Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

Peter Meyer-3
Dear CALNDR-L List members,

Joe Kress said on February 20:

>over the years some insights into the working of calendars have
>been developed on this list.  I think some may be worthwhile to
>publish in peer-reviewed academic journals.  Does anyone know
>scientific journals that regularly publish on this subject matter?

No-one cited any, and apparently there are none (which might be related to
the reason I gave in my message of February 4 on "Calendrical Science,
cause of lack of academic recognition").

A consequence of this absence of opportunity to publish in peer-reviewed
academic journals is that calendrical research does not get published
in such journals, and this is used as an excuse not to mention this
research at Wikipedia.

In particular there is a Wikipedia editor, Philip Kendall, who goes
by the WP moniker of "Pac21" who is particularly zealous in excluding
links to websites containing original calendrical research.  In his
defense of his campaign of suppression of such references he cites
the WP policy of attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia
is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source,
not whether it is true".  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calendar_reform#Mention_of_proposed_calendars
So for WP 'authority' is more important than truth.  

When we look at WP's policy on attribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATT
we find that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought".
(But it does not say that WP does not publish *mention of*, or *reference to*,
original research.)  WP's definition of "original research" is
"material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source".  
WP's definition of "reliable source" is:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication
process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative
in relation to the subject at hand.  How reliable a source is depends on
context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published
by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks,
magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses."

Thus, since calendrical research (which often appears on this mailing list,
or on websites by contributors to this list) is not published in academic
(a.k.a. scientific) journals, due to the absence of journals which publish
this sort of thing, WP editors can thus classify it as "original research"
and thus not suitable for publication (or even mention?) at Wikipedia.
This is used as an excuse by editors such as Philip Kendall, to purge
all mention of, and references to, such research and to websites
on which it appears.

This does not prevent Philip Kendall from setting up a Wikipedia page
for his own "original research" namely the WP page on "Fuse (emulator)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pak21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuse_(emulator)
which includes a link to his website at http://fuse-emulator.sourceforge.net/
Apparently the most "scientific" journal that he can cite as establishing
the "notability" of his work is the UK "Linux Format" magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fuse_(emulator)

This seems to be a clear instance of hypocrisy, where a WP editor
suppresses mention of research in a whole area of science (calendrics)
on the grounds that it has never been cited in any academic or scientific
journal, while promoting work of his own of which the same is true.

Regards,
Peter Meyer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

michael.deckers
    On 2010-03-11 06:18, Peter Meyer wrote on the question
    of scientific journals on calendrics:

>  No-one cited any, and apparently there are none (which might be related to
>  the reason I gave in my message of February 4 on "Calendrical Science,
>  cause of lack of academic recognition").

    While there is no scientific journal dedicated to calendrics, as far
    as I know, there are lots of scientific journals that publish papers
    on calendrical matters: journals on history and archaeology.

    They deal with the calendars used in the past, but sometimes also
    describe calendrical proposals, eg the calendar proposed by Newton:
         Ari Belenkiy, Eduardo Vila Echag├╝e: "History of One Defeat:
         Reform of the Julian Calendar as Envisioned by Isaac Newton".
         in: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London.
         vol 59 no 3 p 223..254. 2005-09.

    There are also some calendars, in the wide sense of a notational
    device for timekeeping, used by specific groups and described
    in the technical literature (astronomers have Julian dates, Besselian
    and Julian years, radiochronologists have bp and BP, space scientists
    use a timing system for Mars, etc).

    General calendrical work is sometimes published in astronomical
    journals, such as:
         D A Hatcher: "Simple Formulae for Julian Day Numbers
         and Calendar Dates". in: Quarterly Journal of the Royal
         Astronomical Society, vol 25, p 53..55. 1984.

    Modern proposals for reform (or rather, unification) of the islamic
    calendar are discussed in theological circles. For the reform of the
    Gregorian calendar, no pressing need nor pressure group can be seen.
    I am sure that an appropriate forum for discussion will emerge as
    soon as the issue comes up (as has happened in the past). And of
    course, CALNDR-L is a forum for everything specific to calendars
    (though not peer-reviewed in the strict sense).

    So while I think that there is quite some body of calendrical
    work published in peer-reviewed journals, I agree with your
    point that chronology merits more academic recognition.

>  A consequence of this absence of opportunity to publish in peer-reviewed
>  academic journals is that calendrical research does not get published
>  in such journals, and this is used as an excuse not to mention this
>  research at Wikipedia.

    I can understand that Wikipedia imposes strict formal criteria on
    those articles that many people want to edit. Otherwise, it was
    all too probable that the text is cannibalized by people with special
    agenda. With less popular articles, chances are that all contributors
    are experts in the field, and that the text converges to a form
    acceptable to all. Unfortunately, calendrical articles tend to be
    very popular.

    Michael Deckers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

Peter Meyer-3
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer-3
Thanks to Michael Dekkers for citing a couple of scientific journals
known to have published articles in the area of calendrics which are
of historical or astronomical interest, namely, (i) Notes and Records of
the Royal Society of London and (ii) Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Michael said:

>For the reform of the Gregorian calendar, no pressing need
>nor pressure group can be seen.

I agree that there is no need for reform of the Gregorian Calendar.  
What's needed is its complete elimination and its replacement by
a better calendar.  Of course, as long as the world continues to be
dominated by Western powers (historically responsible for the worlwide
dissemination of the Gregorian Calendar, or more precisely, its impositon
upon those societies and cultures which those powers were able to dominate
by means of superior technology and a ruthless mindset) this will not happen,
or at least, not globally.

Michael said:

>I can understand that Wikipedia imposes strict formal criteria on
>those articles that many people want to edit.

The question I raised was whether those "strict formal criteria" are
being misused by one particular WP editor (Philip Kendall, 'pak21')
via (a) taking advantage of the lack of (though not complete absence of)
scientific journals publishing calendrical research to classify such
research as "original" and thus outside WP's pale and (b) misinterpreting
WP policies so as to exclude not just articles on such research but also
any mention of, or references to, such research, so as to pursue an agenda
of his own, namely, purging WP of any mention of recent work in the field
of calendrical science.  If he is, then his spurious arguments for
elimination of such mention should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.

Regards,
Peter Meyer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

michael.deckers
    On 2010-03-13 06:28, Peter Meyer wrote:

>  Thanks to Michael Deckers for citing a couple of scientific journals
>  known to have published articles in the area of calendrics which are
>  of historical or astronomical interest, namely, (i) Notes and Records of
>  the Royal Society of London and (ii) Quarterly Journal of the Royal
>  Astronomical Society.

    This may look as if publication in scientific journals was the
    exception rather than the rule for calendrical work. You might
    for instance browse through the excellent bibliography by
    Robert van Gent on calendrical matters related with Easter at
       [http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/easter/easter_text6a.htm]
    in order to see that this is not the case.

>  Michael said:
>
>  >  For the reform of the Gregorian calendar, no pressing need
>  >  nor pressure group can be seen.
>
>  I agree that there is no need for reform of the Gregorian Calendar.
>  What's needed is its complete elimination and its replacement by
>  a better calendar.  ...............................................

    I cannot see any such need expressed by the general population, nor
    by the majority of experts in chronology, commerce, or information
    exchange. And as for a "better calendar": if one looks at the
    calendar reform movement in the 20th century, one can only wonder
    how fast the then perceived advantages (eg, "fixed day of week",
    fewer printed calendars, quarters of equal length) have become
    insignificant through technological advances (electronic
    bookkeeping and calendars, wrist watches and cell phones giving
    the date).

>  ..................  Of course, as long as the world continues to be
>  dominated by Western powers (historically responsible for the worlwide
>  dissemination of the Gregorian Calendar, or more precisely, its imposition
>  upon those societies and cultures which those powers were able to dominate
>  by means of superior technology and a ruthless mindset) this will not happen,
>  or at least, not globally.

    So let's wait with calendar reform at least until that domination
    ends :-)! Anyway, calendrical science is concerned with the
    description and analysis of time-keeping systems, not with the
    promotion or derogation of specific calendars.

>  Michael said:
>
>  >  I can understand that Wikipedia imposes strict formal criteria on
>  >  those articles that many people want to edit.
>
>  The question I raised was whether those "strict formal criteria" are
>  being misused by one particular WP editor (Philip Kendall, 'pak21')
>  via (a) taking advantage of the lack of (though not complete absence of)
>  scientific journals publishing calendrical research to classify such
>  research as "original" and thus outside WP's pale and (b) misinterpreting
>  WP policies so as to exclude not just articles on such research but also
>  any mention of, or references to, such research, so as to pursue an agenda
>  of his own, namely, purging WP of any mention of recent work in the field
>  of calendrical science.  If he is, then his spurious arguments for
>  elimination of such mention should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.

    I cannot comment on the actions of specific editors of wikipedia
    -- but I can understand that an editor has to insist on a proof for
    each factual assertion. An editor usually cannot have first-hand
    knowledge of the topic at hand, so the easiest way for him is to
    require a reliable quote for each asserted fact.

    As a fictitious example, if I would add to a wikipedia article on
    a mathematical subject an assertion that follows from well-known
    facts only by some reasoning (alas, I can't add such things!), then
    I probably could convince the editors in the discussion page that
    the assertion is correct: the editors will be mathematicians. An
    editor of a general knowledge article, however, would hardly be
    convinced. I do not even think that this is unfair -- I consider
    the editor as a kind of generic reader. If I cannot convince my
    editor, then my readers won't believe me either. This is
    independent on whether I am right or wrong.

    Michael Deckers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

Tom Peters-6
Op 13-mrt-2010, om 18:08 heeft Michael Deckers het volgende geschreven:

>    I cannot comment on the actions of specific editors of wikipedia
>    -- but I can understand that an editor has to insist on a proof for
>    each factual assertion. An editor usually cannot have first-hand
>    knowledge of the topic at hand, so the easiest way for him is to
>    require a reliable quote for each asserted fact.
>
>    As a fictitious example, if I would add to a wikipedia article on
>    a mathematical subject an assertion that follows from well-known
>    facts only by some reasoning (alas, I can't add such things!), then
>    I probably could convince the editors in the discussion page that
>    the assertion is correct: the editors will be mathematicians. An
>    editor of a general knowledge article, however, would hardly be
>    convinced. I do not even think that this is unfair -- I consider
>    the editor as a kind of generic reader. If I cannot convince my
>    editor, then my readers won't believe me either. This is
>    independent on whether I am right or wrong.

Not a discussion that we should have here, but I like to briefly make  
this point:
   An encyclopedia is written by people who know things for people  
who do not know things.  Moreover it is a digest of existing  
"original" literature.  So it is futile to require that each and  
every factoid and number can be literally recovered through  
references to original literature - then Wikipedia should exist of a  
long list of literal quotes and references and no original text at  
all.  Checks on validity should be done by people who can understand  
the original literature and repeat the digest process - i.e. peer  
review.  It is a stupid requirement that just anyone without any  
knowledge of the subject should be able to assess the validity.  
Reviews must be done by the competent, not the incompetent.
   I see this as yet another example of the stupidity of the crowds,  
where any opinion, however unfounded or misguided, is equally valued  
as the opinion of people who actually studied the subject and can  
make a case with proper arguments.  Even in non-political, technical  
lemmata as ours, I'm so tired of repeatedly mopping up the waste.  I  
see Wikipedia articles erode all the time, where people misunderstand  
the text or the subject matter and give it a twist in the wrong  
direction.

--
Tom Peters
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH RE: Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia

Brij Bhushan Vij
In reply to this post by michael.deckers
Michael, Peter sirs:
>> This may look as if publication in scientific journals was the
> exception rather than the rule for calendrical work.
This may apper 'off track', sir! Norms & traditions of 'scientific research' lay restrictions, perhaps rightly so, on individual researchers in the absence of allotment and/or utilisation of funds released by 'controllers of funding' in channel procedures. Often it becomes torturous for 'independent researching' that gets biased due to lack of resources. There is a need for 'early detection of progressive ideas' and granting some allowance/guidance so even a 'silly thought' meets some justice before being SHUNNED OFF.
 
>> > For the reform of the Gregorian calendar, no pressing need
> > nor pressure group can be seen.
I think in portals of education, there are groups engaged in 'review of submitted documentation' before being shredded/disposed off as waste. If not, perhaps such documents be passed to 'liberary for a periodical upkeep' before final disposal. I do hope this must be already in procedure.
I write this because I had to get over these, creating and maintaining some sort of back up against the will of my 'kith & kin'. Often the original research gets drowned in the ocean of 'sorrowful compromise'.
 
>> I agree that there is no need for reform of the Gregorian Calendar.
> What's needed is its complete elimination and its replacement by
> a better calendar. ...............................................
It may be individual opinion that an honoured man's name that reigned for genrations - be totatally eliminated. As far calendar work that has undergone a 'continued change' for as long as man found a place on Earth, passge of time count and maintaing a track for accuracy and  IMPROVEMENT, remained an unfulfilled dream. NEED FOR BETTER OPTIONS is always welcome and men of history rightly wrote their names, to be remembered and lived among their coming generations. Pope Gregory XIII is one such name that need be remembered. The improved date writing/time count and its flow past need recording with advancement in technology & skills - like the Standard ISO 8601:2000 or its update. The better version of Descending Order Date Format need be standardised for International dating & documentation - may be with dual standards i.e. (1) Regional or National and (2) International.
It has been already over 400-years of research/reform that need be updated and corrected. Older norms need be reviewed/improved and replaced. These can be shelved for record keeping, is my opinion sir.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij

(MJD 55270)/1726+D-085W12-01 (G. Monday, 2010 March 15H12:89 (decimal) EST
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Author had NO interaction with The World Calendar Association
except via Media & Organisations to who I contributed for A
Possible World Calendar, since 1971.
My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548


 

> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:08:59 +0000

> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Scientific journals on calendrics? and Wikipedia
> To: [hidden email]
>
> On 2010-03-13 06:28, Peter Meyer wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Michael Deckers for citing a couple of scientific journals
> > known to have published articles in the area of calendrics which are
> > of historical or astronomical interest, namely, (i) Notes and Records of
> > the Royal Society of London and (ii) Quarterly Journal of the Royal
> > Astronomical Society.
>
> This may look as if publication in scientific journals was the
> exception rather than the rule for calendrical work. You might
> for instance browse through the excellent bibliography by
> Robert van Gent on calendrical matters related with Easter at
> [http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/easter/easter_text6a.htm]
> in order to see that this is not the case.
>
> > Michael said:
> >
> > > For the reform of the Gregorian calendar, no pressing need
> > > nor pressure group can be seen.
> >
> > I agree that there is no need for reform of the Gregorian Calendar.
> > What's needed is its complete elimination and its replacement by
> > a better calendar. ...............................................
>
> I cannot see any such need expressed by the general population, nor
> by the majority of experts in chronology, commerce, or information
> exchange. And as for a "better calendar": if one looks at the
> calendar reform movement in the 20th century, one can only wonder
> how fast the then perceived advantages (eg, "fixed day of week",
> fewer printed calendars, quarters of equal length) have become
> insignificant through technological advances (electronic
> bookkeeping and calendars, wrist watches and cell phones giving
> the date).
>
> > .................. Of course, as long as the world continues to be
> > dominated by Western powers (historically responsible for the worlwide
> > dissemination of the Gregorian Calendar, or more precisely, its imposition
> > upon those societies and cultures which those powers were able to dominate
> > by means of superior technology and a ruthless mindset) this will not happen,
> > or at least, not globally.
>
> So let's wait with calendar reform at least until that domination
> ends :-)! Anyway, calendrical science is concerned with the
> description and analysis of time-keeping systems, not with the
> promotion or derogation of specific calendars.
>
> > Michael said:
> >
> > > I can understand that Wikipedia imposes strict formal criteria on
> > > those articles that many people want to edit.
> >
> > The question I raised was whether those "strict formal criteria" are
> > being misused by one particular WP editor (Philip Kendall, 'pak21')
> > via (a) taking advantage of the lack of (though not complete absence of)
> > scientific journals publishing calendrical research to classify such
> > research as "original" and thus outside WP's pale and (b) misinterpreting
> > WP policies so as to exclude not just articles on such research but also
> > any mention of, or references to, such research, so as to pursue an agenda
> > of his own, namely, purging WP of any mention of recent work in the field
> > of calendrical science. If he is, then his spurious arguments for
> > elimination of such mention should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.
>
> I cannot comment on the actions of specific editors of wikipedia
> -- but I can understand that an editor has to insist on a proof for
> each factual assertion. An editor usually cannot have first-hand
> knowledge of the topic at hand, so the easiest way for him is to
> require a reliable quote for each asserted fact.
>
> As a fictitious example, if I would add to a wikipedia article on
> a mathematical subject an assertion that follows from well-known
> facts only by some reasoning (alas, I can't add such things!), then
> I probably could convince the editors in the discussion page that
> the assertion is correct: the editors will be mathematicians. An
> editor of a general knowledge article, however, would hardly be
> convinced. I do not even think that this is unfair -- I consider
> the editor as a kind of generic reader. If I cannot convince my
> editor, then my readers won't believe me either. This is
> independent on whether I am right or wrong.
>
> Michael Deckers.


Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lighter Later

John Dalziel
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer-3
A new campaign to extend DST in the UK.
http://www.lighterlater.org/


John Dalziel
crashposition.com  |   computus.org  |  flashmagazine.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lighter Later

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC
Dear Calendar People

I remember in 1968, we in the UK had DST (GMT+1) all year round, but the
idea was rejected in 1971, because it made the mornings too dark in the
winter, especially in Scotland (which is surprisingly far west as well
as north).

I've read on Wikipedia, that the Scottish parliament is not allowed to
legislate on time.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_United_Kingdom 
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Time .

Portugal has used Central European Time in 1966-1976 and 1992-1996
according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Time .

Karl

11(02(15

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Dalziel
Sent: 30 March 2010 13:36
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Lighter Later

A new campaign to extend DST in the UK.
http://www.lighterlater.org/


John Dalziel
crashposition.com  |   computus.org  |  flashmagazine.com
--
Scanned by iCritical.