Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750

Ireland
The article currently says that "So that the calendar in Ireland would remain harmonised with that of Great Britain, the Parliament of Ireland passed similarly worded legislation as the "Calendar (New Style) Act, 1750" ". However, the source which it cites has the Great Britain chapter number - XXIII. There is no reference to such an Act in List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_Ireland,_1701-1800, in List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_Ireland,_1701-1800 or indeed in the original staute-book. And see the Irish Short Titles Act 1962 "1781–82 - 21 & 22 Geo. 3: c. 48. - Calendar (New Style) Act, 1750, and Calendar Act, 1751, extended to Ireland, [S. 3 (in pt.)] - Calender Act, 1781." The original of that Act starts here and section 3 is here - "all such statutes made in England or Great Britain, as concern the stile or calendar ... shall be accepted, used and executed in this kingdom, according to the present tenor of the same respectively". I suggest that the article should be amended accordingly. Alekksandr (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted! The current text must have been in the article without a challenge since forever. Hopefully I can get it rewritten today or tomorrow. How many more old citations need checking? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see from Talk:History of Ireland (1691–1800) that a wp:RS researched this issue and says (with an example from Dublin) that the change was accepted at least de facto. The paper suggests that the 1781 Act was more about the Dublin Parliament asserting its rights than to shut a possible legal loop-hole but it is expressed rather off-handedly so I don't think we can use it to support either possibility. We will just have to state the facts and let the reader decide. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite done, thanks again for spotting this howler. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts
I have been asked to share my thoughts on this article. This is less of a thorough examination and more of a handful of observations.
 * 1. I did some copyediting, but the prose probably needs a bit more work. I agree with Gog the Mild: a thorough copyedit from WP:GOCE/REQ would be beneficial. Given the backlog at GAR, it's entirely possible that GOCE could finish before the review even starts.
 * 2. The structure is a bit counterintuitive: you start by describing the law and its passage, then you provide background, and then you describe the territorial extent of the law. It seems to me that it would be far more natural to put the background first and to then describe the law, its passage, its extent, etc.
 * 3. The final section (the UK income tax year) seems a bit out of place. It's only tangentially related to the topic, and it seems somewhat trivial. You might consider cutting it down to a sentence or two and sticking it in the "amendments" or "financial concerns" section (with the hatnote), or you could just remove it all together and send the hatnote link down to "see also."

Let me know if you have further questions or if you require any further assistance. Merry Christmas! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a good suggestion that I will take up over the next week or so. Happy new year, if you can wait another three months! ;-^ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have partially implemented your suggestion. I think it important that the structure responds to the way that many readers will approach it: most just want to see a summary of provisions but hopefully many of them will go on to read why it was considered necessary. Keen readers will continue on. I have also rewritten the tax section to make it shorter and hopefully less tangential. I didn't think it belonged in the 'financial concerns' section since it was after-the-event 'fallout'.
 * I am just about to add it to the GOCE queue.
 * I hope that previous contributors to this article find acceptable my wp:BOLD recasting of their contributions.
 * Further comments welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"Did you know" candidates
If the article achieves GA, it will become eligible to have an item in DYK if it is good enough. So I'm inviting suggestions here, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that...

 * 1) despite frequent repetition of this assertion, there is no evidence that anyone rioted when eleven days were deleted from the calendar for 1752 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) on 10 September 1752, nothing at all happened in Great Britain or its American possessions because there was no such date. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) it took over 150 years for England to follow Scotland in adopting 1 January as New Year's Day.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) until the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was passed, the new year began on March 25th in England and Wales. (suggested by user: Twofingered Typist)
 * 5) when the  Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was proposed in Parliament, it was already 1751 in most of Europe. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) because of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, the statutory date of the "annual election of mayor, sheriffs, treasurers, coroners, and leave-lookers" in Chester (England) had to be moved forward by appending a clause to an otherwise irrelevant Act, (25 Geo II c.31, concerning distemper in cattle) "to avoid the inconvenience which would arise to the citizens, from the alteration of the [calendar] style,  bringing the ancient day of election into the fair week." --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have made a DYK nomination with #4 and #6, see Template:Did you know nominations/Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. As the article is not new, I am not optimistic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)