Talk:Revised Julian calendar/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

there are other orthodox churches, such as the ASSYRIAN, the SYRIAC,& THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES who are also using the Julian calendars (both original and revised)--69.194.255.150 22:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC). The ASSYRIAN, the SYRIAC,& THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES are not Eastern Orthodox but Non-Chalcedonian (They are considered Heretic Churches by Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian

_ _ ... despite Eastern Orthodox calendar redirecting here. I'm creating a Dab to remedy that, and those who know more will want to fix it.

_ _ I came here pursuing the idea that Christmas

... is ... observed in much of the world on 25 December, or on 7 January in most Eastern Orthodox Churches

suggests that EO would say

I believe Christmas is Jan 7

contrary to my impression that they would say

Christmas is Dec 25, but most of the world uses a bad calendar and therefore celebrates it a couple of weeks early

_ _ Even if this article were on the Julian calendar it would have been indecently inaccessible. The statement

the two calendars will first differ in 2800

is buried inside an incredibly legalism- and math-ridden article, and that is the one that i needed to tell me that this article is totally worthless for what i came here for, which is rewording the Xmas article.
--Jerzy•t 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

76.218.101.27 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't find the year in which 29 Feb was first added!

76.218.101.27 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Moveable feasts and the date of Easter

I'm unclear about this point:

Liturgical objections to the New Calendar stem from the fact that it adjusts only those liturgical celebrations that occur on fixed calendar dates, leaving all of the commemorations on the moveable cycle on the original Julian Calendar.

Computus#Julian_calendar gives more detail:

The method for computing the date of the ecclesiastic Full Moon that was standard for the Latin (Catholic) church before the Gregorian calendar reform, and is still used today by Eastern Christians, made use of an uncorrected repetition of the 19-year Metonic cycle in combination with the Julian calendar. ... In this case, the epact was counted on 22 March, the earliest acceptable date for Easter.

• Putting these two statements together, is the following correct?

• that the epact in both JC and RJC is 22 March JC, i.e. 4 April RJC
• And that the moveable feasts are, on average, 13 days later in the year relative to fixed feasts

• Assuming this is correct, one obvious question is: why was the epact of Easter not moved from 22 March JC to 22 March RJC as part of the change?

• Was it because the proposal to switch Easter to an astronomical calculation was the only one considered, and once that was rejected no backup plan was thought of?
• Or was the idea consciously rejected for some pragmatic or theological reasons?

jnestorius^(talk) 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Revised Julian calendar does not now and never had an epact, even in its rejected astronomical form, to place on 22 March or any other date. An astronomical Easter using instants for the vernal equinox and for the full moon does not need an epact to determine Easter. Only if the vernal equinox and the full moon are whole days is an epact necessary. It is the Julian calendar, which does use whole days for all of these parameters, that has an epact on 22 March, which is never converted into a Revised Julian calendar date or even into a Gregorian calendar date. Eastern Christians use the Julian calendar, not the Revised Julian calendar, to calculate Easter. The Julian Easter was never incorporated into the Revised Julian calendar. Thus some Eastern Orthodox churches use both the Revised Julian calendar (for fixed feasts) and the Julian calendar (for movable feasts). No country uses either calendar—all countries in Eastern Europe use the Gregorian calendar as their official and legal calendar.

Because only a few churches use the Revised Julian calendar whereas almost all Eastern Orthodox churches use the Julian Easter, it is more appropriate to regard the latter as the reference. When both the Revised Julian fixed dates and Julian movable dates are converted into the Gregorian calendar, the fixed dates are a few days earlier than the range of movable dates. Thus the fixed feasts will be 13 days earlier than the movable dates only until 2099. Beginning in 2100 they will be 14 days earlier, in 2200 15 days earlier, etc. — Joe Kress 08:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. I think this is a question of my misunderstanding the terminology rather than the calculations. My previous interpretation was something like:

• "The Roman Catholic Church uses the Gregorian Calendar"
• "The Greek Orthodox Church uses the Revised Julian Calendar"
• "The Russian Orthodox Church uses the Julian Calendar"

So you're saying "Revised Julian Calendar" refers to both parts of the 1923 proposal: the Easter date calculation (never adopted) and the general date calculation (adopted by some churches).

"Calendar" as I was interpeting it above seems to encompass a mixture of liturgical year and calendar. Whatever this may be called, it consists of:

1. a method of calculating the date
2. an assignment of fixed feasts to particular dates
3. a method of calculating the date of Easter
4. an assignment of moveable feasts to particular offsets from Easter

Then we have:

Church	date calc	fixed feasts	Easter epact	Easter formula	moveable feasts
Roman Catholic Church	Gregorian	Roman Catholic calendar of saints	March 22 New Style	Gregorian computus	RC moveable feasts
Finnish Orthodox Church	Gregorian	Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar	March 22 New Style	Gregorian computus	Paschal Cycle
(1923 synod proposal)	Revised Julian	Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar	N/A	Astronomical	Paschal Cycle
Greek Orthodox Church	Revised Julian	Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar	March 22 Old Style	Dionysian computus	Paschal Cycle
Russian Orthodox Church	Julian	Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar	March 22 Old Style	Dionysian computus	Paschal Cycle

If and when this table is accurate, I think it would be a useful addition to this article, or liturgical year, or some other related article; the current text is a bit tricky to get one's head around, at least if my experience is typical. jnestorius^(talk) 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation corresponds with my interpretation. However, the terminology and rhetoric used by the various Orthodox churches is quite ambiguous. Indeed, some Orthodox bishops have complained that the words used by the various Orthodox churches when they adopted the Revised Julian calendar could mean that they actually adopted the Gregorian calendar for their fixed feasts. The problem is that both calendars produce the same dates for fixed feasts until 2800. The use of the term new calendar (added by another editor) is a prime example. Does that mean the Revised Julian calendar created in 1923 or does it mean the Gregorian calendar adopted by Greece in the same year, 1923? Furthermore, various authoritative sources state that the country of Greece adopted the Gregorian calendar anywhere between 1916 and 1924. Without access to a copy of the actual decree, I have ignored early adoption years, and think that 1924 is the year that the Greek Orthodox Church adopted the Revised Julian calendar. I should mention that I generally ignore any discussion of liturgy and how feasts are celebrated—my interest lies in the technical aspects of the various calendars. — Joe Kress 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised Julian error-graph/users

Does anyone know if there is a graph representing the difference between the true seasons and the revised julian calendar like this[1] for the Gregorian calendar? Also any numbers on how many people use this calendar? Crd721 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A graph of the vernal equinox (rather than the winter solstice) relative to the Revised Julian calendar is here (#3 on this page). However, the Revised Julian calendar uses the mean tropical year as its benchmark, not the vernal equinox nor any other solstice or equinox. The mean tropical year is the average of all solsticial and equinoctial years so it is the average of all curves on this page (#6 on this page). The average year of the Revised Julian calendar is in light gray. The mean tropical year in terms of mean solar days appears to be getting shorter because the length of the mean solar day is getting longer due to tidal friction. Thus the number of those days in the relatively constant mean tropical year decreases over time. When Milankovitch devised his rule the mean solar day was thought to be constant.

Although more autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches use the Revised Julian calendar than use the old Julian calendar, their total population is dwarfed by the population of the Russian Orthodox Church alone (255,000,000 worldwide), let alone the few others who still use the old Julian calendar. From the limited population figures I've found, my guess is that about 50,000,000 use the Revised Julian calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vernal equinox year?

However, the vernal equinox year is slightly longer [than the tropical year, by context ], so for a few thousand years the Revised Julian calendar does a slightly worse job the Gregorian calendar at keeping the vernal equinox on or close to March 21.

What is this supposed to mean? The tropical year is measured from vernal equinow to vernal equinox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The word slightly is the keyword. Note:

• Vernal equinox year: 365.242375 days
• RJC average year: 365.242222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 days
• GC average year: 365.2425 days
• Average of 2 averages years: 365.2423611111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 days

So the word "slightly" makes sense. Georgia guy (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is the meaning of vernal equinox year, which can differ from the tropical year of 365.242199 days? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The vernal equinox year (365.242374 days) is the time between vernal equinoxes. In contrast, the mean tropical year (365.242190 days) is the average of all tropical years, including the vernal equinox year (365.242374 days), the summer solstice year (365.241626 days), the autumnal equinox year (365.242018 days), the winter solstice year (365.242740 days), and all those in between these four. The vernal equinox year is a little closer to the mean Gregorian year (365.242500 days) than it is to the mean Revised Julian calendar year (365.242222 days), hence the Gregorian calendar is slightly better than is the Revised Julian calendar at keeping the vernal equinox near March 21. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I see that is only a temporary statement, true for the next few millennia, since the vernal equinox year varies with the perihelion. Since the RJ calendar has a cycle of 6,300 years, this seems less than material. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone and style of article

This article reads like a debate on a discussion board. It needs some serious work. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if the Criticism and Defense sections were deleted. Both are relatively unsourced, amounting to original research. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Zeller's congruence

Is there a variant of Zeller's congruence available for the Revised Julian calendar, and if so how can we source it for putting it in? It would be straightforward to work it out, but that would be original research and banned - even though the actual result would be no different from one found elsewhere. PMLawrence (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tall stories: Meletian calendar v Gregorian

A gentleman named Simon Cassidy has some strange views on calendars. You can read some of them here: [2] and here: [3]. There is some doubt as to his qualifications to write on this topic. He says:

For instance, see [4] which states "............................... As did Pope Gregory, so did the Orthodox Church refine the calendar by reducing the number of leap years, so that the average length of the civil solar year would be nearer to the natural length of the solar year. By reducing the number of leap years in a 900 year cycle, the margin of difference was trimmed to 2.2 seconds a year which is virtually perfect. In this version, the Spring Equinox will arrive on March 21st for over 40,000 years.

This last sentence is false! Milankovich may well be the cause of such misinformation since he derived the Revised leap - year rule by adopting an average calendar year of 365.242222 (.25 less 7 in 900) in imitation of the astronomer's mean tropical year. This is the wrong tropical year to use for comparing to calendar's based on the Vernal equinox!

There is only one tropical year, just as there is only one sidereal year. In "Vernal equinox year?" (above) there is a discussion on the relative merits of calendars tracking the vernal equinox. But why should they track the vernal equinox? Observation - based calendars all have the same disadvantage - it is difficult to convert dates expressed in them to other calendars. It is not as if the vernal equinox is a particularly noteworthy phenomenon. The new calendar is an excellent civil calendar in which the vernal equinox has no significance whatsoever. There is no need to keep a close eye on it as it tends to regress in whichever calendar is being used.

As far as calculating the date of Easter is concerned, there are only two requirements - it must be celebrated neither before nor together with the celebrations of the Jews. The Gregorian calendar is quite good with meeting the second requirement but fails totally with the first. The date of the actual vernal equinox has no relevance to Orthodox Easter. I therefore fail to see why the Estonian and Finnish Orthodox have thrown in their lot with the Catholics. In contrast, many Catholics (in Uniate churches) observe Orthodox Easter. And when Britain was still on the Julian calendar, Irish Catholics begged the Pope to let them observe Orthodox Easter so they wouldn't be conspicuous. The Catholics and Protestants invite Orthodox to observe the Catholic Easter in the name of "ecumenism". It would make more sense if they observed Orthodox Easter.

Much fuss is made about the migration of the festival towards the summer. In the southern hemisphere it is already being observed in autumn. Muslim festivals revolve through all four seasons every 33 years. Easter has moved just thirteen days.

Again, I fail to see why some Orthodox churches moved the dates of fixed festivals onto the new calendar when they adopted it. This has messed up the whole liturgical structure. All that was necessary was to translate the dates - thus Christmas becomes January 7, for example. Jewish schoolchildren are envied by others because they get Jewish holidays in addition to all the others. Had Orthodox in non - Orthodox countries stayed on the Old Calendar they could have got extra holidays as well. Russia has taken this a stage further with an extended Christmas break from December 25 to January 7.

Unfortunately, it's not just a question of taking more time off. It is always better not to innovate. The Anglican church has been torn apart by gay and women clergy and bishops, with mass defections to Rome. In a world where Orthodox are persecuted by their Muslim rulers there are more important things to do than arguing over thirteen days. This is a civil war which takes lives - believers add thirteen days to the calendar whereupon representatives of the hierarchy descend and, by force of arms, make them take them back out again.

WP is the reference source for the modern age. The proposal in the above section is a modest attempt to start removing the fog of misunderstanding which surrounds the issue. Let us bring peace to a troubled world. A people disunited is a people weakened. Use your vote. Support the proposition. Vote yes. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I feel that Orthodox were in the same position as the Irish Catholics. For "British" read "the atheist dictator Stalin, determined to liquidate the Orthodox church". The Russian Orthodox Church was in a different position. It is Russian and deeply conservative, so they would have been under the cosh whatever they did.

I was listening to the BBC World Service in 1963 when they announced that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was changing to the new calendar. The leader of the Church then came on and said that it was felt that the time had come to make the change. Since then communism has become a shadow of its former self.

In 2010 and 2011 Christians around the world will join together in common Easter celebrations (this won't happen again, unless something is done, until 2037 and 2038). This might be an auspicious time, therefore, for the Estonians and Finns to announce that they are returning to the fold and never again will they celebrate Easter on a date different to their Orthodox brethren. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change article name

It is proposed to change the name of this article to "New calendar (Eastern churches)".

Reasons:

1. Eastern churches do not use the name "Revised Julian calendar". Like Protestants they use the Gregorian calendar but call it the New calendar. This is how the calendar is described in the 1751 legislation introducing it in Great Britain and her then colonies.

2. Nobody, asked if they were using the "Revised Julian Calendar" (i.e. the Gregorian calendar) would have the faintest idea what the questioner was talking about.

3. It is better that calendar articles use the same terminology as people in the countries which use the calendars. That way they will have a better chance of locating the article when they search the database.

PLEASE VOTE HERE BY 31 MARCH 2010. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No. There is already a redirect from "New Calendar" to this page. No changes in the name of the page should be made until reliable English-language sources are provided to show what English-speaking members of the Orthodox churches call the two calendars of interest. The first calendar of interest is the one proposed in 1923, which has the same calendar dates and same leap years as the Gregorian until 2800, but uses the astronomical position of the equinox and moon to calculate Easter. The second calendar of interest is just like the first one as far as leap years go, but uses the traditional Julian-calendar based method to compute the date of Easter. The second calendar of interest is the one actually used by some Orthodox churches. This article should be revised to clarify and provide sources for the actual Easter dating practices of the Orthodox churches, but we don't have enough information to decide if the name of the article should change. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote no. A re-direct exists from New Calendar already.Michael of Houston 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you go to the website [5] you will find a list of articles to download, all of which make frequent reference to the New calendar but none whatsoever to the "Revised Julian calendar". 62.31.226.77 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That site describes says

The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called "New" (Gregorian) Calendar. This is the same calendar used by the Roman Catholics and Protestants, except for the period of Great Lent and Pascha (known as the Paschalion).

But the calendar described in the article has a different leap year rule from the Gregorian calendar, so it is not clear the same calendar is being described. The site clearly favors the Julian calendar, so more sources should be found to obtain a balanced view. Also, the site is under the control of the webmaster, Patrick Barnes, and might be considered a self-published source as described in WP:SELF. Sometimes self-published sources are reliable, but they must be used with greater caution than sources from established publishers. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of note: Barnes' website orthodoxinfo.com while self-published contains electronic copies of material written by various Orthodox authors and publications. His website is a depository for such articles, not just his own.Michael of Houston 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the same calendar in the sense that the date is the same. It is not the same calendar in the sense that the date will be different after 28 February, 2800. Whatever, the word "Julian" links it with the Julian calendar which is thirteen days behind. So IMHO the reference to Julian only confuses and should be removed altogether. The title should be changed to "Meletian calendar" with redirects from "New calendar" and "Revised Julian calendar". The issue of which rules are used for calculating the date of Easter isn't really relevant. Taking the Gregorian calendar as an example, when German states moved from the Julian calendar in 1700 they adopted the Gregorian calendar, although for the first seventy years or so they used astronomical methods for calculating the date of Easter. All Orthodox churches (with very few exceptions) use the Julian calendar to calculate the date of Easter. To talk about them using a "Revised Julian calendar" is simply wrong.Vote (X) for Change (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I called the ballot, I have found that the new calendar already has a name - the Meletian calendar. I'm changing my vote to support that as the new name. Apologies for the confusion - I'm extending the voting period to 30 April, 2010. Read the background information before making up your mind. World Council of Churches: Frequently asked questions about the date of Easter (31 January, 2007) available at [6]. There is a mistake in this document - there is a common Easter date many times between 2017 and 2034. Miletian (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I am Eastern Orthodox Serb and I know this calendar under the name Revised Julian calendar. It is not true that Eastern churches do not use this name, as it is stated in the proposition. And, I never heard the term "Meletian calendar" in my whole life. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I note that "Revised Julian Calendar" has 3,580 ghits, including 9 on the official website of the Orthodox Church in America (www.oca.org). It seems that the OCA at least prefers that name. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (goarch.org) seems to just use "new calendar". "Meletian Calendar" has only 94 ghits. Most appear to be pejorative uses by opponents of the calendar; I can find no example of it being used as the preferred name by an adherent. Mrhsj (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide links to back your claim that only people who oppose the Meletian calendar use the name? The World Council of Churches (an impartial body) uses it - see link number [3] on this board. Use of the term "Revised" Julian calendar fuels misunderstanding because, as Fr George Lardas points out in On the question of the Revised Julian calendar, (available here [7]) the Gregorian calendar is also a "Revised" Julian calendar. 188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) I did not say that "only people who oppose the Meletian calendar use the name." Perhaps you could read what I actually wrote? It wasn't that complicated. (2) Yes I read your WCC link. (3) It doesn't matter if people think RJC is a confusing name. The point is that at least one established local Orthodox Church does in fact use that as the name of the calendar, whereas none uses "Meletian Calendar". Mrhsj (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing reference to the Council of Nicea

I removed a dead link together with the verbiage that it supported, "since the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD."

All the documents of the Council of Nicea are found at either of these two URLs:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-08.htm#P506_110748

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html

Both are from the same source and have the same translation with the same notes; the first is an indexed HTML file while the second is a downloadable PDF (easier to search through).

Note that the word "calendar" is found nowhere but in footnotes and that nothing in the council's text alludes to a calendar or dating other than this reference in "The Synodal Letter to the Church of Alexandria, "We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning."

Therefore, the linking of the use to the Julian Calendar is being remoed together with the dead link claiming to support it.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

How's that again?

Quoting article:

"in the long term the average rate at which the Revised Julian pulls ahead of the Gregorian calendar is 86400⁄24 = 3600 years per day."

Is this meant to say "one day in 3600 years"? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry?!

In the criticism page the article states: "The proposal for change was introduced by Meletios Metaxakis, a patriarch whose canonical status has been disputed and who was a Freemason"

The canonical dispute I can understand, but what possible relevance does him being a Freemason have?! As far as I know Freemasons have nothing to do with calendar reform. Could someone add an explanation? If not, I'll delete it, because currently it makes no sense to mention this random fact about him. --109.148.166.185 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not try to verify whether Meletios Metaxakis was really a freemason or not. I have an idea of why it might be relevant, but it would take further investigation to figure out if I'm correct. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics of course are all Catholics. In the past freemasonry has been hostile to Catholicism (one source that says this is http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-church-say-about-freemasonry ). I don't know if freemasonry in the past made a distinction between Roman Catholicism and other branches of Catholicism. Today, being a freemason isn't considered compatible with Roman Catholicism (according to the previously mentioned website, among others). I don't know if other branches of Catholicism have the same attitude toward freemasonry that Roman Catholicism does, but if so, it would be a problem to adopt a calendar created by a freemason. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking a little further, I found this statement that " Orthodox Christians must disavow the Masonic movement and resign from it if they have joined it in ignorance of its goals." Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the history of Freemasonry with regards to Catholicism and Orthodoxy so I can't really speak to the truth of this. However as a casual reader this out of nowhere mention of Freemasonry reads like a suggestion of nonsense conspiracy theories that so often feature Masons, especially when it follows the accusation that the calendar reform is due to Western influence. I'm perfectly willing to accept there might be a relevant reason for it being mentioned, but if so I think there needs to be further explanation for casual readers like me. --109.148.166.185 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The official position of the Orthodox Church is that Freemasonry is a false and anti-christian religion. Therefore, if it these allegations against the Patriarch proved true, that would make him an apostate to Holy Orthodoxy in the view of the Church. This is really a question of his validity as a Patriarch and more to the point, as a member of the Church in good standing. These allegations are unproven however. For this reason I have corrected the article to read "alleged Freemason". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.194.209 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've added this information to the article with the source given by Jc3s4h. --109.148.166.185 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Calculations

The arithmetic calculations section needs to be cited. Surely, if those guys developed the calculations, then wouldn't they also mention what language they used? I can say that the calculations look more like BASIC programming than logical expressions. 140.254.136.160 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the calculations in the "Revised Julian calendrical calculations" section, right? I wouldn't call it a citation exactly, but there is an explanation of where the formulas come from; look at note no. 20 and click the carrot next to the note number to see the explanation. I own the book mentioned in the explanation, Calendrical Calculations 3rd ed. In the main text the algorithms are given in a completely different style. In the "Appendix B" which gives the actual programming code, it is written in Lisp.

This section was added by User:Kalendis on 3 June 2011. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect date in section 1 "History"

When I saw that the vernal equinox was being recorded as 1:48 AM GMT on 23 March 1983, that looked wrong from the start - much too late!

I went to a trusted website http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.html?year=1950&n=136 Which confirms that the 1983 vernal equinox occurred at 4:39 AM GMT on 21 March of that year, much more believable!

I don't know enough to re-write that section of the article though; so can someone please make sure it is done? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The History section was added by a banned user in February 2015. I have removed it. It pursued an agenda involving a mean March equinox, which has been rejected. Karl (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Outdated external link

Under "External Links," the article titled "On the Question of the 'Revised Julian Calendar'" is no longer available at the specified URL. It is available at the following URL instead, but since this Wikipedia article is now "protected," I cannot fix the reference. Will someone with appropriate permissions please update the URL? Thank you.

http://www.stnicholasstratford.org/article_aug2016_calendar.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.126.7 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Name for Easter

I changed all references to "Pascha" into "Easter". The Greek word Pascha (derived from the Hebrew word Pesach) literally means Easter. It is NOT a theologically separate concept. When speaking and writing in English, let's please stop calling it "Pascha" with regards to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This is sooo incredibly annoying. Pascha is Easter. This isn't rocket science. There isn't some theological reason why it must be called "Pascha" when speaking English. And not all Eastern Orthodox call it that. In Bulgarian, Easter is Velikden. In Serbian, it's Uskrs. In Ukrainian, it's Velykodniy. Likewise, many Catholic and Protestant countries call it a variation of Pascha. In Italian and Catalan, it's Pasqua; in Spanish/Castilian, Pascua; in Portuguese, Páscoa; in French, Pâques; in Dutch, Pasen; in Danish Påske; and in Swedish, Påsk. Pascha is just the Greek (and Russian) word for Easter. So, let's please cut the crap. Skyduster Skyduster (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Arithmetic

The #Arithmetic section needs some references and a summary of what's actually happening with leap years and centuries: Julian has multiples of 4, Gregorian is as we know it (centuries are only leap years for multiples of 4), and Revised Julian treats only centuries = 2 or 6 (modulo 9) as leap year. The sequences OEIS: A193910 + OEIS: A193879 cover that and also confirm the century difference table. The sequences can be replaced by better references like the calendar FAQ referenced in these sequences, but at the moment they are better than nothing.

@Jc3s5h: [8], [9], what do you mean by "There are multiple interpretations of C and century year", while discussing multiples of 4 in an #Arithmetic section nobody cares about, say, 1900 vs. 1901 as start of the century. 19 is no multiple of 4, therefore 1900 was no leap year. Of course something like "C interpreted as year/100" can replace "century" if you feel that that's clearer. –2.247.247.233 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

All (five) occurrences of "century" in the new paragraph replaced: [10]. –2.247.247.233 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The first version of this addition failed to define "C". Some people would say 1900 was a century year, some people would say it was 1901.

The second version introduced this false statement: "The Gregorian calendar excludes C+0, unless C is a multiple of 4, e.g., 1900 was no leap year". But 1900/4 = 475, so it is a multiple of 4. The statement claims 1900 is a Gregorian leap year but it wasn't.

I'm not at all convinced this addition would be worthwhile even if it were edited to be correct, but it certainly can't be tolerated when it contains false statement. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Revised Julian calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722063303/http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/numint.pdf to http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/numint.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110403085028/http://main.chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/ to http://main.chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502124521/http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/generic_kernels/spk/planets/de421_announcement.pdf to http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/generic_kernels/spk/planets/de421_announcement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210033247/http://grandlodge.gr/Famous_gr_home.html to http://www.grandlodge.gr/Famous_gr_home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080712061305/http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/third-edition/ to http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/third-edition/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080712061305/http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/third-edition/ to http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/third-edition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

accuracy

When the Revised Julian calendar was first introduced, it was claimed to be more accurate than the Gregorian calendar (and that was an ostensible justification for not just adopting the Gregorian calendar), but such "accuracy" is with respect to something which is totally irrelevant to the Christian religion (the mean tropical year) -- see the "08:09, 3 May 2008" comment by Joe Kress above for an explanation. With respect to what is important religiously (the calendar dates of the vernal equinox), the Revised Julian calendar has no advantage over the Gregorian... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Both calendars worked with observed days and nights, not periods of 86,400 SI seconds. No one seems to have the authority to change this understanding. Thus, to evaluate the accuracy of either calendar, ΔT must be allowed for. But the predictions of ΔT are not accurate enough to decide which calendar is better. Which agrees with Anonmoos statement; if we can't decide which is better, neither has an advantage over the other. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree -- accuracy can be evaluated with respect to the astronomical parameters at the current moment, or at the moment of the calendar's adoption etc. There's no need to wait thousands of years to make such comparisons (though the long-term real-world fit between a calendar and astronomical events can only be evaluated over many centuries, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Gregorian Calendar not adopted instead?

Since the Gregorian reforms were instituted, many nations and churches have been slow to adopt it. Reasons behind this have included a simple lack of will to undergo the unpleasant disruption attending the initial calendar shift and, more prominently, a bias against the reform due to its origins.

This lag is widely discussed and criticized in materials about the major calendar systems. However, the tension has invariably attached to accepting the merits of the Gregorian reform and then taking the decision to implement it. In the case of the Milankovic calendar we see a very odd pattern: The implicit recognition of the merits of the Gregorian reform, followed by an conscious refusal to implement that reform, and instead the creation of an analogous reform that is almost identical to the Gregorian reform but is made ever so slightly different seemingly of not being the Gregorian reform exactly. Some may suggest that the Milankovic calendar won over its adherents because of its very slight reduction in the rate of error present in the Gregorian system. Others would suggest it was to avoid the bans on the Gregorian calendar adopted by the Pan Orthodox Councils of 1582 and 1583. Most would have to conclude that the raison d'être of the Milankovic calendar is to allow its proponents to implement a functional Gregorian reform while inserting a slight but justifiable mathematical innovation simply to provide plausible deniability that the Gregorianesque reform is, in fact, implemented.

Since this issue is utterly central to the Milankovic calendar's existence, I find it remarkable that this article ignores the elephant in the room, namely, why was the Gregorian reform itself not implemented instead of its Milankovic mutation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say nations have refused to implement the Gregorian calendar, and have instead chosen the Roman or revised Julian calendars as a government-sanctioned calendar. I think there might be one country that still uses Julian, and I don't know of any government that uses the revised Julian calendar (although I wouldn't rule out Greece). For governments like the United States that have not explicitly adopted any calendar for general use, the fact that government pronouncements like the dates taxes are due or the date one must appear for jury duty coincide with Gregorian dates does not rule out the revised Julian calendar, since the dates are the same at present. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In order to clarify the topic I will quote from three different paragraphs in the Wikipedia article on the Gregorian Calendar:

In Russia the Gregorian calendar was accepted after the October Revolution....

The other countries of Eastern Europe, most notably Orthodox countries, adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 1910s or early 1920s. The last country of Eastern Orthodox Europe to adopt the Gregorian calendar was Greece on Thursday, 1 March 1923....

Greece was the last Orthodox country to adopt the Gregorian calendar in March 1923. However, these adoptions are only for civil or state purposes, and none of the national Orthodox Churches have recognised the Gregorian calendar for church or religious purposes. Instead, a Revised Julian calendar was proposed in May 1923 which dropped 13 days in 1923 and adopted a different leap year rule. There will be no difference between the two calendars until 2800.

We can see that by March 1923, the countries of Eastern Europe had adopted the Gregorian calendar. That same year, a number of Eastern Orthodox bishops met at a synod in Constantinople and, with the help of a Serbian scientist, created the Revised Julian calendar. The two important points are: 1) the countries of Eastern Europe had already adopted the Gregorian calendar when the Revised Julian calendar was created, and 2) there will be no difference between the Gregorian calendar and the Revised Julian calendar until 2800 A.D.

If the info in the article quoted above is reliable, then it is clear that this article should answer the simple question: Why did the bishops create a new calendar instead of simply adopting the Gregorian calendar? I think the absence of this information in the article was probably an oversight. If anyone has access to a secondary reliable source that has the answer, then the info should be added to this article.Dulcimer music 04:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

I'd guess because the Gregorian calendar was introduced by a Catholic pope and the Orthodox churches don't want to officially adopt something created by a pope. Qorilla (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Calculation of leap years

The article contradicts itself. In one paragraph it says a Century year is a leap year if you divide it by 900 and get a remainder of 200 or 600, but in another paragraph it says a remainder of 0 or 400. Richard75 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that they refer to different proposals. The remainder of 0 or 400 rule and equinox normally on March 21 was an early proposal. This was replaced by the remainder of 200 or 600 rule and equinox normally on March 20 for reasons explained in article. Karl (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

False Argument

celebrating Nativity separately from the secular observances of Christmas and New Year, which are associated with partying and alcohol consumption. — As it stands, this sentence is plainly false, unless someone is arguing that millions of Russians and Serbs don't actually drink and party during their Old Style Christmas and New Year. — 81.196.153.245 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Leap rule

In what programming language is the Leap rule section written? It would be nice to identify this in the article and wrap the block in Template:Syntaxhighlight. Daask (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"New calendar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New calendar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#New calendar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"New Calendar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New Calendar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#New Calendar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mutual Conversion between Revised Julian Calendar and Modified Julian Day (MJD)

The following is my original research (However, I have ever written it in the article of "修正ユリウス暦" in Japanese Wikipedia). I made some formula for the mutual conversion between Revised Julian Calendar and Modified Julian Day (MJD). I hope this will be useful for the article (Of course, we need some reliable sources.).... -- Meauk (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC) I corrected some parts. -- Meauk (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Conversion from Revised Julian Calendar to MJD

When regarding m as Month, d as Date and y as Year on Revised Julian calendar, we can get MJD by using the following formula. However, we need to regard January and February as the 13th and 14th month in the previous year.

${\mathit {MJD}}=\lfloor 30.59(m-2)\rfloor +d+\lfloor 365.25y\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {y}{100}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {y+700}{900}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {y+300}{900}}\right\rfloor -678~912$

• e.g.) January 1, 2021

m = 13, d = 1, y = 2020, → MJD: 59 215

${\mathit {MJD}}={\lfloor 30.59(13-2)\rfloor +1+\lfloor 365.25\times 2020\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {2020}{100}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {2020+700}{900}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {2020+300}{900}}\right\rfloor -678~912}=59~215$

Conversion from MJD to Revised Julian Calendar

We can get the date on Revised Julian calendar (m: Month, d: Date, y: Year) by using the following formula. If we see m = 13 or 14 as the result, it means January or February regarded as the month(s) in the previous year.

conversion for conversion		$D_{X}={\mathit {MJD}}+678~882$
in units of 900 years		$Y_{A}=\left\lfloor {\frac {D_{X}-1}{328~718}}\right\rfloor$	$D_{A}=D_{X}-328~718Y_{A}$
in units of 100 years		$Y_{B}=\left\lfloor {\frac {9D_{A}-7}{328~718}}\right\rfloor$	$D_{B}=D_{A}-\left\lfloor {\frac {328~718Y_{B}+6}{9}}\right\rfloor$
in units of one year		$Y_{C}=\left\lfloor {\frac {100D_{B}-1}{36~525}}\right\rfloor$	$D_{C}=D_{B}-\lfloor 365.25Y_{C}\rfloor$
Date	Month	$m=\left\lfloor {\frac {5D_{C}-3}{153}}\right\rfloor +3$
	Date	$d=D_{C}-\left\lfloor {\frac {153(m-3)+2}{5}}\right\rfloor$
	Year	$y=900Y_{A}+100Y_{B}+Y_{C}$

(Updated on 11 July, 2021) Mutual Conversion between Revised Julian Calendrical date and Modified Julian Day (MJD)

The following is the latest version of the above original research of mine. I am writing here because I thought I should not delete what I wrote before on talkpage. In this update, we will NOT need to regard each of January and February as the previous year's 13th and 14th month. -- Meauk (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Conversion from Revised Julian Calendrical date to MJD

We can get MJD from the Revised Julian Calendrical date (d : Date, m : Month and y : Year) by calculating the following formulae. It should be noted that the formulae are divided into two processes: Advanced Preparation and Conversion.

1. Advanced Preparation
   • $N={\left\lfloor {\frac {14-m}{12}}\right\rfloor }$
   • $M={m+12N}$
   • $Y={y-N}$
2. Conversion
   • ${\mathit {MJD}}={d+\lfloor 30.59(M-2)\rfloor +\lfloor 365.25Y\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {Y}{100}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {Y-200}{900}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {Y-600}{900}}\right\rfloor -678~910}$

Example 1

When trying calculating the MJD equivalent to the Revised Julian Calendrical date: 14 October, 1923 (d : 14, m : 10, y : 1923), we will see the result is 23 706.

1. Advanced Preparation
   • $N={\left\lfloor {\frac {14-10}{12}}\right\rfloor }=0$
   • $M={10+12\times 0}=10$
   • $Y={1923-0=1923}$
2. Conversion
   • ${\mathit {MJD}}={14+\lfloor 30.59(10-2)\rfloor +\lfloor 365.25\times 1923\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {1923}{100}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {1923-200}{900}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {1923-600}{900}}\right\rfloor -678~910}=23~706$

Example 2

When trying calculating the MJD equivalent to the Revised Julian Calendrical date: 1 January, 2001 (d : 1, m : 1, y : 2001), we will see the result is 51 910.

1. Advanced Preparation
   • $N={\left\lfloor {\frac {14-1}{12}}\right\rfloor }=1$
   • $M={1+12\times 1}=13$
   • $Y={2001-1}=2000$
2. Conversion
   • ${\mathit {MJD}}={1+\lfloor 30.59(13-2)\rfloor +\lfloor 365.25\times 2000\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {2000}{100}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {2000-200}{900}}\right\rfloor +\left\lfloor {\frac {2000-600}{900}}\right\rfloor -678~910}=51~910$

Conversion from MJD to Revised Julian Calendrical date

We can get the Revised Julian Calendrical date (d : Date, m : Month and y : Year) from MJD by calculating the following formulae.

conversion for conversion		$D_{X}={\mathit {MJD}}+678~882$
in units of 900 years		$Y_{A}=\left\lfloor {\frac {D_{X}-1}{328~718}}\right\rfloor$	$D_{A}=D_{X}-328~718Y_{A}$
in units of 100 years		$Y_{B}=\left\lfloor {\frac {9D_{A}-7}{328~718}}\right\rfloor$	$D_{B}=D_{A}-\left\lfloor {\frac {328~718Y_{B}+6}{9}}\right\rfloor$
in units of one year		$Y_{C}=\left\lfloor {\frac {100D_{B}-1}{36~525}}\right\rfloor$	$D_{C}=D_{B}-\lfloor 365.25Y_{C}\rfloor$
Adjustment		$M=\left\lfloor {\frac {5D_{C}-3}{153}}\right\rfloor +3$	$N=\left\lfloor {\frac {M-1}{12}}\right\rfloor$
Date	Date	$d=D_{C}-\left\lfloor {\frac {153(M-3)+2}{5}}\right\rfloor$
	Month	$m=M-12N$
	Year	$y=900Y_{A}+100Y_{B}+Y_{C}+N$

Example 1

When trying calculating the the Revised Julian Calendrical date equivalent to the MJD: 23 706, we will see the result is 14 October, 1923 (d : 14, m : 10, y : 1923).

conversion for calculation		$D_{X}=23~706+678~882=702~588$
in units of 900 years		$Y_{A}=\left\lfloor {\frac {702~588-1}{328~718}}\right\rfloor =2$	$D_{A}=702~588-328~718\times 2=45~152$
in units of 100 years		$Y_{B}=\left\lfloor {\frac {9\times 45~152-7}{328~718}}\right\rfloor =1$	$D_{B}=45~152-\left\lfloor {\frac {328~718\times 1+6}{9}}\right\rfloor =8~628$
in units of one year		$Y_{C}=\left\lfloor {\frac {100\times 8~628-1}{36~525}}\right\rfloor =23$	$D_{C}=8~628-\lfloor 365.25\times 23\rfloor =228$
Adjustment		$M=\left\lfloor {\frac {5\times 228-3}{153}}\right\rfloor +3=10$	$N=\left\lfloor {\frac {10-1}{12}}\right\rfloor =0$
Date	Date	$d=228-\left\lfloor {\frac {153\times (10-3)+2}{5}}\right\rfloor =14$
	Month	$m=10-12\times 0=10$
	Year	$y=900\times 2+100\times 1+23+0=1~923$

Example 2

When trying calculating the the Revised Julian Calendrical date equivalent to the MJD: 51 910, we will see the result is 1 January, 2001 (d : 1, m : 1, y : 2001).

conversion for calculation		$D_{X}=51~910+678~882=730~792$
in units of 900 years		$Y_{A}=\left\lfloor {\frac {730~792-1}{328~718}}\right\rfloor =2$	$D_{A}=730~792-328~718\times 2=73~356$
in units of 100 years		$Y_{B}=\left\lfloor {\frac {9\times 73~356-7}{328~718}}\right\rfloor =2$	$D_{B}=73~356-\left\lfloor {\frac {328~718\times 2+6}{9}}\right\rfloor =307$
in units of one year		$Y_{C}=\left\lfloor {\frac {100\times 307-1}{36~525}}\right\rfloor =0$	$D_{C}=307-\lfloor 365.25\times 0\rfloor =307$
Adjustment		$M=\left\lfloor {\frac {5\times 307-3}{153}}\right\rfloor +3=13$	$N=\left\lfloor {\frac {13-1}{12}}\right\rfloor =1$
Date	Date	$d=307-\left\lfloor {\frac {153\times (13-3)+2}{5}}\right\rfloor =1$
	Month	$m=13-12\times 1=1$
	Year	$y=900\times 2+100\times 2+0+1=2~001$

Has it been adopted?

The second paragraph of the lead lists a whole bunch of Orthodox churches that have supposedly adopted this calendar. But they clearly haven't since they still celebrate Christmas in January. Did they adopt it going forward, but kept the existing drift from the Julian calendar up to the date of adoption? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome: Those churches that are listed have adopted the Revised Julian calendar (Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian etc.). No, they do not celebrate Christmas in January. Clearly, you are wrong. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I still hear about "Orthodox Christmas" every January from social media and public figures, so it's apparent still a fairly widespread thing, even though a lot of churches have switched. Is there a well-sourced estimate of what proportion of the Orthodox population has switched? If so, we should add mention that in the second paragraph for context. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. and #4, The article is reasonably well-written. The article not only has more than one "unsourced section" tag there are several unsourced paragraphs.

Reassess to C-class. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)