Template talk:Muhammad timeline in Mecca

Everyone agrees Muhammad was born on a Monday - this was entered in the template with copious references but AstroLynx changed it back.@DRAGON BOOSTER: please provide references for your claim that some say he was born on the 17th. The Battle of Badr was AH 2 and Uhud AH 3. AstroLynx has increased the time between the two events from one year to two. Awaiting responses before restoring my changes. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although you cite four sources for the birth date of Muhammad only one (nr. 1) gives a specific Western date. However, the date actually given in your source, 8 June 570, was not a Monday. You have silently amended this to 2 June, which was indeed a Monday, but this is considered by WP as "original research", i.e. not backed by a reliable source. I have not looked in detail at your other suggested corrections but will do so later this week. AstroLynx (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do the sources say he was born on a Monday, they say he was born on the 12th. That date can be verified astronomically - 2 June AD 570. This is a Julian date - the source does not say which calendar was used, but the Gregorian was a few days ahead at that time. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that one of your sources, Haykal, only mentions August as Muhammad's birth month? --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-one questions the tradition that Muhammad was born on a Monday. But there is certainly no consensus on the month or the day in the month in the calendar of Mecca. You may argue that 2 June 570 was a Monday and the 12th of a lunar month but this is all based on "original research" which is not allowed on WP. If you can point out a properly referenced publication mentioning your date of 2 June 570 we can perhaps move on. AstroLynx (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources mention that the consensus view is that Muhammad was born on Monday, 12 Rabi 'al-Awwal. Indeed, the one you link to says "Unlikely, indeed in error, is the view of those who say he was born on Friday, the 17th day, the month of Rabi 'al-Awwal". It goes on to say that the birth occurred 55 days after the midpoint of Muharram, which is 12 Rabi'I. The source which mentions August as an outlier uses these words: "The majority, however, agree that Muhammad was born on the twelfth of Rabi al-Awwal, the claim of Ibn Ishaq and other biographers". As regards the "silent conversion" to 2 June, it's policy that we express dates prior to 1582 in the Julian calendar, and it's therefore unnecessary to mention this. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed good policy to use Julian calendar dates before 1582 but where does your source state that it is not using the Julian calendar? Which calendar do you think your source is using? It cannot be the Gregorian calendar as the offset between both calendars in the 6th century is only two days, not six days. AstroLynx (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. I agree that the proleptic Gregorian calendar was two days ahead of the Julian in the sixth century, but why would that fact preclude the writer from using it? 86.131.233.223 (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, you claim that your source uses the proleptic Gregorian calendar? Do you have any proof for this claim? 8 June 570 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar was a Friday, not a Monday – surely you must be aware of this fact. AstroLynx (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are any claims being made apart from your claim that the writer could not have used the proleptic Gregorian calendar because it was two days ahead of the Julian at the time? I note that you were asked to provide the basis for that claim but you still have not done so. 2.29.29.213 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]