. . . just getting starting here with a few printable examples of articles published in the Journal of Calendar Reform between 1930 - 1955.

Past study and rejection of plans other than The World Calendar have not stopped slight reformatting before renaming themselves for presentation as "new". Since their promoters do not mention this, or their specific disadvantages, here are some conveniently forgotten reasons to dismiss them as serious competition.

“…The 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 pg. 45)

OCCASIONAL LEAP-WEEKS NOT PRACTICAL .PDF
Posted 22 May 2006
"Two 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."

LEAP-WEEK DISCUSSION .PDF
Posted 12 June 2006
"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.” "

.PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download it free from Adobe's site.
Cursor and magnification tools _ # %__ help guide the views.

HOME