This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to this article, the Rumi calendar "abandoned" the Julian calendar in AH 1333 = 1917 by dropping 13 days, which realigned its months to the Gregorian calendar. However, it also says that Ataturk "replaced" the reformed Rumi calendar by the Gregorian calendar at the end of AH 1341 = 1925. It is clear that Ataturk replaced the Rumi era by the era of the Gregorian calendar. But was 1341/1925 the first time that Gregorian leap year rules were adopted, or were they already adopted as part of the reform of 1333/1917? My guess is the latter, but can someone who can understand the Turkish references cited confirm this? Thanks -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Your second reference, [8], cites an article which gives a French translation of the 1917 decree at Revue du monde musulman 43 (1921) p. 47. This clearly states that the Western calendar is being adopted, except for start of the year and the use of the Hijri year number. So the Gregorian months and leap year rules were adopted in 1917, but the numbers and the start of the year did not change until Ataturk's reform, whenever that took effect. The current article is wrong, and the SSA is right, about the start of the Rumi year after 1917. (I had assumed the opposite until now because the article cites Turkish sources which I supposed would be more reliable.) So I agree with your conclusion: it is fair to say that Turkey adopted a Gregorian calendar in 1917, in the same sense that the Rumi calendar was a Julian calendar. It remains now to confirm the effective date of the Ataturk decree. -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 22:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the article does say that the Julian calendar was "abandoned" in 1917, it's just unclear about whether it then became Gregorian or not. As to the Ataturk reform, I'm having the same trouble you are, apparently authoritative sources differ on whether the effective date of the 1925 reform was 1 January 1926 or 1927. I take your point about the practical issues favouring 1927, but 1926 seems to be the more frequently quoted date, and the SSA is a fairly authoritative source, since no doubt they actually have had to deal with it; and who knows how much advance publicity the change got before it was formally enacted? I'll keep on looking for a bit, but I'm tempted to go with 1926, citing the SSA, but footnoting that some sources (e.g. [9] p. 96) say 1927, and see whether anyone can come up with something better. -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 01:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, running some Turkish pages through Google translate seems to show that the law itself mandated 1 January 1926, but the very same pages talk about "since 1927". This page [10] contains what looks like a statement of the decree, but then immediately goes on to say that Muslims and Christians have used a common year since 1927. [11] and [12] are similar. Also this page [13] seems to be saying that the Rumi New Year was moved to 1 January in 1334/1918 after all, but by a separate law (no 615 passed in 1333/1917) than the law which dropped 13 days (no 2851 passed in 1332/1917). -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Would it be conceivable that the two numbers 30, explained with "purpose unclear" indicate the number of days in the current month, according to each calendar? There are also ٢٩ and ٣٠ in similar size for the two upper dates, with گون above them.
Also this calendar sheet contains numbers ٢٩ and ٣٠ (and "jr. 30", probably for jour), seemingly related to each calendar, again with گون preceeding each of them.
-- DirkHoffmann ( talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to this article, the Rumi calendar "abandoned" the Julian calendar in AH 1333 = 1917 by dropping 13 days, which realigned its months to the Gregorian calendar. However, it also says that Ataturk "replaced" the reformed Rumi calendar by the Gregorian calendar at the end of AH 1341 = 1925. It is clear that Ataturk replaced the Rumi era by the era of the Gregorian calendar. But was 1341/1925 the first time that Gregorian leap year rules were adopted, or were they already adopted as part of the reform of 1333/1917? My guess is the latter, but can someone who can understand the Turkish references cited confirm this? Thanks -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Your second reference, [8], cites an article which gives a French translation of the 1917 decree at Revue du monde musulman 43 (1921) p. 47. This clearly states that the Western calendar is being adopted, except for start of the year and the use of the Hijri year number. So the Gregorian months and leap year rules were adopted in 1917, but the numbers and the start of the year did not change until Ataturk's reform, whenever that took effect. The current article is wrong, and the SSA is right, about the start of the Rumi year after 1917. (I had assumed the opposite until now because the article cites Turkish sources which I supposed would be more reliable.) So I agree with your conclusion: it is fair to say that Turkey adopted a Gregorian calendar in 1917, in the same sense that the Rumi calendar was a Julian calendar. It remains now to confirm the effective date of the Ataturk decree. -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 22:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the article does say that the Julian calendar was "abandoned" in 1917, it's just unclear about whether it then became Gregorian or not. As to the Ataturk reform, I'm having the same trouble you are, apparently authoritative sources differ on whether the effective date of the 1925 reform was 1 January 1926 or 1927. I take your point about the practical issues favouring 1927, but 1926 seems to be the more frequently quoted date, and the SSA is a fairly authoritative source, since no doubt they actually have had to deal with it; and who knows how much advance publicity the change got before it was formally enacted? I'll keep on looking for a bit, but I'm tempted to go with 1926, citing the SSA, but footnoting that some sources (e.g. [9] p. 96) say 1927, and see whether anyone can come up with something better. -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 01:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, running some Turkish pages through Google translate seems to show that the law itself mandated 1 January 1926, but the very same pages talk about "since 1927". This page [10] contains what looks like a statement of the decree, but then immediately goes on to say that Muslims and Christians have used a common year since 1927. [11] and [12] are similar. Also this page [13] seems to be saying that the Rumi New Year was moved to 1 January in 1334/1918 after all, but by a separate law (no 615 passed in 1333/1917) than the law which dropped 13 days (no 2851 passed in 1332/1917). -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Would it be conceivable that the two numbers 30, explained with "purpose unclear" indicate the number of days in the current month, according to each calendar? There are also ٢٩ and ٣٠ in similar size for the two upper dates, with گون above them.
Also this calendar sheet contains numbers ٢٩ and ٣٠ (and "jr. 30", probably for jour), seemingly related to each calendar, again with گون preceeding each of them.
-- DirkHoffmann ( talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)