Unity Issue::Monday


Calendar::monday    Other::first    Which::sunday    Small::january    Weekday::julian    Letter::research

Unity Issue "The Russian понедельник (poniediélnik)...The Japanese word for Monday is getsuyōbi (月曜日)...Monday is xingqi yi (星期一) in Chinese..."

In Russian we have the Cyrillic followed by the romanization in parentheses, whereas for the other two the romanization comes first followed by the native writing style in parantheses. I would change it, but I'm wondering if there's some guideline as to which format is correct. Brett (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) bye

Claim of "original research" re proleptic Gregorian 0001-01-01 = Monday

I was told that my statement that proleptic Gregorian 0001-01-01 was a Monday was original research. I claim that this was, for the most part, calculation rather than "research", and the little "research" was simple use of common and publicly-available knowledge. Let me explain:

Pick up almost literally any reference work with a section on calendars, and it will give the Gregorian leap year rule. I have seen this rule repeated in many places since I was a child. I have even read transcribed and/or translated source texts on this rule. Asking for a reference of this rule is like asking for a reference that the Earth is round. Using this rule, and knowledge which is if anything even more common (such as the number of days in a year and in a week), and simple calculation, I can tell that 400 years makes a whole number of weeks with no days left over, a fact which I have seen in print as well as in Wikipedia.

We are now halfway there. The other half is to correlate this 400-year cycle with a known weekday. Our date 0001-01-01 would (we now know) fall on the same weekday as its anniversary at 400-year intervals. Five such intervals carry us to 2001-01-01. Look this date up on any calendar -- I used the JavaScript Date function in the browser I was using at the time -- and you will see that it was a Monday. QED. (P.S. I just checked my cell phone calendar and this date was indeed a Monday.)

If a computer program claims that 0001-01-01 was not a Monday, then either (a) its calendar was not proleptic Gregorian (Julian, perhaps?) or (b) it contains a bug (does it use the correct leap year rule? is its year 01 = AD 1 or AD 1901 or AD 2001? is its month 1 = January or February?).

As for claims that this information is perhaps not as useful as I had claimed: for one, the programming language REXX uses proleptic Gregorian 0001-01-01 for its day 0, perhaps because it seems a very natural, easy-to-remember starting point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 March 2009

All of this either constitutes Original Research, or constitutes improper synthesis. Just please give the sources that verify the claim. It shouldn't be that difficult.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This is absurd. But even if I am to do it this way... if I remember correctly, the relevant 16th-century papal bull (text at [[1]]) mentions explicitly that immediately after the Gregorian calendar change in 1582, the dominical letter will change to C. This agrees with the table given in the dominical letter article. From the text of this bull and calculation (along with the definition of dominical letter), one can by a similar but different path verify my claim. If you want more details regarding dominical letters (a not unreasonable request), I refer you to the calendar attached to the bull, which I am having trouble finding online. And while we're at it: I believe that mere calculation constitutes neither original research nor synthesis, according to Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2009
This may well be absurd, but it is the way Wikipedia works. The purpose is to avoid the kind of hoaxes and self-promotion that caused embarrassment a few years ago. The kind of circuitous article-hopping you suggest for verification is not acceptable for two reasons: first, it improperly invokes other Wikipedia articles a sources and, second, direct citations need to present on any claim that is subject to doubt. FWIW, the calculation is beyond my capabilities, and I suspect that may be true for many other readers of Wikipedia, as well. That is why I resorted to online calendar calculators, one of which told me that 1 January 01 (Gregorian) was a Saturday; another told me that 1 January 00 was a Saturday and, since this was (proleptically) a leap-year, 01 January 01 would indeed be a Monday. Neither one would tell me why it is "convenient" for either year 00 (i.e., 1 BC) or 01 to begin with any particular day of the week (I personally favor Wednesday, for absolutely no good reason at all, it's just a gut feeling), so this statement remains POV until corroborated by a reliable source. Thank you for mentioning dominical letters. I have never heard of them before, and their relevance to calendars and the convenience of starting year 0 or 01 on a particular weekday sounds intriguing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned dominical letters was because they were part of the calculation. The papal bull confirmed that the Wikipedia dominical letter table was correct (at least for that one example). Knowing the dominical letter for one year, you can count forward and backward to determine it for other years -- that is how the table was constructed. This table can also be (and should perhaps also be) spot-checked by means of whatever calendar you have handy, such as a wall calendar, pocket planner, or cell phone calendar. I know because I constructed the table myself (although using a different base year) and performed a number of spot checks on it -- I believe I used the JavaScript date function for at least some of these spot checks.
Also, I had a sould reason for using calculation to pull the date to check from 0001-01-01 to 2001-01-01. The former date is hard to verify and can only be accessed by extrapolation from an existing calendar. The latter date is much easier to verify as is it (with good reason) available on more calendars: it is within our lifetime, whereas 0001-01-01 is not. We also have enough newspapers and records from recent times to confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt what day of the week 2001-01-01 was: we can't say the same for 0001-01-01. That is the real reason I pulled the calculation to 2001-01-01. If there is any shadow of a doubt in your mind that 2001-01-01 was a Monday, look at newspapers, bulletins, calendars, etc., from then. Then using the 400-year rule, go back to 0001-01-01. If you doubt the 400-year rule, then calculate this: (365*400)+(400/4)-(400/100)+(400/400) and then divide by 7 and verify that it comes out even with no fraction left over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 March 2009
Calendrica is the online calendar conversion program described in Calendrical Calculations by Reingold and Derschowitz, which is considered a reliable source. It confirms that 1 January 1 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar was a Monday. It also confirms that 1 January 1 in the Julian calendar was a Saturday. The Time and Date calendar is wrong. According to the REXX/400 Reference manual page 87, the DATE(Base) function returns the number of complete days since and including the local date 1 January 1 in the Gregorian calendar. For REXX, this was day 0 because the modulo function DATE(Base)//7 returns 0 for Monday. For the calendar and other documents such as the dominical letter attached to the papal bull Inter gravissimas, see Les textes fondateurs du calendrier grégorien in French and Latin. Both Vettius Valens (c. 160) and Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 360) used two overlaping weeks, one beginning on Sunday, the other beginning on Wednesday. Athanasius called the day of the week in his Wednesday week the "day of the Gods" because it was the principal week described by the astrologer Vettius Valens and Anthanasius explicitly numbered it 1–7, 1 being Wednesday. See Week-day names#First Hour of the Day.
Despite this, Anon's statement "For purposes of calculation, it may prove helpful, even necessary, to treat the week as beginning on Monday, because in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, January 1 of the year 1 was a Monday." is patently false due to the words "helpful" and "necessary". By its very nature, any computer calculation hides whatever day of the week it treats as first from the user (though not from the programmer). So it does not matter what day of the week is first as far as the program is concerned. Furthermore, REXX treats 1 January 1 Gregorian as the zeroth day of the week as Anon states, not the first day of the week. Many other programming languages determine the day of the week by taking the Julian day number modulo 7, which, like REXX, starts its count of days with 0 (but at 1 January 4713 BC Julian, not Gregorian), so its day of the week is also numbered 0–6, 0 being Monday. Adding 1 to convert this into 1–7 is an extra step which is neither helpful nor necessary. Totally different is the Lilian day number which starts with 1 at Friday. Removing the false helpful/necessary phrase leaves the trivial fact that 1 January 1 Gregorian is a Monday, which does not improve the article in my opinion. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
By "first", I did not mean "given an array index of 1", but rather simply "first" in the ordinary sense of the word. And anyway, where do you suppose the Julian day number or its equivalent comes from? Calculation. And where do you start your calculations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Monday sections
Intro  [[Talk:Monday?section=_WikiProject_Time_assessment_rating_comment_| WikiProject Time assessment rating comment ]]  Discussion   Saxon moon deity?    I don't like Mondays   About the portuguese name    Circadian Rythms   Australia   Current Event Tag   Revamped Monday thru Thursday  Russian word meaning?  Unity Issue  Why only moon?   First day of the week   

Unity Issue
PREVIOUS: Russian word meaning?NEXT: Why only moon?