Talk:Millennium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start Date of the millennium

It would improve this article if the reason for stating that millennia start on Years 1001, 2001, 3001, etc. could be spelled out - i.e. the authority for such a statement should be made plain. This authority should be internationally-recognised.

If one was to take the recent millennium celebrations as the most recent statement of the world consensus - these were mostly celebrated at midnight on December 31 1999 / January 1 2000, which contradicts this article. The 3rd millennium article contains the year 2000 and states that the millennium started on 2001.

I believe there are two schools of thought on this issue, and we should either state our authorities or else present both arguments as a matter on NPOV.

For myself, I understood the reason for this was that the years were commonly treated as ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc) when the counting started, but that by recent times these years were treated as cardinal numbers (1998, 1999, 2000). Ian Cairns 10:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it. As far as I can see, what you want is already given in the article, so what is it you want to add? Aliter 22:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The letter by Darian Hiles currently cited is inadequate to support the claim that "most historians agree that Dionysius nominated Christ's birth as December 25 of the year before AD." This is just a letter; there is no evidence that it underwent peer review or that Darian Hiles is an authority on what most historians believe. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph citing Darian Hiles. Having found an internet copy of the letter, I saw that the letter doesn't even claim that most historians believe that Dionysius placed the Nativity in 1 BC, nor does the letter state any qualifications possessed by Mr. Hiles. The paragraph also contained an unsupported claim that the birth year of Christ was too holy to mention, and implied that the Great Jubilee observed by the Roman Catholic Church was to avoid having to mention AD 2000, and would allow "Great Jubilee" to be used as a euphemism for AD 2000. While there was a jubilee, there is not the slightest verification that it was instituted to provide a euphemism for AD 2000. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Names for longer periods of time

Please fill in this blank:

10^1 years: decade 10^2 years: century 10^3 years: millennium 10^6 years: __________ 10^9 years: eon

66.245.126.251 16:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent reversion of edits

I added a second table and some additional text to ensure the fairness of both viewpoints in this article, and avoid POV. I am happy to discuss this, but a simple rv and insertion of 'sex' into the article doesn't bring the discussion any further forward. Ian Cairns 03:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood your rv. It looks as though I had moved the article during your consideration. Ian Cairns 14:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

         100 years = century
       1,000 years = millennium
   1,000,000 years = megennium  (I coined this. Couldn't find any
                                 word for "million years")

1,000,000,000 years = eon Compact Oxford English Dictionary

                           http://www.askoxford.com/
                           concise_oed/aeon?view=uk def #3 --
                           "astronomy & geology -- a unit of time
                            equal to a thousand million years".

Submitted by [User=Timothy S Carr, Ph.D. carrfamily@mindspring.com]

Counting years

I've added an early section on the issues of counting years as ordinals vs cardinals. I believe I've done this in a NPOV manner - but would welcome comments. Thanks, Ian Cairns 14:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Topic

This article doesn't seem to focus much on Millennium. Instead, for the most part it appears to be about the starting point of the Common Era, and the starting points of time units within it that follow from this. Aliter 16:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A thousand whats?!

Somewhere around 1999 I read that the misspelling millenium (one n) for millennium (two ns) was particularly unfortunate for the following reason. Millennium has two ns because it comes from the Latin annus, meaning year. Spelled with one n, the reference would be to the Latin anus, one of whose meanings is quite similar to the English.

I suspect, however, that the Romans never had any particular use for a word meaning one thousand assholes, and for this reason the word millenium is not attested in the literature. Clearly, this proves that the Vandals were not really as bad as Wikipedia vandals, who form a millenium indeed. --FOo 09:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless my Latin isn't as good as it could be, I think you might mean 'Anulus' which just means ring. Such a perverted mind...--Arkracer 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, really: Latin ānus can mean "ring", but can also mean "anus". Of course, the derived words ānulāris, ānulārius, ānulus (which is confusingly also spelt ānnulus do indeed have meanings pertaining to "ring". Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Link for community review

I removed this self-link on grounds of WP:COI and WP:SPAM (seeUser talk:Jan Z). What's the general consensus for/against its inclusion? Tearlach 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Millennium Mistake

The link to my website http://www.millenniummistake.net is a very old one, and it is not known to me who added it. It is no self-link. You (Tearlach) removed without any reason a link which was added by an other editor several years ago. So it is reasonable to apologize and to redeem your mistake by restoring the link in question. Moreover, it certainly compensates for the two remaining, quite biased, external links. Jan Z 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is altogether free from prejudice. Just for that reason, let us try to get clarity. The first millennium (AD) consists of the (thousand) years 1 up to and including 1000, the first millennium BC (before Christ) consists of the (thousand) years 1 BC down to and including 1000 BC; these two millennia are separated from each other by a moment zero, i.c. the moment zero of our era (the term era within the meaning of a coherent system of numbered calendar years). Our era (since the year 1582 in combination with the Gregorian calendar the most widespread dating system on earth) is no other one than the one introduced by Dionysius Exiguus (about the year 500) and promoted by Beda Venerabilis (about the year 700); never some authority or government did away with this era or substituted this era for another. These simply verifiable facts, including the fact that a year zero is lacking in our era (this important fact is the key to the solution of the millennium question), are expounded succinctly in my sextilingual website Millennium, for English languaged people accessible by entrance Millennium Question. But an argumented answer to the question why our era has no year zero, which answer ultimately rests on the simple fact that the counting of years is not different from the counting of any other kind of things, can be found in my English language website Millennium Mistake. As long as no argumented answer to that essential question can be found in the English language Wikipedia article Millennium itself a hyperlink from the article to my website Millennium Mistake (MM) is not superfluous. So my fellow editors, specially Tearlach and RJASE1, are kindly requested to consider to support such a hyperlink, which has the added advantage that, for the sake of the wikipedic neutral point of view, it certainly will compensate for the two remaining, quite biased, external links. Of course the description "the definitive solution of the millennium question" on the homepage of MM is quite an ironic one, but I realize now that "a definitive solution of the millennium question" looks much better. It was and is my intention to challenge open minds by clarifying that question by separating the relevant arguments from the irrelevant ones. It were critical pupils wanting (and having the right) to know all the ins and outs of the question who inspired me to get round to find out why 1-1-2000 could not be the first day of the third millennium. Jan Z 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jan Z is an advocate for a particular position. The website espouses that position, but is not particularly notable (Google=69 hits). Application of WP:COI seems like a no-brainer. I don't see any reason to include the link. Sorry, Jan, nothing personal. SheffieldSteel 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The material in the link supports a mathematical untenable position. In the terms of well researched examples including moment zero and years in the same set is like including fence posts and post-intervals in the 11-posts vs 10-intervals fence problem. Jclerman 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, it is equivalent to the erroneous mixing of some elements counted with origin 1 and others with origin 0. BTW, it would be time to clarify these aspects vs the confusion of different points of view approach. Mathematically and logically the sets must contain homogeneous elements. Jclerman 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out. It's a poorly-written, self-published webpage. Maybe the website lost something in the translation, but it seems to be saying "There is no year zero," but using tens of thousands of words to do so. I don't think it's a useful website, even it doesn't violate any guidelines. Andyparkerson 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to link to a self-published website unless the publisher is particularly notable or the site is particularly useful. This doesn't meet those criteria. CMummert · talk 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am here at the invitation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology. Based on the fact that the owner of the website says he did not put the link in, I do not think the link should be removed on conflict of interest or spam grounds. Now that it was removed on COI and SPAM grounds, there is a COI in the website owner bringing and/or responding to this RFC. However, as others have noted, there may have been other good reasons to remove the link in the first place (quality, notability, etc.). ImprobabilityDrive 03:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth mentioning here when the Pope celebrated the new Millennium? December 31 2000, St Peter's Basilica, Prayer Vigil for the passage to the new millennium

Not to beat a dead horse, but I agree with the statements above that this is not a well-known website and there is no justification for linking to it; the fact that you wrote a long article on the subject does not make you an expert in the field, it is simply an advocacy for a particular position that isn't based in any real research (it doesn't appear to me that any sources are cited). You may be a mathematician, but this is hardly a mathematical question being raised in this article. Metsfanmax (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I had to remove this external link (Millenium Mistake) again from the article. If you'll note above, the only two people that have advocated for the link to be kept are the website's owner and user ImprobabilityDrive, whose user page has been marked with a warning that the account is a sock puppet. Anyway, this external website is neither reputable nor very helpful for this article, so I am all for the "remove" side of this argument. Wikidsoup _[talk] 07:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lost Year 0?

The article states:
"Most historians agree that Dionysius nominated Christ's birth as 25th December of the year before AD 1 (ref History Today June 1999 p60 Letters, Darian Hiles: "Of Dates and Decimals"). This corresponded with the belief that the birth year itself was considered too holy to mention. Similarly in AD 1000 the church actively discouraged any mention of that year and in modern times it labelled AD 2000 as the "Jubilee Year 2000" marking the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. Year 0 has always been there, it just didn't have a name in the AD system. Thus the unnamed year 0 marked the start of the first Christian millennium, 1000 the second and 2000 the third."

First: i dont see a source supporting this view.
Second: Does it suggest that the "year 0" have been sneakly deleted from history (and everything whithin) or that year 0 (or year before AD 1) was actually year BC 1? Is it valid to say that "year 0 has always been there"?
It doesnt really matter which year Christ was born (since the dates are quite arbitrary anyways). What is important is the point of epoch that was agreeed upon. Isnt it 1st of January 1AD? Misiu mp 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want a year zero this would be the second millennium. 0 - 999 0, 1000 to 1999 1, 2000 2999 2. People refer to this being the third millennium so it began 1 1 2001 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)~

Actually, there was no year zero as, I believe, during the time of Dionysius and prior, zero as a digit was non-existent (note there is no Roman Numeral 0), nor did the people at the time have a concept of negative numbers. When Dionysius and Bede worked on what has now become our Gregorian Calendar, they used the numbering/counting conventions of the time, thus December 31, 1 BC is followed by January 1, AD 1.

What popular culture was celebrating

"Although popular culture generally observed the start of the 21st century and 3rd millennium on January 1, 2000, the start of the 20th century was generally observed on January 1, 1901 (newspapers dated January 1, 1900 generally make little mention of the change of digit)."

My experience was that most were celebrating the start of the 'two thousands' millennium and the 'twenty-hundreds' century and people incorrectly celebrating the start of the 3rd millennium and 21st century was the exception and not what was 'generally' being observed.

This seems more like someone making some false assumptions about what people were celebrating if they didn't specify.

EvanS (156.142.34.42 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

In Times Square, perhaps the most famous New Year's Eve celebration spot, December 31,1999 was HUGE, while December 31, 2000 was a typical New Year's celebration. Now, to climb into the minds of all those people on 12/31/1999 to ask "What is it you are celebrating?" is not possible. But as so many official events and private parties had the word "Millennium" in them, to say nothing of the media coverage, I suspect that the majority of people would have considered 12/31/99 the dawn of a new millennium, without any qualifiers or explanations.

For decades prior, I anticipated 1/1/2001 as the start of the next millennium. But as 1/1/2000 approached, it was clear to me that this date was generally being accepted as the start of the next millennium. Yes, news stories and such would pop up here and there explaining the differences between 1/1/00 and 1/1/01. But the weight of media coverage, along with official celebrations, corporate events, advertisements, product tie-ins, and so on, put forth in the public consciousness that 1/1/2000 was the start of the next millennium. If we were able to question all those 12/31/99 revelers, party-goers, and people just watching at home, how many would have said "I believe the 'real' millennium starts 1/1/01"? Who knows, but I wonder if it matters anymore, as the giant celebrations occurred on 12/31/99, sort of a fait accompli.

Nyctc7 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it matters for two reasons:

• for comparison to the celebrations of 1900/1901
• as a footnote for future generations (2100/2101, 3000/3001, cf. The Long Now)
• and I think this rationale should be included in the article

d<3vid seaward | Talk 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By saying "I wonder if it matters anymore," I didn't mean the information should be deleted. Sorry if I left that impression. I agree it should stay. The comparision betweeen 1900/1901 and 2000/2001 is an interesting one.

What I was responding to was the idea of what "popular culture was celebrating" vs. the technical questions surrounding "The Millennium." What EvanS seems to be suggesting is that on 12/31/99 the majority of people were celebrating the calendar turning over to 2000 (what he calls 'two thousands' millennium and the 'twenty-hundreds' century) and so understood that it really wasn't the beginning of the 3rd millennium. But does this lead to the false assumptions that EvanS is rightly concerned about? Who really knows what the majority of people thought? I certainly don't. But it is indisputable that the giant worldwide celebrations occurred on 12/31/99--1/1/2000. And that is the stuff that popular culture is made of.

Nyctc7 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense in this article?

Parts of this (too long) article seem to be superfluous, confusing, and even nonsense. Especially the chapter 'Viewpoint 2' seems unsubstantiated. It is a well-known fact that there is no year zero in our calendar, and that the year 1 AD is preceded by the year -1. So the claim "Year 0 has always been there, it just didn't have a name in the AD system." is obviously untenable. A clean-up of this article seems desirable! Paul kuiper NL 01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be condensed to a few sentences. a) The AD/BC scales are defined with counting origin 1. b)Thus the millennia end in years numbered with multiples of 1000. c) Some prefer to begin the millennia with such multiples, thus they introduce one year before AD 1, which they call Year 0. This results in the first millennium being one Gregorian year shorter, i.e., it is 999 long (and the first decade, only 9 years long. And this is nonsense). Jclerman 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is slightly better now, but still very unsatisfactory. An encyclopedia should bring clarification, not confusion. I agree that 'a millennium of 999 years' is sheer nonsense. But any mentioning of a 'year 0' is equally nonsensical. It is just a fact that there is no 'year 0' in our calendar. (It wouldn't even be possible because when our calendar was conceived in the 6th century, the number zero did not yet exist, the Roman figures do not have a figure 0!). I think any mentioning of a 'year 0' should just be deleted here. Furthermore, the whole section 'Commentary', already marked as 'Trivia', and therefore 'discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines' should be removed here. Paul kuiper NL 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

let's take the plunge

I suggest you copy the whole article to a sandbox page. Then you plunge into it and cut and recast as you believe it should be. Then I'll plunge into it and cut or add things. Since you carry the name of a famous astronomer, you have the priority. If you prefer a more private sandbox, we can use a Google Document that can be accessed by both. Then we can do the same with the Year 0 article. But beware of a few strange things: people are fascinated by 0, 13, and pi. A famous paleontologist-evolutionist believed in the Year 0 and argued about it so much that Scientific American decreed the existence of a Year 0 that had been hidden [I cancelled my subscription]. A famous paleoclimatologist-paleontologist invented the Holocene Calendar. In an article in Nature he showed that he couldn't do arithmetic across the AD/BC boundary. Then a famous paleoclimatologist-glaciologist replied with incorrect dates and theologies. Jclerman 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And the 13th Floor is not missing from some elevators and airplane seats. It's always there, but it's labeled 14 or Exit or something else. Jclerman 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain or delete

The article says:

Arthur C. Clarke gave this analogy (from a statement received by Reuters):

"If the scale on your grocer's weighing machine began at 1 instead of 0, would you be happy when he claimed he'd sold you 10 kg of tea?" This statement illustrates the common confusion about the calendar.

Explain how it illustrates anything related to any calendar. The scale is not counting items in a set. Notice that Clarke's movie is titled 2001 rather than 2000. And, by the way, Gould found himself in a paradox after stating in his not terse web article DDDD that the little monk should have begun counting with zero. Gould's paradox was that he had misplaced a box with 5 marbles. When he found it, he counted: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. He couldn't understand how there were 4 and not 5 marbles in his box. Did I loose a marble? he wondered... The illustration should be explained. Otherwise the paragraph should be deleted. Jclerman (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seinfeld episode "The Millennium"

Perhaps the single most frequently asked question on the IMDB message board for "Seinfeld" asks what Jerry meant when he told Newman his (Newman's) millennium party would be one year late. People have theorized that the script was wrong and/or that Jerry misspoke.

So perhaps it is for the best that the bullet-point entry under "Commentary" has been edited down to one line. I present two arguments to show that there are alternative explanations for Jerry's remarks, and thus perhaps it is for the best that the entry in the article only reflects the single line of dialogue "since there was no year zero, the millennium doesn't begin until the year 2001."

I

Newman believed the millennium to commence 1/1/2000, as he told Kramer: "...he's out of my life, starting in the year 2000. For me, the next millennium must be, Jerry-free!" (furthermore, it was established that Kramer's millennium party is 12/31/99, and Kramer becomes upset upon learning Newman's party is on the same date)

If, when Newman made a "millennium new year" reservation, the hotel booked it for 12/31/2000 instead of 12/31/1999, his HOTEL RESERVATION will be 1 year late, as the date on the invitations (and thus the party) is for 12/31/1999.

So the party is scheduled for 12/31/1999, but the hotel reservation will be late...so the people attending the party will find themselves without a place...

II

We learn earlier in the show that Newman made the reservation way back in 1978:

"I started planning this in 1978. I put a deposit down on that revolving restaurant that overlooks Times Square, and I booked Christopher Cross."

Newman believes the millennium commences 1/1/2000, as he states:

"...he's out of my life, starting in the year 2000. For me, the next millennium must be, Jerry-free!" (furthermore, it was established that Kramer's millennium party is 12/31/99, and Kramer becomes upset upon learning Newman's party is on the same date)

At the end of the show this exchange takes place:

Jerry: By the way Newman, I'm just curious. When you booked the hotel, did you book it for the Millennium New Year?

Newman: As a matter of fact, I did.

Jerry: Oh, that's interesting, because as everyone knows, since there was no year zero, the millennium doesn't begin until the year 2001, which would make your party one year late, and thus, quite lame.

COMMENT: Back in 1978, when Newman made the reservation, the hoopla over 2000 had not yet begun, so a reservation for "The Millenium New Year" would have been made for 12/31/2000, not 12/31/1999, as we learn from Jerry that the millennium commences 1/1/2001. But by telling Newman his party will be "one year late, and thus quite lame" Jerry acknowledges that popular culture has decreed the start of the millennium as 1/1/2000, even though Jerry knows it is not. A party on the actual millennium is one year late and lame, as huge, worldwide celebrations are being prepared for 12/31/1999. Or perhaps Jerry's "one year late" remark was simply to annoy Newman by showing him that his reservation doesn't match his expectations. He certainly did not congratulate Newman for having the correct date of 12/31/2000, nor did Jerry chastize Kramer for having the wrong date of 12/31/99.

However, I do think that the explanation above about the reservation, not the party, being one year late, is a good one, is perfectly logical, only hindered by the fact that Jerry did say "which would make your party one year late," and Jerry never told Kramer that his party of 12/31/99 was on the wrong date.

Nyctc7 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The principal problem with your analysis is that it is yours, that is, it is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If you can find this analysis published by a reliable source (blogs are not reliable sources) then it can be in the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. As far as I know, Jerry, Larry David, or anyone else connected with the episode has not commented on this. They did not comment on it on the DVD bonus materials. Until they do I suppose it will be disputed and guessed at.

Nyctc7 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

QUESTIONS (??????????????)

WHAT IS A MILLENIUM ABOUT? why is it so interesting? what do scientists find in a millenium or learning about it??

so how many years are there exactly in a millenium? can somebody please explain that in a understandable way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.146.220 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1000 years.bob bobato (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A.D. to C.E.

I believe that usage of A.D. should be changed into the modern C.E. to remove religious affliation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.199.196 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 September 2009

This has been a contentious issue on Wikipedia for many years. The current rule at WP:ERA is "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." — Joe Kress (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the C.E. calendar this whole business is completely irrelevant--168.122.163.6 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Band

There is a Band called Millenium why do you redirect to Millennium ? EichertC (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's covered in the hatnote as per WP:NAME Jim.henderson (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation?

What is the most common abbreviation for "millennium"? -- 95.208.230.48 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish I knew. It could be possible to use Ky for kiloyear. 169.151.51.53 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparent 666 vandalism corrected.

This apparent vandalism-inspiring number appeared instead of the required 1000. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"encountered back"

What the heck is this supposed to mean?:

In 1999, Toho encountered back with another Godzilla film known as Godzilla 2000.

I say "what is this supposed to mean" rather than "what does this mean" because it doesn't mean a thing: it's gibberish. It's also not very pertinent, so I'm taking it out. -- Thnidu (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

ring

s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.56.222 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question

I don't want to fight, but why is Jan 1 2001 the first day of the 3rd millennium? I've read encyclopedias, and found nothing said or happened in January AD 1, it doesn't exist. I've also looked deeper by googling Jan AD 1, and found zero results of quotes said or events, happened until September so technically there is no year 0 AND no Jan - Aug AD 1, so Jan - Aug 2001 was technically still in the 2nd millennium. September 1 2001 was the real beginning of the 3rd millennium.

I do agree 2000 is in the 2nd millennium, but until I get a quote said or something happened in January AD 1, it's wrong to say Jan 1 2001 is the beginning of the 3rd millennium, I've looked up the year 2 and found some results, year 1 until September.

Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

It is wrong not to say that the 3rd millennium began on January first. Every culture which has 365/366-day years now has the year beginning on January 1. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

But it is wrong because I googled what happened in january of year 1, and founded no results. Dionysius might have started year 1 later, than jan 1. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

You are pushing the limits of WP:AGF and any edits based on this "reasoning" may result in pursuing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Viewpoint 1: the weighing machine analogy

@ User:Khajidha I am responding here to your recent undoing of my edit of March 16. It appears that one of us has misunderstood Arthur C. Clarke's use of the weighing machine analogy. You appear to believe that it was Clarke's own analogy, and that he was using it to argue in favour of 31/12/1999 as the end of the millennium. I think you are mistaken on both counts.

It is stated that the analogy was taken "(from a statement received by Reuters)" which I understand to mean that Clarke had seen it mentioned in a communication by Reuters and had selected it as an example of, as he saw it, the misunderstanding of the calendar which results in people mistakenly arguing for a 31/12/1999 "end of the millennium" date. And I took it that the original editor had mentioned Clarke's use of that analogy because they had understood from his book 3001: The Final Odyssey that Clarke favoured 31/12/x000 as the end of a millennium, as was mentioned in the section which you have now deleted. My edit attempted to make this clearer. User:Jclerman had previously (see "Explain or delete" above) queried the inclusion and usefulness of this section of text, and requested that the use of the analogy should be explained.

However, if the analogy had been intended to have the meaning which you have now attributed to it, critical of Viewpoint 1, the following paragraph would have completely contradicted it, which I presume is why you have also deleted that. As I see it, the overall result is that your last two edits have completely and erroneously reversed the previous meaning of that section of text below the diagram. Blurryman (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

First off, it WAS Clarke's own analogy. See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1999/01/09/2001-writer-disputes-millenniums-turn/dab269b4-7274-4892-a2f3-2946ba32be07/?utm_term=.6acae3fc5308 Second, as you said, Clarke favored the 2000/2001 transition point. Which is why he made the analogy in the first place. If your grocer weighs your goods on a scale that starts at one and then charges you for 10 kilograms, you would actually only receive 9 kilograms. Similarly, if the calendar starts with year one, and the second millennium is said to start with the year 1000, then there would only have been 999 years in the first millennium. Third, I am not citing it as critical of viewpoint 1, I am citing it as critical of viewpoint 2 and supportive of viewpoint 1. Clarke's entire point was that the '99-'00 transition was flawed. The entire paragraph needs to be further rewritten to clarify that this is Clarke's own illustration and that it is supportive of the '00-'01 transition. It probably belongs in the section currently named "Popular approach", which really needs to be renamed. --Khajidha (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source for Clarke's use of the analogy. It would have been helpful if this had originally been cited in the article. Having read that, I have to concede that I was the one who was mistaken and you were correct on both counts. Please accept my apologies.

However, knowing that, I have to say that I do not think this analogy was a good choice by Clarke, because it appeared to me - and still appears - to be suggesting that the calendar starting with 'Year 1' is as 'crooked' as the 'crooked' weighing machine starting at 1. That is why in my post I wanted to emphasize that both a normal weighing machine and the calendar actually start at a 'point zero'. I again refer to the comment by User:Jclerman who also did not like the use of this analogy.

I have seen that you have already removed the whole of this section of the article pro tem, and I would be quite happy to leave it that way, because the key information about "Viewpoint 1" is that above the diagram. Indeed, I don't think any kind of mathematical analogy would be helpful here, because "Viewpoint 2" does not appeal to mathematical principles: it is all about all those zeroes. Blurryman (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no objection to the material staying out of the article. It is basically redundant and obviously open to misinterpretation. The relevant section of century is much simpler and more like what is here now. I had the advantage of having actually read the Clarke piece, I didn't really notice that it wasn't sourced when I came across it here as I already knew the original.--Khajidha (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The page needs an almost complete rewrite, it currently seems disorganized and repetitive.--Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Counting millennia

Lets discuss counting millennia (using sources) and the best way to describe/illustrate it.---- Work permit (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How?????? 41.90.65.222 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above? for a related discussion.---- Work permit (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, a reference from SciAmer [1]. Usage on wikipedia can be seen, for example, at 3rd millennium In contemporary history, the third millennium of the anno Domini or Common Era in the Gregorian calendar is the current millennium spanning the years 2001 to 3000 (21st to 30th centuries).[1] It differs from the millennium of the 2000s, which spans the years 2000 to 2999.. ---- Work permit (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. WildEric19 (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)WildEric19

The Century page is good because it (still) includes a table comparing the objective formal notation with subjective popular perception. It seems that the argument some advocate on this issue is that if enough newspapers and politicians generate hype beyond some threshold that the 3rd millennium began at the start of the year 2000 then it becomes 'de facto'. I don't agree with this. I see newspapers and politicians totally confused about the difference between the web and the Internet despite the many differences being clearly laid out and explained online (such as in Wikipedia). If the former argument were valid, then we Wikipedians would merge the articles for the worldwide web and the Internet into one and refer to them as being the same phenomenon because the media promote such conflation and want it to be popular perception. But we don't. We keep the articles distinct because the phenomena themselves are discrete. Thus it doesn't matter if in the 1900s, a few overenthusiastic celebrants focussed on January 1900 and were mocked for it while the majority recognised January 1901; and it doesn't matter if in the 2000s, large crowds of overenthusiastic celebrants focussed on January 2000 while academia recognised 2001; and in the future it won't matter when the overenthusiastic celebrants focus on 2097 while the grognards hold out until 2101. This isn't a case of prescriptivist vs descriptivist. The article can record (1) the formal nature and bounds of millennia (2) historical justification for same (3) vulgar perception over time, particularly including the year 2000 and the Millennium Year 2000 problem, (4) sub-headings clearly delineating each of these segments for efficient navigation and scanning(!) and (5) a visual comparison such as the one appearing on Century to efficiently represent the salient points of the text. That is, to be encyclopedic about representing accurately what this phenomenon is and what people have done about it. At the moment the article's bulk is one undue section about the year 2000 without substructure and that makes it as undigestible as this paragraph. Visual layout partitioning the logical aspects of the topic will provide much-needed clarity. 49.180.156.206 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)