Talk:Kʼinich Kan Bahlam II

Dates?
The article says: "May 23, 635 – February 20, 702" but there's no citation. Some articles have dates converted using Thompson, 584285, correlation and/or use the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. For this reason the article should give the dates as Long Counts. I've added a for this reason. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading the citations, I see that Lounsbury is the source. Lounsbury is not a reliable source for these dates because he used the discredited 584285 correlation, based on his own extremely dubious analysis of the Dresden codex and also the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. If someone has this reference, he should look up the Long Counts and edit the article to use them instead of European dates. This was discussed in the Pakal article and it was decided to give these as Long Counts. Also it's worthwhile to read the section in the Long Count article about the correlation question, which specifically describes why main-stream scholars use the GMT correlation. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I found a source for the birth and death dates of K'inich Kan B'alam II, here: http://research.famsi.org/whos_who/monuments.php?mathewsnumber=PAL%20012 This gives the birth of K'inich Kan B'alam II as 9.10.2.6.6. This would be May 18, 635 (GMT Julian). This would be May 20 using the Thompson, 584285, correlation and the Julian calendar. It would only be the date in the article if you used the Thompson correlation and the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. I propose to edit the article to give only the month and a note giving the Long Count and a link to the FAMSI site as it was done in the Pakal article. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I made these changes. Even FAMSI is all over the place regarding different pages using the Thompson or GMT correlation and the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, an editor has added the days of the month to the dates in this article. There is a number of ways to calculate this: GMT, or some other incorrect correlation constant and Julian or Proleptic Gregorian calendar. It might be worthwhile to consider using a standard method for converting these dates in Wikipedia articles. This would be the GMT correlation and the mainstream Julian/Gregorian calendar. Many Wikipedia articles use a template that does this correctly (for today). Senor Cuete (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another IP editor has added western calendar dates to the article. The first one is off by about ten days. The second one would be correct IF you believe that the Thompson, 584285 correlation is correct and use the revisionist Proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is an example of two problems: That the calendar conversions in books and on web sites on this subject are a complete mess, almost never correct, and that mayanists haven't decided to standardize a correlation practice. This problem is avoided by using only the month and year as the article is now. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)