User talk:Jan Zu

Welcome!

Hello, Jan Zu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kleuske (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread change of "Easter" to "Paschal"

Please revert these undiscussed changes. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia or Old English Wikipedia. For further justification see WP:COMMONNAME. If these changes are not immediately reverted I will seek intervention by administrators. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, Jan Zu. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page undeclared, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. in the article Metonic cycle

In particular, the addition of the following source

Jan Zuidhoek (2019) Reconstructing Metonic 19-year Lunar Cycles (on the basis of NASA’s Six Millenium Catalog of Phases of the Moon): Zwolle (ISBN 9789090324678)

is a clear conflict of interest. In addition, since the citation does not provide enough information to locate the source, it must be considered unreliable until demonstrated otherwise, and constitutes a violation of the English Wikipedia verifiability policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jan Zu, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Jc3s5h (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Anatolius of Laodicea, you may be blocked from editing. DO NOT CITE SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES ESPECIALLY WHEN CITING THE SOURCE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi Jc3s5h One of his sources is not self-published, so it can stay. It is a valid source. (I am talking about the 2017 one, this is not self-published and edited=> Zuidhoek, Jan (2017). "The initial year of De ratione paschali and the relevance of its paschal dates". Late Antique Calendrical Thought and its Reception in the Early Middle Ages. Studia Traditionis Theologiae. 26. Brepols Publishers. pp. 71–93. doi:10.1484/M.STT-EB.5.114734. ISBN 978-2-503-57709-8.)Garnhami (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jc3s5h and Garnhami,

Here will follow my reconstruction of the dispute. My willingness to abandon the initial reference from the Wikipedia webpage “Metonic cycle” to my book, which reference was in fact the only cause to the conflict (because it is evident that the concept “Metonic 19-year lunar cycle”, always being a 19-year periodic sequence of dates of the Paschal full moon provided with a Metonic structure, has to do with the Metonic cycle and the Julian calendar as well, witness Dionysius Exiguus’ Easter table), may be shown from the sentences highlighed in bold. Note that Jc3s5h:

1) everywhere where in my argument I offer to withdraw the reference in question, he ignores this offer;

2) suddenly, without any warning, breaks off the discussion in order to go over to a so called “sockpuppet investigation”, even for me (80+) a new phenomenon.

I understand that I have to defend myself against some accusation. I trust that the following reconstruction of the dispute will be enough to demonstrate that no blame attaches to me.

Here follows my reconstruction of the dispute (subsequently Jan Zu 18 March 12:00, Jan Zu 19 March 3:21, Jc3s5h 19 March 14:12, Jan Zu 20 March 8:42, Jc3s5h 20 March 13:17, Jan Zu 20 March 20:39, Jc3s5h 20 March 22:24, Jan Zu 21 March 7:41, Jan Zu 21 March 9:51, Jan Zu 21 March 23:34, numbered I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X respectively).

I Dear Jc3s5h, for the moment I would like to restrict myself to only try to clarify ambiguities, for example: "The Metonic cycle is a 19-year lunisolar cycle. An important application of the Metonic cycle in the Julian calendar is the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle. Around AD 260 the Alexandrian computist Anatolius, who became bishop of Laodicea in AD 268, was the first to construct a version of this efficient computistical instrument for determining the date of Easter Sunday.". Sincerely, --Jan Zu (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

II Then I would like to contribute to this page without referring to my book (read it!). Agreed? Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (Jan Zuidhoek)

III Referring to the page by the rejected fork name Metonic 19-year lunar cycles rather than the long-standing name Metonic cycle is not a good sign. And no, I will not read the book. The low quality of your edits makes me feel sure the book is equally bad. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

IV Dear Jc3s5h, First of all: let us eliminate the cause of misunderstanding that the term ‘Metonic 19-year lunar cycle’ (being a lunar cycle, like the 8-year lunar cycle of bishop Dionysius of Alexandria) would be the same as the term ‘Metonic cycle’ (being a lunisolar cycle, like the Callippic cycle). Secondly: I am sorry, but all things I wrote in the page are supported by references to books like Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), Mosshammer (2008), and Zuidhoek (2019). I understand that you bother with the plain fact that Zuidhoek = Jan Zu. But this quesion is no real problem. After all, it is possible, of course, to reduce the required references to the first three out of four books. Don’t worry, I do not look after my own interests: Promoting my book is no more than promoting (the third century!) computist Anatolius. So, in order to fulfill my contribution to the Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle” I would like to create a new rather relevant (i.c. relevant in view of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table) subsection “Application in the Julian calendar” with references only to Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), and Mosshammer (2008), and (if you should so desire) without referring to Zuidhoek (2019). Please allow me to do that. Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (Jan Zu)

V The Julian calendar was created around half a century before Jesus of Nazareth was born, and nearly a century before his death. The article "Julian calendar" is about the solar calendar. The "months" in that calendar are only nominally lunar months and the Julian calendar does not contain any mechanism to align the months to actual cycles of the moon. The computation of Easter is covered in "Computus" and is a separate matter from the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

VI Dear Jc3s5h,

1) Why do you ignore the difference between the terms ‘Metonic cycle’ (also called ‘cycle of Meton’) and ‘Metonic 19-year lunar cycle’?

2) The first three sentences of your argument are completely beside the point. Concerning your last sentence: if we consider Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table (this is a table for the computation of Easter, see for example Declercq (2000) 197-200 or www.janzuidhoek.net/Recondiony.htm) then we see that all dates in the table of the computist Dionysius Exiguus are Julian calendar dates. Unbelievable that you think that computus and Julian calendar are separate matter. Paschal tables are characterized by their lunar cycles, lunar cycles are always (from Anatolius to Bede) periodic sequences of Alexandrian calendar or Julian calendar dates of the Paschal full moon. Both Anatolius and Dionysius Exiguus had (different) 19-year lunar cycles, which because of their common Metonic structure (being one of the most important applications of the cycle of Meton!), are called Metonic 19-year lunar cycles.

3) I conclude that you have no reasonable argument at all to restrain me from fulfilling my contribution to the Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”. Actually, I would like to create a new subsection “Application in the Julian calendar” with references to Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), and Mosshammer (2008), and (this is my concession) without referring to Zuidhoek (2019). Please allow me to do that.

Let us try to clarify the ambiguities instead of obscure the facts!

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

VII Since Jan Zu refuses to acknowledge the scope of the "Julian calendar" article and that the Metonic cycle is out of scope, I see no alternative but dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jan Zu. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

VIII Dear Jc3s5h,

I declare that:

1) my name is Jan Zuidhoek (born 20-8-1938) and I live in Zwolle (Netherlands);

2) I have no more than one Wikipedia account, which is named Jan Zu;

3) my book is [Jan Zuidhoek (2019) Reconstructing Metonic 19-year Lunar Cycles (on the basis of NASA’s Six Millenium Catalog of Phases of the Moon): Zwolle] and has ISBN 9789090324678;

4) its editor JZ is myself (which is legal in the Netherlands);

5) my peer is Daniel P. Mc Carthy, the author of [Daniel P. Mc Carthy & Aidan Breen (2003) The ante-Nicene Christian Pasch De ratione paschali (The Paschal tract of Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea): Dublin], which has ISBN 9781851826971;

6) if your accusation “Jan Zu refuses to acknowledge the scope of the "Julian calendar" article and that the Metonic cycle is out of scope” means that I do not acknowledge that the Metonic cycle has no application in the Julian calendar then you are right just because of the example of the fact of science that the dates of the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle being part of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table and of Bede’s Easter table are Julian calendar dates;

7) my only motive is to try to clarify ambiguities, witness my argument:

“Dear Jc3s5h,

1) Why do you ignore the difference between the terms ‘Metonic cycle’ (also called ‘cycle of Meton’) and ‘Metonic 19-year lunar cycle’?

2) The first three sentences of your argument are completely beside the point. Concerning your last sentence: if we consider Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table (this is a table for the computation of Easter, see for example Declercq (2000) 197-200 or www.janzuidhoek.net/Recondiony.htm) then we see that all dates in the table of the computist Dionysius Exiguus are Julian calendar dates. Unbelievable that you think that computus and Julian calendar are separate matter. Paschal tables are characterized by their lunar cycles, lunar cycles are always (from Anatolius to Bede) periodic sequences of Alexandrian calendar or Julian calendar dates of the Paschal full moon. Both Anatolius and Dionysius Exiguus had (different) 19-year lunar cycles, which because of their common Metonic structure (an application of the cycle of Meton!) are called Metonic 19-year lunar cycles.

3) I conclude that you have no reasonable argument at all to restrain me from fulfilling my contribution to the Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”. Actually, I would like to create a new subsection “Application in the Julian calendar” with references to Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), and Mosshammer (2008), and (this is my concession) without referring to Zuidhoek (2019). Please allow me to do that.

Let us try to clarify the ambiguities instead of obscure the facts!

Sincerely, Jan Zu”.

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

IX Dear Jc3s5h,

8) my colleagues (among others Mc Carthy, Ó Cróinín, Warntjes, Mosshammer, Holford-Strevens) know me also as the author of the article [Zuidhoek, J. (2017) “The initial year of De ratione paschali and the relevance of its paschal dates”, Studia Traditionis Theologiae 26: 71-93], to which my book is a sequel;

9) the cycle of Meton has not only applications in traditional calendars: As a matter of fact, its historically most important application in the Julian calendar is the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle being part of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table and of Beda Venerabilis’ Easter table) (DE and BV were great computists).

Let us try to clarify the ambiguities!

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

X Dear Jc3s5h,

I am sorry, but it is not the (not computistical) Metonic (19-year) cycle itself which can be considered to be “this efficient computistical instrument”, but the (computistical) Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, which is by definition an application of the Metonic cycle in the Julian or in the Alexandrian calendar. The Metonic cycle was discovered by Meton or by the Babylonians in the fifth century BC; Anatolius’ (Metonic) 19-year lunar cycle was invented by Anatolius around AD 260 (on the basis of the Metonic cycle). Use this (or ask an expert to use this) to improve the paragraph in question of your Wikipedia page, please.

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What now Jc3s5h?

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let us consider this series of edits which you made to Anatolius of Laodicea today, 23 March 2020 (UT). It asserted "Around AD 260 he invented the very first Metonic 19-year lunar cycle (not to be confused with the Metonic cycle, of which it is an application in the Julian calendar)." [Emphasis added.] The three sources cited are not freely available online. My local university library closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I have been searching online, and have not been able to find a clear definition of exactly what the Metonic cycle is.

Therefore, I would like you to define the two terms you are using, Metonic 19-year lunar cycle and Metonic cycle, in a way that the difference between the terms can be understood. Please support you definitions either with reliable free online sources written by others, or with short fair-use quotations from reliable sources written by others. (See Fair use and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jc3s5h,

First of all: from the beginning of the third century onwards computists tried to determine future dates of their Paschal Sunday by constructing so called lunar cycles being n-year periodic sequences of Alexandrian or Julian calendar dates of the Paschal full moon generating for each year a date of Easter (e.g. Paschal Sunday is the first Sunday after the Paschal full moon in Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table on www.janzuidhoek.net/Recondiony.htm).

My definitions of Metonic cycle and Metonic 19-year lunar cycle may be evident from a fragment of Zuidhoek (2019) 16-17:

“Although he was no astronomer, Anatolius realized the significance of the 19-year cycle of the Athenian astronomer Meton (fifth century BC), which means that in about 6940 days the sun and the moon return to the same relative position with respect to the earth, because 19 tropical solar years encompass according to Meton (taking the year to be the average length of the Julian calendar year) 19 × 365.25 = 6939.75 days, more precisely about 19 × 365.2422 ≈ 6939.60 days, while 235 synodic lunar months encompass according to Meton about 235 × 29.53 ≈ 6939.55 days, more precisely about 235 × 29.53059 ≈ 6939.69 days, in both cases about 6940 days. This remarkable astronomical synchronism, known as the Metonic cycle, inspired Anatolius to the invention of the (very first) Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, being by definition a 19-year lunar cycle provided with a Metonic structure, which amounts to a 19-year lunar cycle which:

1) has a date considered to be the date of the spring equinox as the theoretical lower limit date for all of its dates (of PFM);

2) has a de facto lower limit date which is equal either to its theoretical lower limit date itself or to the date of the first day after its theoretical lower limit date;

3) has a de facto upper limit date which is equal to the date of the twenty-eighth day after its de facto lower limit date;

4) has a saltus once every 19 years, i.e. each of its dates can be obtained either by advancing its immediate predecessor by +11 days (in which case we speak of a normal advance) or by -19 days (a normal regression), or, once every 19 years, by advancing its immediate predecessor by +12 days (a saltus advance) or by -18 days (a saltus regression).

Thus defined, Metonic 19-year lunar cycles reflect in the most natural way the phenomenon of the Metonic cycle.”

There exists one Metonic cycle (being an astronomical synchronism). On the other hand, there are five known 19-year lunar cycles, of which only the classical Alexandrian 19-year lunar cycle (see for example column F of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table) is completely known in the sense that the other four are not generally consideed to be completely unambiguously determined.

I based my definition of Metonic cycle on [William M. Smart (1958) Foundations of Astronomy: London].

However, nobody before me ventured to a definition of Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, but whichever of the five known 19-year lunar cycles you take (see for example Table 8 of my book), you will see that they all satisfy my definition.

I think that if you treat applications of the Metonic cycle in diverse traditional calendars on your Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”, then it would be not consequent to ignore the historical importance of its application in the Julian calendar.

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you use the phrase "Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" twice in the lead of "Anatolius of Laodicea" but that term is only defined in your 2019 book, which will never be cited in Wikikpedia because it is self-published and citing it would be a conflict of interest. And they you wonder why no one understands the difference between "Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" and "Metonic cycle"?

Your statment 'I think that if you treat applications of the Metonic cycle in diverse traditional calendars on your Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”, then it would be not consequent to ignore the historical importance of its application in the Julian calendar' is hard to red because of the poor English. However, the Julian calendar was created by Julius Caesar, and corrected by Augustus, before the execution and alleged resurrection of Jesus. It was a solar calendar, not a lunisolar calendar. As you say, it was not until the early 4th century that the Alexandrian computus was created, and it does indeed take advantage of the Metonic cycle. The results of the computations carried out according to the rules of the computus were stated in the Julian calendar, but none of the rules for constructing the Julian calendar have anything to do with the Metonic cycle. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jc3s5h,

Thanks for the effort? Do not mention it.

Thanks for your effort.

1) “So you use the phrase "Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" twice in the lead of "Anatolius of Laodicea" but that term is only defined in your 2019 book, which will never be cited in Wikikpedia because it is self-published and citing it would be a conflict of interest.”

"Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" is my phrase of what Mc Carthy calls “nineteen-year lunar cycle” (see Mc Carthy and Breen (2003) 17). The reason why I added “Metonic” is that in general a 19-year lunar cycle not necessarily has a Metonic structure.

2) “And they you wonder why no one understands the difference between "Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" and "Metonic cycle"?”

This is ridiculous. Certainly my colleagues Mc Carthy, Ó Cróinín, Warntjes, Mosshammer, Holford-Strevens, Nothaft, Burnett, Voigt do understand the difference between "Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" and "Metonic cycle" (they are intelligent people and take me serious). Incidentally, what do you mean with “they you”? I this good English?

3) ”Your statment 'I think that if you treat applications of the Metonic cycle in diverse traditional calendars on your Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”, then it would be not consequent to ignore the historical importance of its application in the Julian calendar' is hard to red because of the poor English.”

Your term “statment” and your formulation “hard to red” are also poor, even bad English, though English is your language (not mine). But this is not the point. I understand that you have trouble with the somewhat unusual (more logical) structure of the sentence in question. The point is that you feign to not understand what I have to say here, because you do not feel like to try to defend your inconsistency in this matter.

4) “However, the Julian calendar was created by Julius Caesar, and corrected by Augustus, before the execution and alleged resurrection of Jesus.”

I agree, but this is beside the point.

5) “It was a solar calendar, not a lunisolar calendar.”

I agree, but this is beside the point.

6) “As you say, it was not until the early 4th century that the Alexandrian computus was created, and it does indeed take advantage of the Metonic cycle.”

I did not say that (I think), because it is not right. If you think I did say that, could you quote some line that supports your interpretation?

7) “The results of the computations carried out according to the rules of the computus were stated in the Julian calendar, but none of the rules for constructing the Julian calendar have anything to do with the Metonic cycle.”

If you mean that lunar cycles are periodic sequences of Julian or Alexandrian calendar dates, then you are right. If you mean that it is not thanks to the Metonic cycle that the Metonic 19-year lunar cycles were successful, then I disagree.

Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jc3s5h, taking for granted that you accept this rather relevant contribution, I propose that one of us two (you or me?) will create a new section entitled “Application in the Julian calendar” (on the basis of this contribution to this Wikipedia-page), because it is chronologically the most important application of the Metonic cycle (did you realize that the Christian era was a result of it?). Incidentally, keep in mind that a 19-year lunar cycle is not necessarily Metonic. Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dionysius Exiguus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is no source listed that corresponds to the short footnote "Zuidhoek (2019) 67-70" Jc3s5h (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]