study and rejection of calendar reform plans other than The
World Calendar have not stopped their supporters from
slightly reformatting and/or renaming them before representation
as 'new'. Since their promotions rarely
refer to the
specific disadvantages that continue, even with modifications,
and usually do not acknowledge The World Calendar for
sake of comparison, here are some of the conveniently
unmentioned reasons to disregard them.
main types of calendars that have existed for consideration
are variations of the 13-month version and
the leap-week version. Worldwide calendar reform
study early last century included them, but resulted in a more
favorable overall attitude towards The World Calendar.
The 13-month calendar
tends to cause more problems than it fixes. Quite significantly,
it effectively destroys quarters. All versions also always
utilize the 365th and 366th day without a weekday designation
(called Worlds Day and Leap Year Day in The World Calendar),
which tends to emphasize the mathematical solution that
this feature brings to calendar reform. Although The World
Calendar closely maintains Gregorian calendar structure
to achieve added benefits, 13-month calendars must also
overcome the severe social and mechanical limitations
to acceptance that the extra month provides. Criteria
for any calendar reform includes a likelihood of acceptance
or the reform simply does not occur. Any serious consideration
of 13-month calendars is a distraction to successful calendar
13-month plan makes demands that are altogether too radical.
It would lose all approximate correspondence with comparable
dates in our present calendar, would introduce a new month,
would be based on an indivisible unit of calculation (13),
would offend the superstitious, etc. Today, the 13-month
calendar is hardly mentioned, since it was definitely
rejected by the League of Nations authorities entrusted
with the study of calendar reform proposals. The same
is true of intercalary week or month schemes.'
-- From The National Catholic Almanac, 1947.
Holy Name College, Washington, D. C.
(Reprinted in Journal of Calendar Reform Vol. 17, 1947,
early as 1936, a Swiss Committee for Calendar Reform study
of changes required in Swiss internal law when a revised
calendar is adopted concluded that 'No legal technicalities
arise in the changeover to The World Calendar' and desired
also 'to state that all the authorities agree in condemning
proposals for a 13-month calendar. It is clear that such
a drastic change would be followed by great difficulty
and that many provisions of Swiss law would be inapplicable
to such a system.'
-- From 'NO
LEGAL TECHNICALITIES ARISE IN
THE CHANGEOVER TO THE WORLD CALENDAR'
(JCR, Vol. 19, Third Quarter 1949, pages 249-252)
mere mention of the 13-month calendar brought instant criticism
from Dr. Crawford. He felt that, while the calendar was
in need of revision, a change to 13 months would only serve
to make it worse—make an already cumbersome calendar
From 'ASTRONOMY’S CONTRIBUTION'
(JCR Vol. 23, June 1953, pages 69-70)
PDF <--> HTML
Week (or Leap Month) plans
The leap week calendar
avoids the 365th day without a weekday designation (Worlds
Day and Leap Year Day in The World Calendar) at the expense
of less calendar accuracy overall. Proponents claim more
likelihood of acceptance by avoiding the intercalary days.
This builds on misunderstandings about this repeatable
feature and replaces it with a calendar that cannot be
completely memorized: Leap years occur every five or six
years. Each leap-week calendar year uses months that vary
enough from the Gregorian calendar to suggest difficulty
in overall acceptance. All leap-week calendars "save"
the 365th day each year until seven accumulate into a
week and that week is then inserted into the year. The
accuracy is similar to a stopped clock, which is completely
accurate twice a day.
of the major defects are, first, the disregard of the
annual seasons, integral parts of the calendar, and secondly,
the exclusive emphasis upon one particular time unit—the
week—at the expense of the other time-periods of
which the calendar is composed.'
LEAPWEEKS NOT PRACTICAL'
(JCR Vol. 25, 1955-56, pg. 187-190)
is no merely personal opinion that the Leap Month is fantastic
and that the Leap Week is impossible. In 1931, the League
of Nations, after full consideration, issued a report
on calendar reform in which this particular device was
described as “inferior to the existing calendar.”
It was added that such a plan ”cannot be considered
at all.” The verdict must be accepted as final.'
--From 'DISCUSSION OF LEAP WEEK'
By DR. P. W. WILSON
Formerly Member of British House of Commons
5, 1935, pgs. 18-23)
files require Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download it free
magnification tools _