Talk:Julian calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moveable feasts link in the intro points to wrong page[edit]

It points to a non-profit group called Moveable feasts when it should most likely point to [Moveable_feast_(observance_practice)]. I would change it, but I can't due to the semi-protect.--2003:69:CD59:F401:84CF:5BBF:4885:E5C (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made that correction. It might need re-correcting because some editor has just moved the feast content without checking links. If that edit gets undone, then my edit will need undoing. Dbfirs 00:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015[edit]

In response to "currently[when?] 13 days" at the end of the second paragraph, I would recommend adding "(i.e. since the beginning of March 1900 and until the end of February 2100)". Hope that helps.

149.125.250.62 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Church and state[edit]

The argument is very simple. Why on earth would the established church and the government decide to use different calendars? Apart from the fact that the claim isn't sourced, it doesn't make sense. 77.103.33.180 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please quote from the article the statement(s) you object to and explain what is wrong with them. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
At the end of 2013 the lead had

The Julian calendar has been replaced as the civil calendar by the Gregorian in almost all countries which formerly used it, although it continued to be the civil calendar of some countries into the twentieth century.

This was a fully sourced stable version. By yesterday the qualifier "almost" had disappeared, although the references are the same as before. Do you know anything about this change? 77.103.33.180 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why "almost" was removed; the removal was with this edit. Near the end of the last paragraph where "almost" was removed, there is a statement that the Ethiopian calendar is based on the Julian calendar and is still the civil calendar of Ethiopia. Based on the description of the Ethiopian calendar in The Oxford Companion to the Year I agree the Ethiopian calendar should be considered to be a form of the Julian calendar. However, I am unable to find a recent reliable source that states that Ethiopia still uses the Ethiopian as its civil calendar. I would like to see a recent reliable source stating what the civil calendar is in Ethiopia.
Having found a description of the Ethiopian calendar on the website of the Ethiopian embassy in Washington, I've restored the qualifier "almost" and added the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How about adding a List of Countries that Adopted the Julian Calendar[edit]

Paris Herouni, a member of Armenia's national academy of sciences, claims in his 2004 text, Armenians and Old Armenia, p. 28, that Armenia adopted "the Julian calendar in 122 AD". Reading that led me to search the web for a list of countries that had adopted it, and estimated dates of when that happened. I could not find that info, and wondered if there would be any interest among editors of adding that as a section to his article, a List of Countries that Used (or Adopted?) the Julian Calendar. This could grow to become more comprehensive than just a few examples scattered through the main text. If folks wanted to do this, and if it grew, perhaps it would end up being split off as its own article. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Month Numbering[edit]

Does the Julian Calendar start on January (Christmas) or March (Easter)? The Quakers use numbering rather than names, and I believe March is the first month so it would be useful to include month number in the table, or rearrange it to start in March.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 19:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays it is almost universal to start the year, either Julian or Gregorian, in January, and to consider January the first month. But over the centuries, in various countries, a variety of different dates have been considered the beginning of the year: December 25 (Christmas), January 1, Easter, March 25 (Lady Day), and more. As for the Quakers, I believe they do (or did) number the months, but follow the local civil authority, so whichever month the local civil authority consider to be the first month of the year gets the number 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Having done more research, I now realise the first month is March, second is April and son on, with February being the 12th month. However in the Julian calendar, months were not named when referred to by Quakers. It becomes a little more obvious when you look at CoE church records where the next year starts after any early baptism or burial records for February. As you can imagine this leads to much confusion with baptism dates often being a year out on family history sites. There is a greet opportunity here to make things more clear!  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you want to make a flat-out statement that the first month is March. I think that's true for England and the American colonies through 1751, but beginning in 1752 January became the first month of the year. In Scotland I understand they started using January as the beginning of the year in 1700. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, see Old Style and New Style dates. Scotland changed start of year to 1 Jan in 1700 1600 but kept the Julian Calendar until the [English] 1750 Act. The text of the Act is given in Old Style and New Style dates#External links (or thereabouts). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes January became the first month in 1582/83, and possibly later in different regions of Britain and Europe. Before then it was March - That's my point, and why this article needs improving. This page of the EN Wikipedia should focus on the Julian Calendar for the English prior to 1582. I suggest adding a month number column (starting with Month 1 as March) so reordering the rows. We can leave post 1582 to the Gregorian calendar article.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 21:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to focus on March as the first month prior to 1582 for two reasons. First, although this is the English Wikipedia, there are a vast number of English-language books, newspapers, and articles that describe events outside of England, Wales, and the American colonies, so the calendar practices in those other places are relevant. Second, it is customary for contemporary historians writing about a place where the Julian calendar was in force to use the Julian calendar but treat January 1 as the beginning of the year, regardless of what beginning of year was in force at the place being written about. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If the question is only about custom in Quaker communities, 1582 would be ok, except that the practice of Dual dating was common for as much as a century on either side of 1750. Otherwise I agree with Jc3s5h, it really is complicated. See Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
On further thought, you must not make an assumption about how Quaker communities reacted to the change in start of year. You need to find evidence of what they actually did rather that what the 'must' have done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the linked article says that Scotland moved New Year's Day to 1 January in 1600. 151.227.23.125 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake. Thank you for correction. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My questions was only about the Julian calendar. The first month is March. It is that simple! Other countries using other calendars is irrelevant as is the changeover to Gregorian around 1582 (later in Scotland). Although the text of the article does state that the year change is March, a prominent table starting at January is misleading. Month numbers are also important (their use by the Quakers is only an example). Month numbers should be included as part of the article as its important relevant information (including the first month being March and not April which isnt clear).  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Another important fact about the numbering which is largely overlooked here. The year starts with March, so September is the seventh month (Sept=7), October=8, November=9, December=10. February, being the last month had the adjustment in days. Its a carry over of the Roman numbering.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 13:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────According to Blackburn and Holford-Strevens (2003, p. 6, in the section devoted to 1 January, full citation in the article)

New Year's Day. Although the Romans knew that their year had originally begun with *March, the name Ianuarius is not appropriate to an eleventh month; the New Year festivities seem too well entrenched to have been moved in historical times, and if the first written account o fht e Roman calendar, put on public display in the temple of Hercules and the Muses c.179 BC (see *30 June), had indicated a March beginning, our sources must have told us, such was the romans' interest in their calendar (see II: *Roman Calendar). Although it was not till in 153 BC that the consuls, who gave their names to the civil year entered office on 1 January (having done so on 15 March since 222 BC, and before that on various other dates), and thenn only because of a military crisis, this must have been the true day of New Year, as in medieval Europe, irrespective of the dating system.

Blackburn and Holford-Strevens cover Julius Caesar's reform of the calendar on pages 670–1. There is no mention of a change in New Year's Day, only in the length of certain months and the introduction of the leap year cycle instead of the occasional insertion of a leap month.

So a flat-out claim that March was the first month is just wrong; it was the first month in some countries for some purposes, but January has a stronger claim to be the first month than any other month. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

On Quaker month numbering, if one has an Ancestry.com subscription, one can browse images of Quaker records. If one browses the digitized microfilm for the State of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, Philadelphia Monthly Meeting, Births and Burials 1686–1807, image 100 (which shows 2 pages), one finds "1 mo — 4" in the left margin of the left page, and a little further down the page "1751". The last entry on the left page is "3 mo . . 30" (30th day of 3rd month).

On the right page in image 100, the first entry is "4 mo [illegible] 2 (4th month 2nd day). It continues down to the tenth month, for which the left column reads

10     3
       5
       9
      27
1752  29 [1752 is the year, and is squeezed in; book doesn't have a specific place for the year.]
12th of 1 mo
2 of  2 mo
6th of . .
8
26
27

So the 18th century clerk didn't pay as much attention to putting everything in the same order in every entry as a modern clerk might, but it's plain the year 1751 only had 10 months, because January and February, which would have been in 1751 were it not for the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, were instead part of 1752. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The “Month names” section has “The Julian reform did not immediately cause the names of any months to be changed”. Indeed Quintilis became July, Sextilis became August (and Sept to Dec remained the 7 to 10 months), so the Julian Calendar in 46 to 8 BC was still naming (if not also counting) months from March. The “New Years Day” section adds January 1 as new years day but is this because it is referring to other (Roman) calendars and local customs, not the Julian calendar? It also tells us that for 600 years prior to the switch to Gregorian, (1155 to 1751) the new year started 24 March (i.e. the Julian Calendar) so was the Julian reintroduced?
Early parish (Church of England) records before 1751 show the year changing after 24 March (see Ancestry scanned images for examples), and it is well reported that in 1752, when we changed to the Gregorian calendar the year start changed from 24 March to January 1. This change is the most important difference between the two calendars, yet it gets no mention in the article lead. There are also various other articles describing the month numbering, changeover. The Pope Gregory’s Catholic calendar, introduced 1582, was used by much of Europe from then. This is why there is some double dating between 1582 and 1752. It is not the Julian calendar having two new year dates, but two calendars in use at the same time.
Familyhistory.uk.com website shows Sept to Dec as the 7th to 10th months of the Julian calendar. Also see stevemorse.org (with a parish record image).
What is needed is clarity. All I was asking for is a better explanation about the month numbering, as currently there is none. Also, for 600 years prior to the Gregorian calendar the year changed on March 25. That is the key difference between the two calendars and so important it should up front in the lead section. It is a curtail fact when indexing parish records, and has clearly caused problems in the past with many indexes having two dated entries two months apart! The article is also missing King George II’s “British Calendar Act of 1751” where Britain and America skipped 11 days, so that Thursday 3 September 1752 became Thursday 14 September 1752 and the two calendars aligned. The act also changed the legal start of year from March 15 to January 1. SurreyJohn   (Talk) 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@SurreyJohn:, your phrase "when we changed to the Gregorian calendar" [emphasis added] gives the impression you would like this article to focus on English calendar customs. It doesn't, and it won't. This article is about the Julian calendar all over the world, and in all times from 45 BC on. Some mention of numbering months could be made, perhaps in the "New Year's Day" section (provided adequate sources are cited), but I think trying to give an exhaustive list of how each country and religion within a country numbered Julian calendar months would make the article too long.
I also take issue with "Also, for 600 years prior to the Gregorian calendar the year changed on March 25. That is the key difference between the two calendars and so important it should up front in the lead section." Many countries made changes in the date they observed New Year's Day while they were using the Julian calendar. So the change in the observance of New Year's Day is not a difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars; it is a matter of national or religious calendar laws or customs. England, Wales, and British colonies are the only instance I know of where the switch from Julian to Gregorian coincided with a change in New Year's Day. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Although I agree with Jc3s5h on almost everything, it would be fair to note that the Gregorian calendar article reports that the first month of the new Eclesiastic calendar as published after the changeover was January - though start-of-year is not mentioned in the Bull. So there is more than one example. But equally there is plenty of evidence of at least de facto use of other dates before then, including 25 December, 1 January, 6 January and more. See New Year's Day. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Churches and Easter[edit]

I changed all references to "Pascha" into "Easter". The Greek word Pascha (derived from the Hebrew word Pesach) literally means Easter. It is NOT a theologically separate concept. When speaking and writing in English, let's please stop calling it "Pascha" with regards to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This is sooo incredibly annoying. Pascha is Easter. This isn't rocket science. There isn't some theological reason why it must be called "Pascha" when speaking English. And not all Eastern Orthodox call it that. In Bulgarian, Easter is Velikden. In Serbian, it's Uskrs. In Ukrainian, it's Velykodniy. Likewise, many Catholic and Protestant countries call it a variation of Pascha. In Italian and Catalan, it's Pasqua; in Spanish/Castilian, Pascua; in Portuguese, Páscoa; in French, Pâques; in Dutch, Pasen; in Danish Påske; and in Swedish, Påsk. Pascha is just the Greek (and Russian) word for Easter. That's all there is to it. Skyduster (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)