Jump to content

Talk:Adoption of the Gregorian calendar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Redundancy

Just came across this article. It's quite useless since this topic is treated in detail in Gregorian Calendar. Any tidbit of worthy information, if any, that it may contain should be added to the existing artilcle, then Adoption of the Gregorian calendar should be deleted since it is thoroughly redundant and useless.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The history of this article shows this article was split out/forked from Gregorian calendar on 13 October 2014‎ user:Dbachmann. See also:

-- PBS (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Claims about Greece

77.103.33.180 has made repeated claims that the calendar Greece adopted for civil purposes in 1923 was not the Gregorian calendar. Before reverting their fourth attempt at inserting this content, I would like to go into detail as to why I think they are wrong:

  • They claim that Greece adopted the Revised Julian Calendar, which apparently according to them was authorised for usage several months before it was proposed at the Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople of May 1923. At the congress discussions of what calendar should be adopted were still in progress, and multiple proposals were considered. Moreover, Milankovic only became involved in calendar reform in April 1923 (Trajkovska, 2003; available at [1]), and there is no evidence to suggest his leap rule was suggested earlier, so this almost certainly could not have been the calendar adopted. Even if they did adopt something that was not well-defined in 1923, the IP editor then needs to prove that this was later defined to be anything other than the Gregorian.
  • Related to the above, the closest they have to a source is a paragraph from Komzsik. The reference in the paragraph to "Eastern Orthodox Christian states" says only that they were slowest to adopt the Gregorian calendar and "in a sense, they never really adopted it" (which is too weaselly to be meaningful for this debate), and then incorrectly conflates the Greek changeover with the "Eastern Church", associating the dates of the former with the latter even though, as mentioned above, the Orthodox Churches did not even decide on what calendar to adopt until May 1923. I am thus not convinced that this supports their claims at all. Conversely, there are many sources which support the original claim that Greece adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1923, such as the formerly cited US Social Security Administration 2005, Toke Nørby's The Perpetual Calendar, and pretty much any other source that mentions the Greek switchover. If the IP editor does indeed have a proper and not obviously incorrect source that supports their claim, I would very much like to see it.

As per WP:BURDEN, if 77.103.33.180 cannot convince me that their source supports their claim I am completely justified in reverting it. If 77.103.33.180 or anyone else gives me a reliable source for these claims then I will let them re-add the material. Arcorann (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Significant number don't adopt?

In this edit John Maynard Friedman added the statement

Some countries adopted the new calendar from 1582 but others did not do so before the early twentieth century, others did so at various dates between; a significant number continue to decline to do so. [Emphasis added]

Many reliable sources say the Gregorian calendar is the defacto calendar throughout the world, at least for international commerce. Superficially the new statement seems to contradict these reliable sources. I believe a more nuanced version of this statement is called for. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The article actually lists those that have declined, primarily those that use the Islamic calendar but others too. (My first draft had "almost all" but that would not have been an accurate summary if the body). If you wanted to delete the word "significant", I wouldn't object.
Otherwise it becomes a question of de facto v de jure usage, which is almost certainly true but I'm happy to leave it to you to dig out the required citations. :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
The new sentence begins "Some countries adopted". Considering all the variations of "adoption" around the world, I don't care for that phrasing. It could be interpreted to mean "passed a law requiring near-universal use", it could mean the people of the country use it to such an extent that it accepted by the government as an ordinary part of the language (that's what happened in the United States), it could mean the government adopted it for certain limited purposes (international trade, court decisions, tax payment deadlines). Later in the addition, the word "declined" could be understood the government forbade it, the people ignored the Gregorian calendar, or the national government did nothing (as with the US federal government, in a general-purpose sense). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no attachment to my wording, I'm very happy for you to revise it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have rewritten that phrase to "however a number continue to use a different civil calendar." ( and in the body, added a citation for Saudi using the Islamic Calendar ). Does that enable you to removed the "disputed" tag? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove the disputed tag. When I get a chance I'll look through some of my printed sources to see if I can find a better formulation. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Under section titled "Timeline"

..there is an infographicalized chart, a "timeline", if you will.Anyway, whatever you call it, "it" is outdated... There's not a single listing beyond the 1920s. For example, Saudi Arabia adopted the Gregorian Calendar at the end of 2016. That was MONTHS ago. I assumed you guys would be all over that piece of news... Huh. Oh well. Enigmato (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


The diagram under the heading Timeline is not correct in one other respect: It lists "Yugoslavia" as converting to the Gregorian calendar in 1923. This is not correct because: (A) At the time, the country was called the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and not Yugoslavia; (B) The Gregorian calendar was adopted much earlier in western parts of the country. For example, it was adopted in the 16th century in Croatia, Dalmatia and (what is now) Slovenia . (C) The only parts of the Kingdom of SCS that were still using the Julian calendar in the 20th century were the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro; and they changed over to Gregorian in 1919. (D) The 1923 date refers to an Orthodox church council called to decide on the calculation of Easter; the council adopting something called the "reformed" Gregorian calendar. That is, the 1923 date had no bearing on the civil calendar, which was changed earlier. Refer to http://norbyhus.dk/calendar.php#Yugoslavia for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

By looking at the top and bottom of the chart, and paying close attention to the vertical lines, you can see that years are written above the associated country. Thus the chart correctly indicates that Romania and Yugoslavia switched in 1919. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

National variety of English, date format

The first version of this article uses mixed spelling: "organizations" (American) and "recognised" (UK). It was split off from Gregorian calendar in October 2014. The version of the talk page for "Gregorian calendar" contained a notice that "Gregorian calendar" was in British English. Therefore I suggest this article use British English.

Also, the date format is somewhat inconsistent, but the majority of the dates are in the day month year format. So I suggest that format be used throughout. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
BTW, 'organizations' with a z is "Oxford usage" per OED. Proved to be the flaw in a perfect crime in one episode of Inspector Morse! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Islam in Eastern Europe

An anon editor wanted to know which countries in Eastern Europe were Islamic? At the end of the 19th C, that would be the Ottoman Empire officially but in practice that means 'Turkey in Europe', Albania, Bosnia-Erzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Greece all had a substantial or significant Muslim population. "Officially" just invited controversy so I have deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no information on how the calendars are different, and very little information about why the change is meaningful

The section called "Differences between Julian and Gregorian dates" looks broken because it contains no text and only has a table of date differences. That section should probably be called "Differences between Julian and Gregorian calendars," and it should have a short paragraph explaining how the calendars are different in addition to showing a table of some of the dates that are different.

The second paragraph of the lead has a little bit of information about why the change occurred (spring equinox drifting over time). That should probably be the first paragraph of the lead. Later in the article it should expand on why the spring equinox drifted under the Julian calendar and how the Gregorian calendar fixed that. It should also explain what happened at the "moment" of the original shift. Did we smoothly go from e.g. April 25 of the Julian calendar to April 26 of the Gregorian, or did we repeat or skip days to line dates back up with where they should be?

Chris3145 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is an undiscussed and poorly executed split from Gregorian calendar. I object to putting anything but the most cursory information about information that is covered in Gregorian calendar. Since this is a religious issue, protecting the articles from nonNPOV edits is a struggle. Trying to protect the same information in two separate articles is too much of a hassle.
If you want all the information in one article, you could propose to merge this article back into Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, this article should be just about the adoption process and anything about the calendar itself or its antecedents should simply be deleted. In the light of this discussion, I shall wp:be bold and just delete that table. I shall add some text directing people to the main article. TBH, I agree with Jc35h, it would be better to merge the articles but it needs to be led by someone willing to put the work in, as there will be a lot. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Oregon and Washington Territories

Rather than toing and froing in the article space, Enthusiast01, would you please explain the background to those of us unfamiliar with the colonisation of North America? What makes Oregon and Washington special? Indeed, what was happening west of the Appalachians in general? why are the Appalachian Mountain even mentioned? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The point is that the Oregon Territory was still claimed by the UK until at least the mid-1800s when part of it became a US territory. As such the British calendar applied there at least nominally until 1752. On the other hand, there is not much practical significance in this bit of info. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. But 1766 was after 1752 so that is not obviously relevant? The US only ever used New Style.
I wonder if the complication only arose when someone inserted "east of the Appalachians"? Before that, it just said the British colonies in North America and the sentence applied equally to Oregon as to Virginia. I wondered if perhaps someone was trying to get around the question of Russian California? I have to wonder if the fur trappers were that worried about the calendar! Can we lose the Appalachian change or does that open a different can of worms? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it affects the wording at this spot in the article, but the US does not have any law specifying the Gregorian calendar (or the British formulation of the same) as a general-purpose official calendar. So the US uses the Gregorian calendar because it never took any steps to disturb the usage that was established by the British government. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Since the calendar change had already happened fourteen years before the Declaration of Independence, I suggest we may regard that question as being what our American friends would call moot. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The question boils down to: did the Julian calendar ever apply on the west coast of US?Enthusiast01 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
One may wonder if any European calendar ever applied to the west coast (continental USA)! :-)
But seriously, for the purposes of this article, I propose that we lose the Appalachian reference and revert to "the British colonies". That encompasses the Pacific Northwest without getting bogged down in off-topic detail. Likewise, when we say New Spain, we may leave it to that article to inform readers on how much of the Southwest is included. The boundary disputes between the European Powers have to be off-topic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, except that it may say “the British colonies and territories”. Enthusiast01 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
agreed. ('... and territories'), --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Unlock please

Any reason why this page is still locked!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.18 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

"Old Style date" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Old Style date. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Old Style date until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"New Style dates" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New Style dates. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#New Style dates until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adoption_of_the_Gregorian_calendar/Archive_1&oldid=1191870406"