Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Links to redirects are acceptable

Two editors think that a link to Marcheshvan is inappropriate, because the acknowledged common name is Cheshvan. They quote WP:COMMONNAME. That policy/guideline tells us what the name of that article should be. How we link to it in this article is a completely different question. See WP:NOTBROKEN, which says that links to working redirects are completely acceptable, and they should not be "fixed" just because.

If people want to change the redirect here, any change should be based on discussing what the best name should be here in this article. WP:COMMONNAME is completely irrelevant, and requests about what we put on this page should be talked about on some other article are silly beyond belief. Choor monster (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN only tells us that the fact that a link goes to a redirect is not in itself enough reason to change it. In this case the reason to change the link is that the common name is Cheshvan. That also happens to be the reason why Marcheshvan is a redirect to Cheshvan and not the other way around.

Whatever the reason, WP:NOTBROKEN is surely not a reason to use a redirect instead of the article name!

You are edit warring. Let me warn you. Do not revert again without obtaining prior and clear consensus, or you will be reported for edit warring. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You stated in your edit summary here that your justification was to bypass the redirect. NOTBROKEN says that is not a valid reason whatsoever, and I pointed this out. No one said NOTBROKEN justifies a link to a redirect. It simply says we don't really care in this article what the COMMONNAME is over there, period, and your mentioning it in your edit summary was simply clueless. We choose the link to the redirect or not based on what's appropriate for this article. You and the other editors have yet to state a reason relevant to this article why we should link to Cheshvan instead of Marcheshvan.

I am working with the clear and prior consensus. It has been Marcheshvan until this slow motion edit war began 5 days ago. If you or some other editor thinks this page should be changed to link to Cheshvan instead of Marcheshvan, then you need to obtain consensus, not waltz in and claim your changes are the consensus. See WP:BRD for a highly recommended way to proceed. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken in reverting you, because in fact the status quo ante here was for this table to say "Marcheshvan", not "Cheshvan". I apologize.

That having been said, I am going to try to establish a consensus here: I believe that the WP:COMMONNAME is Cheshvan, and this table should use that terminology, not Marcheshvan, which is pretty much never used except in formal synagogue settings. (For the record, in my opinion, linking to a redirect has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I'm staking this out directly on WP:COMMONNAME.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BRD conflict, obviously WP:BRD must make way, since it is only a procedural rule, while WP:COMMONNAME is about the essentials. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the spelling is "Marcheshvan" throughout the article. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• To repeat this nonsense about COMMONNAME yet again is pure incompetence. COMMONNAME is about what title to give an article. Nothing more, nothing less. We are not having, and never will have, a discussion based on COMMONNAME, because COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the contents of any article.
• One may like the philosophy behind COMMONNAME and wish to apply it to other WP issues, however, that has the status of mere opinion, nothing more. And a mere opinion is certainly not grounds for single-handedly ignoring BRD and edit-warring against the established consensus.
• The consensus before July 10 was Marcheshvan. Those editors how did a (-3) change in their edits removed the "Mar", those who did a (+3) put it back. OK? Now you've self-reverted, so I'll wait awhile to see what you're holding by. Choor monster (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's move on here ... Let's discuss consensus.

At this point, @Choor monster, you're lawyering. I will concede for the record:

• The status quo ante was "Marcheshvan". So in my opinion, we need to hold there until/unless a different consensus emerges.
• WP:COMMONNAME strictly speaking applies to article names, not body text. (I looked it up.) So we can potentially use it as a directional concept, not as a hard-and-fast rule that takes priority over anything else.

That having been said:

• "Cheshvan" is the version that is found in practically all printed calendars, and Israeli media sites, etc. The notable and outstanding exception to this rule is in the detailed ritual calendars (Luach dinim u'minhagim) that print details of religious observance, which are more divided. (The Heichal Shlomo printed calendar uses "Marcheshvan". Ezras Torah and Myzmanim.com use "Cheshvan".)
• I realize that the following is OR and is not from a reliable source, but: do you know anyone who regularly calls this month "Marcheshvan" except when they are reciting the blessing for the month or printing wedding/bar-bat mitzvah invitations? I don't.

  Similarly, if you ask people if they know the name for that month, everyone (who knows the name at all) will recognize "Cheshvan". Not everyone will recognize "Marcheshvan".

• The wikidata item (d:Q643051) shows 29 Wikipedia articles on the subject, of which I can make out the alphabet on 27 of them. 25 of the 27 use "Cheshvan". A recent random tour that I made of articles on the Hebrew calendar suggested that Cheshvan was the primary name cited nearly always, with Marcheshvan as an alternative/predecessor.

I just rebuilt a stub article on the Hebrew calendar at la:Calendarium Hebraicum. There I got consensus to choose Cheshvan first, and Marcheshvan as an alternate, even though most classical Latin sources use Marchesuan. But: I included both names there, and I think we should include both names here. I'd put Cheshvan first, but I'm not willing to fight over that. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I am not lawyering whatsoever. I have been objecting to those misquoting/ignoring policy/guidelines. In particular, COMMONNAME is never applied outside of the issue of article titles: some kind of policy/guideline is essential for article titles since article titles are essentially a one-shot, and very rarely changed. Within an article, the appropriate policy/guidelines are more broad-minded.
  • So long as we're all clear that you are applying the spirit of COMMONNAME here, that's fine.
  • I don't have strong feelings if it's with or without Mar-. I honestly don't know which I've seen more often in English. However, I believe the article should have an overall consistency. I also don't find the usage in the other articles too relevant. Because this is the page on the calendar itself, I favor using the correct name of the month, consistently so, and let other pages be more informal for what I presume are typically one-off usages.
  • We can't really draw conclusions from the title name choice at Cheshvan. That was the name given by whoever first created the page way back when, nothing more. There was one attempt at a renaming, with no one contributing evidence or even an opinion either way. The move did not happen because of "no consensus".
  • As we discussed on my talk page, the Latin wiki has its own guidelines, and any consensus there is irrelevant here (and vice versa). Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, agreed that WP:COMMONNAME is only an inspiration for this discussion, not a hard rule we have to comply with.

I also agree there has to be consistency, and I hadn't noticed before that this article uses "Marchashvan" throughout, and that was definitely my mistake.

After these two things have been cleared up, let's indeed go forward:

I just typed "Cheshvan" in my Google and then "Marcheshvan". The results is 340,000:29,200, less than 10:1. I think that is a conclusive argument to use Cheshvan here as well. Debresser (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Note that English spellings vary a bit, as usual. "Kh", "Ch", "H" and "Ḥ" are used, and sometimes it's a "-ban" instead of "-van". In my summary below of what I found in various sources, I am ignoring these variations, and use a single English spelling which may or may not be the same as the original, but the "Mar-" part is accurate. Those that had Hebrew and English were internally consistent.

1. Ezras Torah Luach (English) 5774: Cheshvan.
2. Spier/Mandelbaum, Comprehensive Hebrew Calendar, front-matter and calendars: Cheshvan.
3. Encyclopedia Brittanica (Calendar entry, Macropedia): Cheshvan.
4. Rambam Hilchos Kiddush ha-Chodesh (Moznaim bilingual): Marcheshvan.
5. Bushnick, Understanding the Jewish Calendar: Marcheshvan.
6. Feldman, Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy: Marcheshvan.

I also checked my daily zmanim calendar (those ubiquitous—at least in most Orthodox circles—computer-generated complete lists of a dozen or so daily zmanim for a specific lat/long for a given Hebrew year, one month per page, landscape) and it listed "Cheshvan", except on the front page where it summarizes the overall features of the year, including how many days "Marcheshvan" has.

I also checked several traditional Hebrew sources. Tur, O.C. 428, for example, has Marcheshvan. The one surprise was Sefer ha-Ibbur (R. Avraham bar Chaya), which listed "Cheshvan". This was in a table spelling out the 19-year cycle, so it may have reflected space considerations.

And I checked several siddurim, wondering whether any name the months as part of Birchas ha-Chodesh. Not even Artscroll named them, but the new "Annotated" Chabad siddur did list the months in Hebrew. It was "mar-cheshvan", with a hyphen! That made me laugh. Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I was asking him about an "a" where the segol goes. (I think we're all sticking with -ch- for ח and -v- for ו, at least for now.) And you wouldn't be able (necessarily) to go by a siddur if it named the months at that spot, because everyone agrees you should use the name "Marcheshvan" there. (Topically, you are also supposed to say "Menachem Av" there.)

I suspect that the result we are seeing—and the one I frankly expected to see—goes like this:

• About a 50-50 split in written sources
• Marcheshvan used more in older, academic/halachic and formal settings
• Cheshvan used more in newer, everyday and less formal settings

(It does look like someone went in and find-replaced them all at some point, doesn't it? I say that because just before the month table, you get the very odd wording "... Marcheshvan (חשוון) ..."!) So where do we go from here? Based on the concept (not rule) of COMMONNAME, I think we should generally be using Cheshvan. We unquestionably need to cover the duality of names at first appearance, one way or the other. So I propose as follows:

1. First appearance in section 1.2.2: Change both appearances to "Cheshvan". On the first appearance, either:
   • Append "(or Marcheshvan)", with a link to the table in the next section, or
   • Footnote stating (More formally, Marcheshvan.)
2. Table at 1.3: "Marcheshvan" (or Cheshvan)", with the link on the shorter name that is the actual name of the article.
3. Table at 1.3.2: No change. (This table is actually {{JewishCalendar}}.)
4. Astrology lists at 1.3.3 and 1.3.4: I don't care. Take your pick.
5. All others—all body text, especially in places where there is a lot of technical discussion, like in sections 1.3.2 and 1.4.6-1.4.7—"Cheshvan"

That's my proposal, anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My comment at the beginning was referring to the fact that the English sources I looked up did not all have the spelling "Cheshvan" as such, but all sorts of variant transliterations, and it is of course pointless to try and keep track of those differences in this discussion. I noticed what your reply to Debresser meant.

I very weakly support the status quo, borderline indifferent. In general, on WP we strive for writing that strikes a balance between informal and formal, ease of reading and correctness. I think that this article is about the calendar counts as a nudge towards greater precision regarding calendar-specific material, while COMMONNAME-the-spirit takes precedence in all non-calendar related articles.

Perhaps better would be to have a project-wide RFC on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, with options including project-wide consistency versus recommended rules for deciding. Because of WP:CONLEVEL, we cannot make exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME so far as article titles themselves are concerned, but we can agree on recommended styling rules within articles to our hearts' content. Of course, since pretty much only two articles are affected (this and Cheshvan) it might be supremely silly to bother. Choor monster (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

These two articles are the most greatly affected, that's for sure. As one marker, I searched within this Wikipedia (spaces: Main, Template, Wikipedia, Help, but not their talk spaces) and got 89 hits on Cheshvan, but only 16 on Marcheshvan. So does that represent a measure of consensus? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. Separate articles tend to have their own default consensus, whatever happened to get there first. But I'll note what we have now seems to accord with my favored resolution: "Marcheshvan" when that extra bit of pickiness is actually relevant, otherwise, don't be ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've had enough of this. I don't really care enough, we only have three people here discussing this, and 2-1 is not enough to establish a consensus.

• I really think that the table in 1.3 needs to say "Marcheshvan (or Cheshvan)". Put the hyperlink on whichever (or both) you want to, I don't care. But the article must really give the short name somewhere. And the table at 1.3.2 is not sufficient; it's a technical table, and many people will skip it. The table at 1.3 is the "go-to" list of month names, and it needs to have both. I pretty much insist on that.

Beyond that, I'm going to make one other proposal. If you can live with it, @Choor monster, fine. If not, I'm not going to argue the point further, and you can keep Marcheshvan throughout the article.

• I'd like to change the body text in the technical sections of 1.4.6-1.4.7, where it keeps going "Marcheshvan ... Marcheshvan ... Marcheshvan ..." to "Cheshvan".
• Just before the table at 1.3.2, that one sentence should read, "Hebrew names and romanized transliteration may somewhat differ, as they do for Marcheshvan/Cheshvan (חשוון) or Kislev (כסלו): the Hebrew words shown here are those commonly indicated, for example, in newspapers.

Otherwise, leave it alone, already. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there is a 2:1 consensus, and on such articles as this, which are not much watched, that is all you can expect. In addition, all the good arguments point to the same conclusion. After all, it is the arguments that count, not just the vote. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There are currently 42 watchers of this page who have recently checked out changes to this Talk page. I'd like to here more opinion and/or a new argument. If you want to close right away based on what you've seen so far, I'd rather have an outsider make the call. You are right, it's not a vote, but once we got past the misapplications of WP policy/guidelines, all the arguments have been good. It's good to write with precision and exactitude, it's also good to write with simple, familiar clarity. And it's good to keep in mind context. At the moment I believe Steven has offered a good balance. Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I did some further research. These are all based on discussion about Bereshis 7:11, referring to the downpour beginning in the "second month", and the dispute over which month this is.

1. The Midrash Says, parshah Noach: Cheshvan.
2. The Stone Chumash (ArtScroll), parshah Noach: Marcheshvan.
3. Rashi on parsha Noach (I believe this is from the old bilingual edition, pre-ArtScroll/Metsudah) [1]: Marcheshvan.
4. Mesechta Rosh Hashana 11b-12a (ArtScroll): Mostly Marchesvan. The Hebrew has Mar-, the running English commentary and footnotes keep the Mar-, but there are two tables, one a timetable of the Flood, which uses Mar-, and one a chart of the months and their Zodiacal signs, which has "Cheshvan". A bit odd, my guess is that chart was cut-and-paste into place. Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I too would be happy to implement Steven's suggestion. Let me post on WT:JUDAISM and see if some other editors can be made to give their opinions. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Well, we've sure had a flurry of interest the last two weeks. Not. I imagine we can go ahead along these lines. I'll try to get to this next week. שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No offense to Debresser, re Google counting, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that guideline. But it is allowed to use Googlehits as an indication, especially in cases where the ratio is as decisive as in this case (10:1). Debresser (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, we already have a solution lined up, it doesn't especially rely on Google hits, and I'm going to implement it sometime today (US Eastern). StevenJ81 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

More on Cheshvan vs. Marcheshvan

This discussion was initiated by an IP sockpuppet of a banned user, and as such, his concerns are irrelevant.

I've read through the discussion. I see no reason to change my view expressed at User talk:StevenJ81#Marcheshvan that "Cheshvan" is an abbreviation, not a name. You said that yourself on my talk page. You also said yourself on 16 July that there was no consensus to use abbreviations in an article listing the names of the months. As for Gregorian months, May is never abbreviated. The frequency of abbreviation of the others is roughly proportional to their lengths (in letters, not days). Marcheshvan is abbreviated not because its name has been changed (if that had happened the Chief Rabbi would have notified everyone) but because in some situations (e.g. small tables) it is inconveniently long. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics has "Marcheshvan". The Book of Calendars by Frank Parise, New York 1982 has "Marheshvan". A pocket diary for 1955 issued by the Children's Welfare Committee, London has "Marcheshvan" in Jewish letters. Whitaker's Almanac has "Marcheshvan". Cassell's Popular Biblical Educator, London 1855 alternates between "Marcheshvan" and "Marchesvan". A Dictionary of the Bible, (ed. James Hastings), Edinburgh 1904, vol. 4 p. 765 says "Marcheshvan ... Dillman and Stade see in the Bab. name of this month a relic of the oldest method of counting the months by numbers and not by names." Vol. 3 p. 243 notes "MARCHESHVAN ... Mish. Taanith, i.3,4; ... Jos. Ant. I.iii.3)." The Works of Flavius Josephus tr. William Whiston, London 1849 renders this passage as 3. This calamity happened in the six hundredth year of Noah's government [age], in the second month, called by the Macedonians Dius, but by the Hebrews Marchesuan; for so did they order their year in Egypt; but Moses appointed that Nisan, which is the same with Xanthicus, should be the first month for their festivals, because he brought them out of Egypt in that month: so that this month began the year as to all the solemnities they observed to the honour of God, although he preserved the original order of the months as to selling and buying, and other ordinary affairs. The Bible Hand - Book, Joseph Angus, London 1854 has "Marchesvan" on p. 270. Ancient Israel, Roland de Vaux, London 1980 has "Marheshwan" on p. 186. A Companion to the Bible, T W Manson, Edinburgh 1950 has "Marcheshwan" on p. 490. I would normally wait before reverting, however already people are claiming that the rushed revision is stable. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry you missed the previous discussion. It was accepted by everybody that Marcheshvan is the correct name and that Cheshvan is a much more common informal usage. As such, you are not telling us anything new, just providing more sources. Just as some editors were originally mistaken here in believing that COMMONNAME means we must always use the common term, you are just as mistaken in thinking that there is some guideline CORRECTNAME that we're supposed to apply. There isn't, so you're arguing for no purpose whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC) In addition, I am not sure that Cheshvan is an abbreviation. Do you have any sources for that? The way I understand it, is that "Marcheshvan" is "Mar"+"Cheshvan", where the "Mar" part is optional. I would be personally interested to know if this is true. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @86.134.217.6, why do you care that much? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Debresser: you have it backwards. Marcheshvan has always been the name of the month. I supplied numerous references above, the anon has added more. Cheshvan is a later shortening. The idea that we say "Mar" + "Cheshvan" because (whatever) is a later invention. StevenJ81: let's not go there? I doubt it will be productive. The anon can have his POV for whatever reason he wants, but what's important is that we proceed according to WP's policies and guidelines. Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) You're right of course, but we've told this user in several places how we came to the decision, and this user nevertheless decides to revert. I was curious. But never mind. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC) FYI, this is not the first time that certain London area IP editors have advocated and made these sort of changes at this article. See: By this IP - Special:Contributions/86.134.217.6: 10:00, 2015 August 4' [2] Undid revision 674508528 by 86.134.217.6 (talk) I looked there before I made my edit, and I looked there again now, and I do not see what you are referring to. 12:07, 2015 August 3 [3] didn't know you were planning this. There is no inkling of it in the history. Restoring stable version. There is no consensus for change. Replacing the name of a month by an abbreviation is stupid. It's "September", not "Sep." By London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change: 09:21, 2015 July 14 [4] Article says "Marcheshvan, sometimes shortened to Cheshvan". The Jewish Yearbook has "Marcheshvan". 11:58, 2015 July 10 [5] Rv unexplained change JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Do you want to take this up at SPI? If not, I will. Choor monster (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC) IP user was just blocked for a week. See User talk:86.134.217.6. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @NeilN: How do you feel about semi-protecting this page for a few days? (Alternatively, you can pending-changes protect; I am a reviewer.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @StevenJ81: If Vote X comes back yet again, I'll protect. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Formal" speech is "correct" speech

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A message on my talk page led me to Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays in which it is opined that the template is using a colloquial name for the eighth month as opposed to its formal name. The formal name is presumably correct - if you are given the name "Solomon" you wouldn't expect to see "Solly" on your passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate or driving licence. To give another example, this morning I was on Caledonian Road, which is a thoroughfare in north London. This is popularly known as "The Cally" or "Cally Road", but when it's written down, on street signs, in directories, in letterheads, as a postal address, in fact everywhere, it's "Caledonian Road N 1".

It seems to me unarguable that the name of the eighth month is Marcheshvan, but if someone has an argument that it isn't I'm prepared to listen. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I could simply refer you to WP:COMMON NAME. The idea is that a formal name is not always the name an article will be at, if the less formal name is in wide use, especially when that wide use includes official use, like in this case.

Also, this is actually more like a case of two official names, of which one is a little longer than the other, perhaps like "Yeshaya" and "Yeshayahu". Debresser (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, about three thousand years ago the Jews adopted the Babylonian calendar, in which the name of the eighth month was arach - samna. By a process of linguistic change this morphed into "Marcheshvan". You're now suggesting that the month was given a second official name, "Cheshvan". I would like to ask you

• who gave it that name (for example the Sanhedrin/Beth Din keep records of all their decisions)
• when did they do it?
• why did they do it?

I would have thought it highly unlikely that anyone would give a month two official names because it's a recipe for confusion. I'm not aware of any month in any calendar which has had this done. Actual practice seems to be the reverse. For example, during or after the Second World War the Turkish government dropped the Roman names of some of the months and replaced them with Turkish ones. Everyone stopped using the old names. They didn't run them in parallel. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheshvan is in official use on calendars, Israeli government publications and elsewhere. We don't need more than that. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser and NeilN: I'm highly suspicious that this is another sock of the one who has been periodically causing trouble here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So what does that prove? Consider the common calendar. In informal speech it's common to abbreviate, for example "I start work in Jan.", or "She's coming in Feb." Nobody is making any claim that these abbreviations are the actual names of the months. They are seen frequently on calendars, but in ordinary written English the use of such abbreviations would be considered slovenly. Some abbreviations may not be considered bad style - for example the initials "BBC" are generally written in place of the cumbersome "British Broadcasting Corporation", but where the names of the months are being listed on a template it is correct to give the name and not the abbreviation. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are no more comments I'll add the name of the eighth month to the template. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no more comments. Everything has been said that needs to be said. Specifically, and just to make sure you understand what precisely has been said, there are two other editors here, both highly experienced on Wikipedia and knowledgeable in the field of Judaism, who have expressed their disagreement with you. That means that any edit along the lines you propose is against consensus, both as implied on the article as it is de facto and on the talkpage. Since we are fed up with obstinate editors who think they can ignore the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, called Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of which WP:CONSENSUS is be one of the foremost, any edit like that will not only be reverted, but will likely result in a proposal to revoke your editing privileges. Did I make things clear now? Debresser (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Very clear. That's why you are repeatedly taken to ANI for disruptive/intimidating/aggressive editing. I doubt the knowledgeability of the editors you mention who appear to be unaware that the head of the months is Nisan, not Tishri. Issuing threats as a substitute for discussion usually means that there is no case to be made. Specifically, an abbreviation, however frequently used, is not a name. Example:

Hart-Davis, Adam (2011). The Book of Time. London. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-84533-561-8. On 1 Jan 1972, GMT was officially replaced by Coordinated Universal Time, which is maintained by a collection of 260 atomic clocks in 49 places around the world.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

If you can't grasp this simple fact then it appears that an RfC is the only option. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not that I can't grasp that fact. It is that I (and present consensus) disagree with you. I hope you can understand the difference between these two things. Please note that Rfc doesn't exist for lone editors who disagree with a consensus to waist the precious time of their fellow editors, but it is your right to open one.

As far as poisoning the well with a mention of WP:ANI in regards to my person, please notice that in all three recent cases the story was the same: somebody came along and decided present consensus was not to their liking and started editing against the consensus. I stopped them, and no WP:ANI discussion has proven me wrong yet. That's why two of the three discussions were closed within a few hours, and the third too, eventually. All of them without any action against my person. If you get the impression that means that I probably something right, think about what that means for you, should you decide to edit war about this. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a link between people being hostile and being disingenuous? I have just been alerted to a message by StevenJ81 on my talk page. He claims that there was a discussion in which it was decided that the months should be listed from Tishri. There was no link, and this was flatly contradicted by his earlier post on the template talk page in which he said there was no discussion and the list had simply started with Tishri for a long time. I did investigate this before I edited - I found no discussion then and I find no discussion now.

I also get threats from Debresser who is also disingenuous. He now says there is a consensus that Cheshvan is not an abbreviation for Marcheshvan. What was actually said was this:

• Debresser: you have it backwards. Marcheshvan has always been the name of the month. I supplied numerous references above, the anon has added more. Cheshvan is a later shortening. The idea that we say "Mar" + "Cheshvan" because (whatever) is a later invention.

- Choor monster 14:07, 4 August 2015.

StevenJ81 offered no opinion so I make that a 2-1 consensus against your claim, which I note is entirely unsourced. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

StevenJ81 did not offer an opinion because he assumes the anon is a sock of a banned user. If that is the case, the anon's opinion doesn't even count.

However, for the record, Cheshvan passes the test of WP:COMMONNAME. Period. Pretty much nobody calls it Marcheshvan unless they're writing a formal document or blessing the upcoming month. (If you do, you're a very unusual person.) Yes, Marcheshvan is the correct, formal name—even Debresser knows that—but I will not support the use of Marcheshvan in this setting, based on WP:COMMONNAME.

(And yes, I know that WP:COMMONNAME only applies explicitly to article titles. Just don't go there. I do not support the use of Marcheshvan in this setting.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Cheshvan, per WP:COMMONNAME, as exemplified by Google hits about 10 to 1. I tend to agree now that this IP user is a sock, because otherwise why would he raise the Cheshvan issue, which was solved a while ago after a long discussion on this very same talkpage? Debresser (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the first month of the year is Tishrei, while the first of the months is Nisan. This is old news, see archived post 1, archived post 2 and archived post 3. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

To dispose of this point, all the sources say that the year numbering changes on the first day of the seventh month. In the same way the New Year for Trees is (I believe) 15 Shevat, so that's the first month of the agricultural year (presumably). In Britain, until the eighteenth century, New Year's Day was 25 March. The Romans had a multiplicity of new years, but the months were always displayed January to December, (as they have been since). The only sane way to list the months is with the first at the beginning and the twelfth at the end. This is in line with the Bible (Exodus 2 is the reference I believe). A small group of anonymous Wikipedia editors (happy fifteenth birthday, Wikipedia!) can do many things, but I was not aware that changing Divine ordinance was one of them. The links display the disingenuity, because they say nothing of a discussion on where to begin the list of months on the template.

On the other point, what do we have? StevenJ81 correctly points out that WP:COMMONNAME is only relevant to article titles, which is right and proper, because otherwise policy would require us to report that the public service broadcasting organisation is chartered in the name of "The B B C", instead of "The British Broadcasting Corporation". What is fatal to his argument (and that of Debresser, which is identical) is that they provide no reasoning other than citing this irrelevant policy. The consensus is assessed on argument, so the closer will discount these !votes. In contrast, the reason for my !vote is that this is supposed to be an informative encyclopaedia. A member of the public may come across the word "Marcheshvan", may turn to the template to see if it is one of the Jewish months, see it is not listed and conclude (wrongly) that it is not one.

Google hits are misleading. There are 788 million for "B B C" and a mere 20 million for "British Broadcasting Corporation", but to argue from that that the name of the corporation is "The B B C" would be a grave error. Similarly, many calendars refer to JAN, FEB, MAR etc., which will be translated into Google hits, but nobody suggests that we should go about referring to the months by their first syllable.

Choor monster said:

I am working with the clear and prior consensus. It has been Marcheshvan until this slow motion edit war began 5 days ago. If you or some other editor thinks this page should be changed to link to Cheshvan instead of Marcheshvan, then you need to obtain consensus, not waltz in and claim your changes are the consensus. See WP:BRD for a highly recommended way to proceed. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

So it's easy to see what side of the fence he is on. Also there is a local consensus for "Marcheshvan" - see Flourdustedhazzn (14:59, 20 July 2008) and @Jfr26: (14:56, 3 November 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.168.63 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody please back up and tell me what we're arguing about here? Seriously?

We came to a consensus in August and implemented it. Most cases remain Marcheshvan. The principal table says "Marcheshvan (or Cheshvan)", because regardless of what 79.78.168.63 says, a lot of people (most people, probably) call it "Cheshvan", so that principal table needs to say so somewhere. In the technical sections (such as Hebrew calendar#Deficient, regular, and complete years) we changed these to Cheshvan because the constant repetition of Marcheshvan was tedious.

And as far as the template goes, it's designed to help people navigate, not to be a definitive statement in and of itself. Most people think of Tishrei as first, and most people use the name Cheshvan, so the template is designed in that way.

As far as I can see, 79.78.168.63 is wasting all of our time with pedantic drivel. 79, if it will make you feel any better, I will be happy to concede that you are formally correct. OK? Happy? But nevertheless there is absolutely no reason to change either the article or the template now. So get off this and leave us alone already. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we cut out the personal attacks? Leaving out the weasel word "formally" the version which Debresser reverted is admitted to be the correct one. Furthermore, it was stable throughout 2015 (I didn't look any further back) until an IP with no history and no previous discussion changed it. During this discussion Debresser and StevenJ81 have had ample opportunity to advance reasons why the incorrect version should be retained. Obviously they aren't going to do that, and the best they can come up with is there is absolutely no reason to change either the article or the template now. So why the mad scramble to stuff Wikipedia with incorrect information? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this again.

1. You say that Marcheshvan is correct. So it is. You say that Cheshvan is incorrect. There, you're wrong. (Let me repeat: You. Are. Wrong.) They are both correct, and are both used, in various types of settings.
2. Given the above, please answer my question: What, specifically and exactly, do you wish to change? Why? What is bothering you so much about this, really?

Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We have now established that "Cheshvan" is a correct abbreviation for "Marcheshvan". "Sep" is a correct (if ugly) abbreviation for "September". It is used all over the place, and Wikipedia is no exception: Computus#Week table:Julian and Gregorian calendars. If you look at the article, you will see that the names of the months are written out in full. This is especially important in a table listing the names of the months, because there a representation is being made that what is in the table is the name of the month, not an abbreviation. The "frequency of use" argument is a red herring. In Britain since decimalisation the penny is universally referred to as a "p". In the article it is nowhere described as a "p", except where it is described how the denomination is shown on price tickets, e.g. "2 1/2 p". 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Cheshvan is not an abbreviation. It is an alternative name. Maybe it was once perceived as an abbreviation. That is not relevant any more. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "omnibus" was devised by George Shillibeer to describe the passenger - carrying vehicle he introduced about 1829 - it was abbreviated, as so many words are (for example, "postie" for postman). The abbreviation was "'bus" (note the apostrophe). Last century there was the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company (the "Midland Red") but the word has now fallen completely out of use and nobody writes bus with an apostrophe any more.

Another nineteenth - century invention was the telephone, often shortened to "'phone" (note the apostrophe) and again the apostrophe has fallen out of fashion but the two words co - exist and anybody who claimed that "phone" was not an abbreviation of "telephone" would not be taken seriously. It's the same with Marcheshvan and Cheshvan. You're entitled to your view, of course, but you're not entitled to foist it on Wikipedia unless you can cite a reliable source. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Still no source for your claim that "Cheshvan" is not an abbreviation of Marcheshvan. And since you're arguing on my talk page please do not twist my words.

You say that Cheshvan is incorrect
— User:StevenJ81 21:32, 15 January 2016.

No I didn't. I said it was a familiar abbreviation. And since you can't tell the difference between a name and an abbreviation we may need an RfC here. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking up HighInBC's invitation to continue the discussion here, the matter is settled. The consensus arrived at was that the name of this month is Bul (no jokes, please) but as far as Marcheshvan/Cheshvan goes, it's "Marcheshvan". 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

79, may I ask why in the h--- this is so important to you to change? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That question should not be addressed to me. The stable version of the article used "Marcheshvan" throughout, but then last summer Debresser came along and edit warred to change it to Cheshvan. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I nevertheless address you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your premise is mistaken. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, Debresser gained consensus for his change. You then edit-warred without attaining consensus. But since I'm sure we will never agree about that, I want to put that question aside.

Instead, I will point out that you are entirely in error when you continue to describe "Cheshvan" as an abbreviation. I'm sure that it is easier for you to think of it that way, as a parallel to the Sept./September sort of issue or even the p/penny issue. But the truth is that if "Cheshvan" is anything, it is a short name or nickname, not an abbreviation. I am not aware of any language that treats "Cheshvan" the way it treats an abbreviation, while I am aware of many languages that treat "Cheshvan" as a name in its own right, albeit perhaps as a nickname or short name.

Now, while we don't ordinarily see the concept of a nickname in the world of calendars, we certainly do see it in many other places. Elsewhere, I've brought the example of Rhode Island, and with respect to personal names, this is quite common. We do not insist on naming articles after William Jefferson Clinton or Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.—or even just plain William Clinton and Albert Gore—because their short names—Bill Clinton and Al Gore—are the names by which they are known.

So, too, in this case. Hebrew calendars for general use nearly always call the month "Cheshvan". People talking about Hebrew dates nearly always call the month "Cheshvan". Just about the only time "Marcheshvan" is used is in academic or religious-academic literature, or in formal settings like reciting the announcement of a new month in synagogue. (Hey, by the way, at risk of creating more headaches for myself, do I see you looking to replace "Av" with "Menachem Av"? Just wondering.) And since most people looking at things like this on Wikipedia have heard of "Cheshvan", but have not necessarily heard of "Marcheshvan", that makes "Cheshvan" a much more useful name here.

Over the course of time, Debresser and I have worked to create compromises on this issue, and to leave the name "Marcheshvan" far more often than we actually think is appropriate here. And most others who have happened by seem to have found that a satisfactory approach. You are the only one who is not willing to meet anyone else partway. And frankly, in the Wikipedia community, that makes you a troublesome contributor.

So do us a favor. Meet us partway here. We are all spending far too much time on this subject. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be a WP:SPA. You've done nothing else in the past month. Are you majoring in "Dimorphism in Calendar Month Names"? Let's just recap.

In the nineteenth century Alexander Graham Bell invented the "telephone". People found it convenient to shorten that to "phone". Nobody stood up and said 'Hey everyone, I'm going to invent a completely new name for this object. I'm going to call it a "phone"!' Nicknames are totally different, for example Mr Clarke may be nicknamed "Nobby". The words are completely distinct. You claim that "Rhode Island" is a nickname. Do you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about?

You are still attempting to apply WP:COMMONNAME to article content although policy forbids that for good reason. To take an example nearer home, Jimmy Donal Wales has the nickname "Jimbo". Practically everyone calls him that. Now turn to his article, Jimmy Wales. The nickname "Jimbo" is mentioned at the beginning but never again.

On your last point, if you explained the meaning of the word Menachem I might be in a position to comment. Wasn't there a prime minister called Menachem Begin? But please don't bother. You are just becoming tedious. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is you who obviously is a sock and a single-purpose account. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the title of the article is Marcheshvan, and that redirects are free, I think the article should be housed at Marcheshvan with a redirect from Cheshvan. Even if common people would type in cheshvan, they'd get to marcheshvan, from the redirect and learn that it's really marcheshvan, similar to an index in a paper encyclopedia where you look up cheshvan and it says, "see marcheshvan." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we need a RPM or just do it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, right now the title of the article is Cheshvan, and a redirect exists from Marcheshvan. I'd personally rather leave it that way. But if there is really consensus to go the other way, then by all means there should be a redirect from "Cheshvan." StevenJ81 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In any event, such a move needs to be discussed at Talk:Cheshvan, not here. Last time it was brought up there, there was no consensus to move. And regardless of what the body text ought to say, WP:COMMONNAME does apply to article titles, so Cheshvan is probably the correct title there. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.