Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Both in this article and in its included template {{JewishCalendar}} I have reverted the transliteration scheme added recently by 174.18.85.148 (talk · contribs). Frankly, I was not going to fuss with it here. After all, the scheme that user introduced is intended to guide pronunciation to some extent, and that is a reasonable goal per se. However, I noticed the table in the section Names of months was also changed, and not to the better. In that table, which is actually Template:JewishCalendar, many of the names of "Holidays/Notable days" were converted to the same transliteration scheme. But in that position, they are not consistent with WP:HE, among other things. If that user would like to explain and justify here, I'd be more than happy to give an ear. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

 Done I made a change as per the above, along with cleaning some things up in the general neighborhood. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Here's what I think is confusing things—and we should talk about how to handle it.

Let me use as an analogy the Gregorian vs. Julian calendar. The mean length of a Gregorian year is 365.2425 years (see Gregorian calendar#Accuracy). The mean length of a Julian year is 365.25 years—or .0075 years too long. (OK, Gregorian has its errors, too, but let's take it as correct for now.)

If we assume the correct solar date for the Spring Equinox is March 23, then in the Julian calendar March 23 gets later and later compared to the equinox, because the Julian year is too long. But look at it a different way: the date of the true equinox gets earlier and earlier on the Julian calendar. This year, Gregorian March 23 is Julian March 10. So the Julian date of the equinox has fallen behind by 13 days, exactly because the Julian year is too long.

In our case, figure that the equinox should fall between Adar 14 and Nisan 15, so that Passover is always within 30 days of the equinox. (Whether that is exactly the rule or not is not entirely clear, but it will serve to illustrate.) Since the Hebrew calendar year is too long, the interval of Adar 14 – Nisan 15 drifts later compared to the equinox—or, alternatively, the equinox date falls behind, so that it is now something like 7-8 days behind the solar calendar. That is, the equinox falls between about Adar 6 and Nisan 7; in years where the equinox occurs before Adar 14, Passover starts more than 30 days after the equinox.

I hope that helps explain. Whether we should edit the introduction is a different question. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of other issues with the text. Firstly, references are made to "present solar year" and "modern solar year". Presumably this refers to the Gregorian year. If so, that should be clearly indicated. Secondly, the point is so marginal in the Hebrew calendar that I don't think it should even rate a mention in the introduction. In fact, it is not even part of the Hebrew calendar, but comparing to other systems. The point, though marginal, is best understood in the context of comparing various calendars, which appears within the body of the article. Also, what does "Seasonal references in the Hebrew calendar reflect its development in the region east of the Mediterranean and the times and climate of the Northern Hemisphere." mean? I think that should also go, or a home should be found for it within the body of the article with relevant examples.Enthusiast (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure—I didn't write it—but I think that "solar year" phrase is referring to the current length of the northward equinoctial solar year (that is, the length of time from one astronomical March equinox to the next), not the Gregorian calendar. (The sentence in the introduction talks about the Jewish calendar drifting from the solar year by one day in 224 years, and from Gregorian by one day in 231 years.) I think it is reasonable to show the comparison to Gregorian—that is the everyday calendar most people would compare it to. But you're certainly free to disagree!

As far as the other goes, I think someone was trying to be politically correct and not be Northern-Hemisphere-centric. I personally agree with you on this, but just didn't feel it was worth the effort to deal with. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grateful for views here - am i missing something?

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

The article has had this name for a long time. If nothing else, that means you probably ought to have "clear and convincing" evidence that "Jewish calendar" is a better name if you really want to change it. And as both terms are used in modern English more-or-less interchangeably, I doubt you could achieve "clear and convincing" evidence.

As for why ... there is a discussion at Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 2#name on the matter. I personally think the reason is because the usual Hebrew name is haluach haIvri; that is, "Hebrew calendar". Why, in turn, that is might go along the lines you will find in the archived discussion. And the normal Yiddish name is "Jewish calendar".

Anyway, that's my two cents.StevenJ81 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good find - I looked in the archives, so not sure how i missed it. A couple of editors made the same points better than me:

• Joe Kress noted that "In the Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics two articles appear, one entitled "Calendar (Hebrew)" for the ancient calendar and another entitled "Calendar (Jewish)" for the modern form... I prefer Jewish calendar because it is used by the followers of the religion, whether or not they are ethnic Hebrew or even speak Hebrew."
• Gorovich noted that "The term Hebrew calendar ought to (but doesn't always) refer to the original lunar calendar of the Torah (see the earlier comment here about the Essenes) which was entirely different to the modern lunisolar calendar used today and known as the Jewish calendar."

I take your point that this question could easily fizzle out like last time, unless momentum is created to discuss it widely. And I suspect the biggest barrier to that will be because it doesn't really excite people to fix what is basically a technicality. I don't think that means it's not worth a try though. Although some editors showed ambivalence, noone in the previous discussion stated the opposing view - i.e. the suggestion of "Hebrew calendar" being more appropriate to this article than "Jewish calendar".

One way of solving this would be to follow the "Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics" and have two separate articles.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd ed, 2007), available for free here, calls it "Jewish calendar" consistently throughout. On balance I think that is more correct, though the case is not overwhelming. McKay (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. I would be opposed to two separate articles. I went and looked at Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics yesterday, and the distinction seemed a bit artificial to me. In any event, it felt to me as if the article names were chosen in order to distinguish one from the other, not because they were so inherently "correct".
2. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with McKay: "'Jewish calendar' is probably more correct, but the case is not overwhelming." But where that makes me come out is that because the case is not overwhelming, we shouldn't move it. There is a certain amount of administrative overhead necessary to move things, and because this article has been in place, under this name, for a long while, there are probably a fair number of links. Most would be fixed by the redirect, but why bother risking broken links?

Interestingly, names on other Wikis are about evenly divided. Latin and Romance languages tend to go for "Hebrew". German and related languages tend to go for "Jewish" (probably under the influence of Yiddish). Slavic languages are split. Simple English follows here.

So, look, Oncen: If you really, really, really want to do this, you can definitely justify it. And if the situation were reversed, you really couldn't justify it. However, I don't really think it's such a good idea. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven, i agree with your thoughts - it's a good summary. I am the type of editor who likes to fix difficult problems, so I am not put off by the effort that would be needed to tidy it up afterwards.

Having said that, there's clearly no rush here. What i might do is focus my attention on the article itself first, which having read it in detail could do with some work on tidying up the structure. Then I can look at this question of title again afterwards.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article can definitely use work. If you tackle it, that would be great. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus years 3, 6, 8….

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

However, 5773 is a leap year according to the table. I replaced the paragraph by a similar formula that goes directly from the year number to whether it is a leap year. Please check me. McKay (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

But according to the table right above this, 5773 is not a leap year, but 5774 is. This agrees with a convertor I checked. Did you get that from somewhere else?

You are right, I was misreading the table. McKay (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think putting my sentence with "remainder of (7 x n)/ 19" at the end of the first paragraph is useful. It tells where the well-known series 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 comes from. So I suggested starting the second paragraph off with "thus."

Also for the year, " the remainder on dividing 7 x n by 19" seems to work. . --Stone-turner (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No it is 7xn+1 divided by 19, as Karl states below. I don't think a formula for making the numbers 3,6,8,11,14,17,19 is much use as remembering and applying the formula is no easier than remembering the numbers. However, being able to go directly from the year to the leapiness saves a step and so is worthwhile. McKay (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

That is correct and earlier I was misreading the table. I changed the article to agree with this. McKay (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed your math there. 5773 is a common year (and its remainder is 18). 5774 is leap (and its remainder is 6). Do you guys have an outside source for this? Add a reference, or this could be tagged as WP:OR. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I placed a couple of tags, so someone should look at those.
2. I moved the calculations to a subpage (Template:Hebrew calendar/c) acting as a calculation template. This way, it will be easy to change

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

to

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

without a whole lot of fuss. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph has been updated with variables now available in the MediaWiki code. It should update itself correctly each Rosh Hashanah, though I can't rule out that the page cache would have to be flushed. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Excellent proposal. AstroLynx (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I would generally favor this approach. When I'm back from my Wikibreak, I'll look at what's there and see if there is anything that is so excellent that it deserves an exception. I doubt that will prove true, however. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Target date: 31 December. I've got too much going on now to address it. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I agree, it is some fringe thing that is being promoted. McKay (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Under "Usage in Contemporary Israel" I have a citation for the section that talks about rabbis denouncing New Year's Eve and secular Jews desire to celebrate it. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163462#.Upe6pJuA2rY Chrimill (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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