astronomical metaphor (a 'flag', if you will, to the learned 'wise men'or astronomer/astrologers of the day) and making a reference to 'the birth' of the Sun when the sun precessed out of 'The Virgin' [Virgo] and into Leo (The astrological sign of Kings), as a 'king'. A literary 'flag' indicating that what was being discussed in the circulating writings (The gospels?) is astronomy and astrology which were the two principal sciences of that time period (100 AD). It is, after all, the sun that 'dies' (at sunset) and resurrects (at sunrise) daily. Fundamentally, it seems that ancient astrology/astronomy (and calendar keeping) eventually morphed into what was to become a major world religion.

Anyhow, in-so-far as timekeeping is concerned the Gregorian Calendar is a highly accurate masterpeice. In addition to timekeeping the present calendar also includes (opinion) a highly successful ruse. A ruse that even blindsides professional astronomers with P.hD degrees and millions of dollars in astronomical equipment, because they are left without a clue regarding the timeframe of the present Age. A ruse which also resulted in the banishment of astrology to the comic's section of the daily newspaper. Mission accomplished!

My association of Pi and 'time' (an earlier reply) may, at first glance, seem ridiculous, however time, as we measure it, is all about the circumference of two cycles (circles). The first circle is the earth's daily axis rotation (a day) and the second is the earth's annual excursion around the Sun (a year). The one item that all 'circles' have in common is Pi. The temporal difference between a tropical (calendar) day and a sidereal day (actual star movement) is 3.14 (Pi) seconds of time. My comment about Pi being the key to the rectification between the tropical zodiac (calendar) and the sidereal zodiac (stars) at first glance indicates insanity, however, it also indicates that the daily 3.14 seconds of time constitute the temporal difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs.

The 3.14 second difference between our tropical calendar and actual (apparent) star movement results in making it appear that the sun is gradually 'backing up' (precessing), however, it is our timekeeping that is running fast by 3.14 seconds a day and making it seem that the sun is 'backing up' (one day/degree every 72 years). An example... If your are to meet someone, daily, at 5 O'clock and your watch (unknown to you) gains 3.14 seconds a day, then after 100 days it will seem to you that the person is showing up 5+ minutes late. Our calendar mirrors a similar situation in that, daily, we are 3.14 seconds ahead of what is actually going on in the heavens (sidereal zodiac). So, as a result, once every 72 years, at the vernal equinox, it seems that the sun has backed up by 1 degree/day. The 1 degree of 'backing up' is called The Precession of the Equinox and precession has been ignored by the timekeepers of Gregorian Calendar. Precession is also how we measure the length of Astrological Ages. (For 'a day' to be exactly 24 hours in length would be the only astronomical measurement that has ever resulted in a whole number without a zillion decimal places).

The calendar is designed to align the earth's movement (tropical) with the stars (sidereal) and the temporal differences between the calendar and the stars has all been justified (sucessfully aligned) by our calendar except for the remaining 'Pi seconds a day'. That is how truly accurate the present calendar is... we are presently left with only an irreconcilable difference of 3.14 (Pi) seconds of time a day (New Research).

So, yes, I should make this information clearer on my calendar page (Stephen Hawking claims that you lose 50% of your remaining readers with every bit of math that you use!). Nevertheless, my calendar page includes a 'no agenda' truly accurate summary of the history of the calendar ( http://www.templeofsolomon.org/chrono.htg/chrono.htm ).

If anything significant was accomplished here, other than rescuing my ego, then I believe it to be that discussing this information may provide a view of some of the underpinnings and mechanics of our calendar. Perhaps I shall do better when I can translate 'obtuse' into plain language. This has certainly help me to refresh my memory regarding celestial mechanics.

Very best regards and my genuine thanks because this all indicates to me that I need to make things a bit clearer on my calendar page. So, I am returning to the drawing board to revise my calendar page! Thank you! John Charles Webb 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You violated Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline by adding a link to your own web page promoting your own opinion. Now I offer some corrections to your web page:

The Gregorian calendar tries to track the vernal equinox, a cardinal point of the tropical year. If it considered precession, it would need to track the sidereal year, which it does not do. The Hindu solar calendar does track the sidereal year, so its 'First Point of Aries' is still where it was in 285 AD, which is about the time that its governing equations were written down in the Surya Siddhanta. The resulting shift in the Gregorian calendar since then is about 24 days, so the Hindu solar New Year's Day occurs at the 'First Point of Aries' near our April 14 instead of March 21. March 21 was intentionally chosen as the date of the vernal equinox in the Gregorian calendar because that is where it was in the Julian calendar about 325 AD when the First Council of Nicaea met. Note that only 40 years separate 285 AD from 325 AD. General precession in longitude per Julian year (365.25 days of 86,400 SI seconds each) is 50.29". When distributed over 365.25 days, the difference is not pi seconds (~3.14 s) but 3.35 seconds.

The hour was not devised or even used by the Chaldeans. That is misinformation that appears on many websites. The Babylonians had several units of time, the closest one to the hour was the double-hour, equal to two of our hours. Another popular Babylonian unit of time was the time-degree, the time it took for a star to move one degree, about four of our minutes. See "A history of ancient mathematical astronomy" by Otto Neugebauer (1975). The Chaldeans (Babylonians) were not pre-Egyptians. The Babylonian and Egyptian cultures were contemporary—both began about the same time, 3000 BC, and ended about the same time. Ancient Egypt ended when it was conquered by Rome in 30 BC and the last Babylonian cuneiform tablet was written in 75 AD. The first evidence of the 12 subdivisions of the zodiac appears about 1000 BC in the MUL.APIN tablets. This is pre-Ptolemaic, not pre-Egyptian.

No 85-day correction was made in 46 BC to shift the position of the vernal equinox in the Julian calendar. There were 445 days in the last year of confusion, 46 BC, consisting of one intercalary month of 23 days in February, plus two months totaling 67 days inserted between November and December. The intercalary month between February and March was scheduled, so it was not a correction. The remaining 67 days were needed to compensate for three intercalary months that should have been added to the Roman calendar during the preceding 17 years but were not (only five were added instead of eight). The 445 days in 46 BC were 90 days (not 85 days) more than the 355 days in a common (non-intercalary) Roman year. See Julian calendar#Motivation.

The position of the vernal equinox in the Julian calendar was not chosen to be March 25—that was only were it was said to be by first century Roman writers. Sosigenes did not select it, so he could not have made a 24 hour error. The vernal equinox in 45 BC occurred about 23 March, not 25 March. The vernal equinox in 325 AD occurred about March 20. So a 3 day 'drift' is all that is needed, not 8 or 13 days. This drift was caused by the excessive length of the average Julian year, 365.25 days, over the vernal equinox year of 365.2424 days (not over the tropical year of 365.2422 days). Precession had nothing whatsoever to do with the shift of the vernal equinox, because the Julian calendar ignored the 'First Point of Aries'.

The positions of solar system bodies, including the Sun, are calculated via Newton's law of universal gravitation. This theory assumes that gravity affects all solar system bodies simultaneously, that is, that the speed of gravity is infinite, because its governing equation, F = GMm/r, does not include time or a speed-of-light correction. Instead, the "true" positions of solar system bodies calculated according to this theory are converted into observed "apparent" positions by applying several corrections, including light-time correction, which accounts for their displacement through space during the time it takes their light to reach Earth. Because astronomy is concerned with what is observed on Earth, it ignores Earth's displacement through space during the time it takes the light from any solar system body, including the Sun, to reach it. Aberration of light, an angular shift of 20.5 arc-seconds along the path of the Sun, accounts for Earth's orbital speed at the instant when sunlight reaches Earth, not the distance traveled by Earth during the preceding 8.3 minutes. Note that "movement through space" does not distinguish between the two concepts of speed and displacement. During the time it takes sunlight to reach Earth, the Sun moves less than 0.03 arc-seconds around the center of mass of the solar system, so this angular shift can be ignored. This long-winded explanation shows that there is no 2-degree error in the position of the Sun due to its 8.3 minute light-time.

No evidence exists that Pope John implemented the system of Dionysius Exiguus so he did not decree that 754 AUC was 1 AD. We do not know when Rome adopted DE's tables due to a lack of evidence. The first evidence of their use by Rome is in the tenth century. But they were adopted in Britain in 664 AD at the Synod of Whitby and in France about 775 AD at the urging of Alcuin, an advocate of Bede's teachings from York, England. Rome was traditionally founded on April 21, not April 22, 753 BC according to Varro. — Joe Kress 10:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well stated. I just want to add that all the historical texts I've read about the Gregorian calendar state quite clearly that it was adopted in order to correct for the leap-day drift that had been incurred over the centuries since Constantine had the Roman calendar adapted to the Catholic calculations for Easter. There was never any mention of the intent to replace any astrological calendars at the time. Whatever other calendars may have been used by some people, it was the Roman calendar that was the one everyone in Europe actually used for hundreds of years. — Loadmaster 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reason that the Roman Catholic Church modified the Julian calendar into the Gregorian calendar was to correct the date of Easter. But the ten-day error in its solar calendar was a minor consideration—a three-day error in its lunar calendar was the major reason. The Julian lunar calendar was created during the first decade of the fourth century by the Church of Alexandria. By 325 at the Council of Nicaea, it had already been in use by the Alexandrian Church, but not by the Roman Church, for about two decades. It did not completely replace the Roman system until the early tenth century. Using the popular medieval definition, Easter was the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. By 1582, the ten-day error in the vernal equinox was only about 3% of the year, hardly noticeable, whereas the three-day error in the phase of the moon was a quite noticeable 10% of the synodic month. As a consequence, the church abandoned its strict Metonic cycle of 19 years always having 235 lunar months in favor of epacts, the number of days that a new moon preceded January 1. These were then used to determine the new moons and hence the full moons throughout the year. To prevent a recurrence of the lunar error, a one day shift in the epact now occurs eight times every 2500 years, seven successive shifts every 300 years followed by one shift after 400 years. See computus. Of course, the solar portion of the Gregorian calendar has now been secularized, unlike the lunar portion, so the 'Gregorian calendar' is discussed as if its only concern is the year, totaling ignoring the Gregorian lunar calendar. — Joe Kress 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

www.genfair.com

I have reverted a series of edits that refer to a subpage of www.genfair.com. For one thing, I don't regard a commercial genealogy site as a reliable source for calendar purposes. Also, if a reader looks at the subpage, the reader can be expected to look at the home page to judge the reliability of the site, but the home page breaks the browser back button; no site that breaks the back button deserves a link. --Gerry Ashton 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might have been a bit hasty. I tested the cited subpage and cannot use its own "Return to GENfair front page" link via either Internet Explorer or Firefox. When I go directly to the GENfair main page by removing "date.htm" from the displayed URL while displaying its own subpage and then try to use the back button (<- at upper left) in Internet Explorer, it does indeed refuse to return to its own subpage. Nevertheless, you can return to that subpage by selecting it from the history menu (down button (v) immediately to the right of the back and forward buttons in IE7). But the back button is not 'broken' in Firefox—when it is clicked while viewing the main page, it returns you to "The GENfair Shopping System is now loading..." message. But pressing the back button a second time does return you to its subpage.

Be that as it may, I defend the use of that subpage because it is one of the few places on the web which mentions that January 1 became New Year's Day before the Gregorian calendar was promulgated. Spathaky's cited source, Whitaker's Almanack, does indeed give the same years for the change. This and his other two cited sources, "Calendar" in Encyclopædia Britannica, and Cheney, C. R. (ed) Handbook of Dates for Students of English History are reliable sources.

Nevertheless, the anonymous editor did misread Spathaky when he wrote:

In "Old Style and New Style Dates" (see also note six below), Mike Spathaky confuses NS and new year change when he writes, "The date 3rd March 1733/4 might also be written '3rd March 1733 OS' or '3rd March 1734 NS'"[6]; ..."

Spathaky wrote that as an example of how not to write dates. Of course, the editor's reference to note six can easily be removed or reworded. — Joe Kress 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the http://www.genfair.com/dates.htm site does have a nice clear discussion of the issue. It seems to come to the conclusion that the way the notation has been used over the years has been ambiguous, and any dates using the stroke or the Old Style and New Style notation have to be approached with caution. I'm reluctant to link to a site that has a home page that breaks the back button no matter how good it is; I find that behavior alarming, because it is often associated with sites with malicious content.

Also, I felt the changes made by the anonymous editor were a bit confusing and didn't really improve the article. If further improvement is needed, I think it would be to specify exactly which days were dropped and exactly when the change in new year convention occured. Also, it would be better to avoid the term Britain altogether, because Scotland changed the new year convention earlier than England. --Gerry Ashton 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with British versus American usage?

In the section Confusion with British versus American usage it says "America prior to 1752 are usually now shown in the New Style form, while In Britain..." But is this true? In the case of Washington a man who life, spanned the change over, it is understandable that such a confusion would exist. But what about dates of events that happened before 1700 and what style of dates are used for the King George's War? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have doubts. The date of the Mayflower Compact is usually given as 11 November 1620 because it appears in the document itself. But this date is in the Julian calendar used by Britain at the time. — Joe Kress 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New Style and Old Sytle

Please see Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Two different interpretations --Philip Baird Shearer 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Charles I

So, Charles I was excecuted on January 30th 1648. But, after 1752, we say he was excecuted on January 30th 1649? And that January 30th 1649 was actually February 11th 1649? So that, in truth, the day after his execution on January 30th 1648 was, in fact, February 12th 1649?! OK, I think I understand that.... Marcus22 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Gregorian Calendar skipped 12 years ahead"

I'm listening to canadian talk show host Spaceman Gary Bell on September 29, 2007. He makes a big deal of the Gregorian Calendar's skipping 12 years ahead. This would mean that we are currently in reality in 1995, and that the millenium would coincide with the end of the Mayan Long Count calendar in 2012. Of course, this could be just plain fantasy, however, I would assume that Gary Bell isn't the only person in the world hodling this view. Does anyone know where this notion originates? The present article doesn't (by a quick glance) appear to address this idea; the dates herein certainly seem to refute it. __meco 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion somewhere I think see Gregorian_calendar#Adoption the paragraph that starts "Britain and the British Empire ...", Financial Year#Operation in various countries the paragraph starting "In the UK, the personal tax year..." and the table in the section Old Style and New Style dates#Differences between Julian and Gregorian dates. I think it is days that was meant not years, and AFAICT it would now be 13 days from the less accurate Julian calendar date. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm quite certain that it was years and not days that was meant. I'm aware of the days issue ("Give us back our eleven days") __meco 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar could not have skipped 12 years ahead because its years were invented by Dionysius Exiguus in 525, long before knowledge of the Maya calendar reached Europe. Even if the Maya calendar was known in Europe in 525, it would have been branded as heresy by Christian theologians and been ignored. Eight of these years are 'removed' by the Incarnation Era used in Ethiopia to number the years of its non-Gregorian calendar, which reached 2000 a few days ago on September 12. This appears to be a New Age idea—associating the Maya Long Count reaching 13.0.0.0.0 in 2012 with the end of the Western second millennium. It does not belong in this article. — Joe Kress 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Clutter?

Is this clutter?

November 2024
Week	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
W44	28	29	30	31	01	02	03
W45	04	05	06	07	08	09	10
W46	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
W47	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
W48	25	26	27	28	29	30	01

Yes. A person reading a general description about weeks probably isn't trying to find out what the current day of week, date, or week of year is. There are a multitude of more convenient ways to find that out than reading the Gregorian calendar article. --Gerry Ashton 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you on that. My intention was to illustrate the connection between the week and the Gregorian Calendar. Nsaa 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over Leap Year Rule

I am confused by the following statement:

Years that are multiples of 100 but not 400 are not leap years.

It uses a double negative and I would like this to be taken out, but I'm not sure how to do it because I don't understand the sentence anyway. Sseballos ^{(Talk to Me)} 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three other definitions of the rule in article an earlier one avoids the double negative by saying years divisible by 100 are leap years only if they were divisible by 400 as well. I think this is the best of the definitions I've seen in the article. It is in the Gregorian Reform subsection of History section. I'd avoid using the term centurial year witout making it clear. Karl (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)