- Transferred from Humanities desk
Let me highlight Jack's comment above:
...What is or is not legal is a matter for courts or legislatures to determine. Not the media, not individual partisan politicians, not the man in the street, not the reasonable man, and not random commentators (on Wikipedia or anywhere else). -- 22:23, 6 June 2024
So why is Wikipedia still saying Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle#Preceding private ceremony "The Church of England sources commented that this was not a legally recognised marriage ceremony, which requires two witnesses", citing journalist and radio commentator Camilla Tominey, who screamed down the telephone I WILL NEVER WRITE THE STORY that Camilla and Charles' wedding ceremony was a "non-qualifying ceremony" (i.e. void), following up with a stream of invective which only ended when she was cut off? And as the words "Registrar General" are eiusdum generis with the list of occupations provided by Jack, why is the linked article still saying "the Registrar General, Len Cook, determined that a civil marriage would in fact be valid"? The articles are so full of editorialising that it is best not to read them and go to [1] and [2] instead. Needless to say the "impediments to marriage" listed in the licence do not apply to the marriages of non-royals, because they were abolished by the Marriage Act which specifically states that its provisions have no applicability whatsoever to royal marriages. 92.25.129.245 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers may be interested in a dream I just had. Following the inception of the discussion (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#June 7) about al-Biruni and the Byzantine calendar, before I went to bed last night (30 James, the day before the date marked with this year's "golden number" (11), 1 Eloise), I looked for the new moon and saw a very slender crescent low in the north-west. In the dream, I was at work and was told that Camilla Tominey and another presenter had arrived to interview me. The male presenter remained outside and Camilla came in. She was aggressive and incoherent, and after a while an aide entered and bundled her out. I heard him say as he took her away "You're not on the programme any more. We're changing the presenter." Then the other presenter came in and said "You're going to be on the programme - ATV." As we left, he commented "You're casually dressed." I said "Shall I go home and change into something more formal?" and he said "We'll dress you at the studio." Then he asked an assistant "She's carrying a handbag, take it from her." I thought "This is for the general election." Outside there were a number of vehicles. Beside one of them a woman staff member was restraining a short man with his hands behind his back. I woke up at this point and went downstairs. It was 1:30 AM. I switched on the radio and this song began playing: [3]. 92.12.79.187 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of historical interest, one grouse the Muslims had about the imposition by the Caliphs of the new, unintercalated Islamic year for administrative purposes to replace the 365-day Zoroastrian year previously used in Persia was that it was shorter, which meant that the land tax would come round before the harvest had been collected! The Caliphs relented and reinstated the araji (land-tax) year for fiscal purposes.
- But then another problem presented itself. The Muslim era began in AD 622 with the Hegira (flight) - the Persians later fixed the beginning of this era on Friday, 19 March. The Zoroastrian year needed periodic readjustment because it was itself on average six hours shorter than the Julian. Al-Biruni notes that there was a double adjustment of the start of the araji year during the reign of Yazdegerd I (AD 399-420). An araji era was introduced dating from AD 621. In a further recalibration, the Yazdegerdi era, still used by the Zoroastrians (Parsees), dates from the accession of Yazdegerd III on 16 June AD 632, so the Yazdegerdi era is eleven years behind the araji. In AD 895 there was another double readjustment of the start of the araji year. It moved from 1 Frawardin (12 April) to 1 Khordad (11 June), referred to as 11 Haziran (I think the Turks call June by this name to this day).
- Today's Byzantine date (Monday, 2 Eloise), marks the imminent arrival of the Jewish Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), observed on the 6th of the corresponding Jewish month. It is barred from falling on Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday, and slots in this year this coming Wednesday (4 Eloise). Orthodox Whitsun is not till Sunday, 23 June (15 Eloise), because of the rule that Orthodox Easter falls on the Sunday after the Wednesday after the date of the Paschal Full Moon (14 Miri) between 1800 and 2099 inclusive, a sharp contrast with the Roman Catholic Church (but not it's Byzantine arm), which likes to time its Easter festivities to fall in the week after the "Purim Full Moon". The Orthodox consider the Catholics to be in error and they are right - the Council's direction was that the Easter full moon must not precede the equinox, but in 1582 Gregory XIII directed that it must be the first after the equinox. This led to his calendar being banned in Orthodoxy. 2.30.124.132 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some common Serbian names feature in the story. This article [1] includes the following points:
- In addition to the issue of calendar reform, the Council of Constantinople (1923) also discussed possible union with the Anglican church and second marriage for priests
- Vladimir Dimitrijevic, a conservative author, said the Council of Constantinople was among the greatest mistakes of the Orthodox Church in the 20th century
The author is Jovan Trpkovic. An article by M S Dimitrijevic and others[2] includes these points:
- The Serbian delegation came to the Congress with a proposition for calendar reform authored by Maksim Trpkovic. He proposed the intercalation rule that the secular years in centuries which when divided by 9 have remainders of 0 or 4 will be leap years
- The general opinion of the participants was that the better solution was to retain the Julian calendar and only delete thirteen days...
The information was duly sourced and added to Julian calendar. This led to one editor demanding that the contributor be banned from Wikipedia for "inserting false information into articles" because "if thirteen days are excised from the Julian calendar it is no longer Julian." He further demanded that articles be pre-emptively semi-protected to prevent editors removing any unsourced falsehoods added by others. His campaign was successful and false information, for example that the Greek government introduced the Gregorian calendar in 1923, is embedded in articles all over Wikipedia. The original Serbian proposal was in fact a proposal that the calendar already legislated by the Greek government should now be adopted by the Orthodox Church. As to where the Greek government got its calendar from, it's described here[3] although Trpkovic (who proposed it in 1900) denied all knowledge of Barnaba Oriani's calendar. Another example is the claim that "The reform of the calendar was authorised by a canon of the Council of Trent in 15.." (the last two digits of the date of the alleged canon are something of a movable feast, since they change periodically). 92.19.71.221 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
