Talk:Old Style and New Style dates/Archive 1

1751/1752
What would anyone think of the idea of having "1751/1752" as an article name to cover the most unusual 12-month period in the history of the calendar in the whole of the English-speaking world? Or maybe just to cover the period up to 24 March/3 April? Robin Patterson 21:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the William Shakespeare page it says: died April 23, 1616 (Gregorian calendar), May 3, 1616 (Julian calendar). On this OS/NS calendar page it says: New Style or N.S. means that the date is in the Gregorian calendar Old Style or O.S. after a date means that the date is in the Julian calendar. William Shakespeare died on 23 April 1616 (Old Style).

If Gregorian is new style, then both passages are screwed up. It gives his old style and Gregorian (new style) death dates as the same.

Indeed, much is screwed up (William Shakespeare has, for example, been given a birthdate when his birthdate is unknown). O.S. = Julian. N.S. = Gregorian. I've fixed the errors you pointed out in William Shakespeare. - Nunh-huh 06:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Swedish Dating system
I think some mention should be made towards the bottom of the dating system used by Sweden for a time in the 18th Century. if for no other reason than context. but clearly they are similar topics and would help someone to learn more about the subject. Swedish calendar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarscott (talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

"O.S."
I thought that Old Style was a form of birth and not any sort of dating style or technique. WB2 00:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Give us back our eleven days"
The well-known incident of mob outcry relating to the calendar changes should perhaps be relayed in this article. See for instance http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n149/ai_17782422.


 * Thanks for the link! However, I fear that you have misunderstood the link's article, whose author, Robert Poole, conclusively proves that the "calendar riots" never occurred. In his words: "It can be asserted with confidence that the calendar riots are a myth." (top of web page 3: ). Your misunderstanding is fostered by the Find Articles version of the article, because it did not indent paragraphs that were quotations. They occur immediately after a paragraph terminated by a colon and end with an endnote number (nn). Nevertheless, it might be useful to mention that the riots did not occur, referring to this article. — Joe Kress 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

for editors
Template:OldStyleDate can be used to write OS to NS dates. For example, it will produce 11 November 1907 to 11 November 1907 --Fallout boy 07:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there some way to link to this template in the article, say, a short italic blurb preceding the article? What is the standard way of refering to Wikipedia namespace articles/templates? --Adamrush 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Edison calender?
In the section "countries with lunisolar calenders," it says that Japan, China, and Korea converted to the "Edison calender" on some various respective years. But this "Edison calender" was never mentioned before and I have no idea how it relates to the Julian and Gregorian calenders previously mentioned in the article. And in fact that secion about Japan, China, and Korea never mentions the Julian and Gregorian calenders but only this mysterious "Edison calender." Could somebody who knows what it's talking about clear this up? --Edward Tremel 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An anonymous editor (66.212.78.246) maliciously changed "Gregorian" to "Edison" on 24 July 2006. I am reverting it. — Joe Kress 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two different interpretations
Here are a two of sources which state that NS means beginning of the year adjustment only not full Julian/Gregorian conversion:
 * http://www.genfair.com/dates.htm
 * ''"increasingly parish registers, in addition to a new year heading after 24th March showing, for example "1733", had another heading at the end of the following December indicating "1733/4". This showed where the New Style 1734 started even though the Old Style 1733 continued until 24th March." ... "We as historians have no excuse for creating ambiguity and must keep to the notation described above in one of its forms. It is no good writing simply 20th January 1745, for a reader is left wondering whether we have used the Old or the New Style reckoning. The date should either be written 20th January 1745 OS (if indeed it was Old Style) or as 20th January 1745/6. The hyphen (1745-6) is best avoided as it can be interpreted as indicating a period of time."
 * http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/miscdate.htm
 * ''"The terms "Old Style" and "New Style" are now commonly used for both the "Start of Year" and "Leap Year" changes (England & Wales: both in 1752; Scotland: 1600, 1752).
 * I believe that, properly and historically, the "Styles" really refer only to the "Start of Year" change (from March 25th to January 1st); and that the "Leap Year" change should be described as the change from Julian to Gregorian.

This seems to be the problem some people think that "New Style/Old Style" means Julian Gregorian calendar while others think "New Style/Old Style" the change of the start of year for the Julian Calendar". I think we need to talk this though because it is causing misunderstanding. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The two changes were made at the same time in Britain.  At any rate, the year beginning March 25 is a convention that  we never use in wikipedia - we always act as though years begin on January 1.  john k 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is to say, I've always understood "New Style" to refer to Gregorian dates, and "Old Style" to Julian. It may also refer to the other issue,  but that's secondary. john k 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is were we differ and why I think there can be confusion. I tend to understand Old Style and New Style to mean the start of year. Hence Charles I was executed 30 January 1648 (OS) and 30 January 1649 (NS). --Philip Baird Shearer 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But one certainly sees "old style" and "new style" used for, for instance, Russian dates, where it's obviously not about year change. And when does one ever see  Charles I being listed anymore as having been executed on 30 January 1648? john k 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add that I've never seen "January 30, 1649" as the date of Charles I's execution referred to as "New Style."  Certainly your contention, that the term never refers to Julian vs. Gregorian dating, seems wrong to me. john k 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

John I have not said "never refers to Julian vs. Gregorian" quite the contrary I said "some people think that "New Style/Old Style" means Julian Gregorian calendar while others think "New Style/Old Style" the change of the start of year for the Julian Calendar". One of my interests is the English Civil War where the first quarter of the year matters and where using historic sources, some people get confused over the year, so to me New Style Old Style has to do with that mess, (and it matters long before the invention of the Gregorian calendar). The only saving grace is that the campaign season was usually after the March new year so it does not usually rear its ugly head during the campaigning season!

Here is a source for old style new style Charley execution: Death warrant of Charles I web page of the UK National Archives.

Until I found the Britannica article for this article, I did not appreciate that style was also used for Julian/Gregorian dates. I suspect that this confusion has to do with historical period specialisation and because any historian worth his salt would specify what he meant by "Old Style/New Style" in a footnote.

It is a problem that I think needs highlighting in this article but also I think we need to come up with a guideline on how Wikipeida articles should deal with the issue.

For a guideline we could use the convention 1648/49[*] for start of year problems.
 * All dates in this article use the start of year as January 1 see [Old Style and New Style dates] for an explanation of why this is necessary.

And for Julian/Gregorian dates where it is an issue (and none more so than the Glorious Revolution) put in an explanation that N.S. means Gregorian and the start of year on old style dates is assumed to be January 1. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is useful to clarify which type of "new style" date is meant. Beyond that, are you suggesting use of hyphenated years for events from January-March? (Saying, for instance, that Charles I reigned from 1625 to 1648/9?  I would strongly oppose that.  I think we should simply always use the "new style"/year beginning January 1, format, which is used by nearly all historians that I'm aware of.  Use of the hyphenated year, so far as I can tell, is largely done by genealogists. john k 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Highlighting this, I have always heard that a year beginning January 1 was called the "historical year" because that is the type used by modern historians. — Joe Kress 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * John I really am not at all sure what to do, but it is a problem that I think we need to address, because there is room for confusion. It is relatively easy to highlight the dichotomy, as I have tried to do in this article today, but there probably needs to be a paragraph in Manual of Style (dates and numbers)‎ on what we do in Wikipedia articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I just happened to bring this very issue up on Manual of Style (dates and numbers) last week. I was laughed at a little there for raising this issue, too. I've always assumed that unless otherwise stated the calendar year begins on 1 January in a Wikipedia article -- which I think is the simplest solution. If there is any reasonable chance of confusion (such as the execution of King George mentioned above), then the problem should be explained in the article, either in the text or a footnote. As for the problem of various countries using the Julian calendar long after the rest of the "civilized world" (yes, I'm being humorous here -- no flames, please!) adopted the Georgian, I suggest that the date in the primary source should be offered after the corrected/modernized date with an explanation. One would need to explain, again regardless of whichever standard that is adopted, why the October Revolution actually took place in November. -- llywrch 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Llywrch, you seem to have George on the brain - you say "King George" when you mean "King Charles," and "Georgian," when you mean "Gregorian." john k 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you're right John. At the moment I typed that, it was late, my wife was yelling at me to get off the computer, & I didn't take the time to proof-read what I wrote, so I confused King Charles with King George. I'm just glad that despite all of those glitches someone understood what I meant. -- llywrch 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was easy enough to understand. I just found it amusing that both of the errors involved putting the name "George" where it didn't belong.  john k 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainly relies on secondary sources, and for an example of how confusing this can be please see the article Glorious Revolution. Usually at that time events that take place in Britain are recorded under the Julian calendar and those that take place on the West European continent are recorded in the Gregorian calandar, and secondary sources keep to that convention,(adjusting the Julian year to start on 1 January). We need to have a way of indicating that the dates on the continent were not the same ones as in Britain, or the dates in Britain were not the same as the dates on the continent (Take you pick), and because of the dual interpretation of the NS/OS these may not be the best way to do it. For example in the section William made King of the GR article a date crops up that is wrong "On February 13, 1689 (Old Style), February 23 (New Style)" the date Old Style was "February 13, 1688" (note the eighty-eight) and "New Style" it was either "February 13, 1689" (start of year adjustment) or "February 23 1689" (Gregorian calendar) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can say definitively that the "Old Style" date was "February 13, 1688." Both are "old style" in the sense of being Julian calendar dates.  It's not incorrect, it's simply ambiguous, because of the year start issue. john k 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * John this is where I disagree with you, the year adjustment makes "February 13, 1689" also News Style date. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We have similar problems today with time zones, but occasionally dates matter as well. For example the attack on Pearl Harbor happened on 7 December 1941, and the attack on Malaya took place on 8 December 1941. So why were the British taken by surprise? Because thanks to the international date line the attack on Malaya started 90 minutes before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Just as we can live with the international date line, so the people in the transition period seemed to have found it no more difficult or odd than we do adjusting our watches to different time zones. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should follow the same system that (as far as I can tell) all modern sources use ie: ignore March 25 and backdate the start of the year to Jan 1. I have checked all my sources including books on the English civil war, War of the Spanish Succession etc, and they are all consistent with each other: dates for British events use the Julian calendar and are termed Old Style, that is 10 days behind the continent before 1700, 11 days after 1700 AND use Jan 1 as the start of the year. This is usually explained at the beginning of the text.


 * I have rarely seen Charles execution dated as 1648 and I feel this should be avoided on wikipedia. Therefore Charles died on 30 January 1649 OS. As Philip said a note in the ‘notes’ should explain what dating system is used.


 * Example from Sussex university: The Newton Project


 * Note on dates: During Newton's lifetime, two calendars were in use in Europe: the 'Julian' or 'Old Style' in Britain and parts of Eastern Europe, and the more accurate 'Gregorian' or 'New Style' elsewhere. The difference between them lay in their attitude to leap years. At Newton's birth, Gregorian dates were ten days ahead of Julian dates: thus Newton was born on Christmas Day 1642 by the Julian calendar but on 4 January 1643 by the Gregorian. On either 19 February/1 March 1700 or 29 February/11 March 1700 (depending on which calendar is used to measure the gap), this discrepancy rose to eleven days, because there was no 29 February 1700 in the Gregorian calendar. Since some reference sources use one calendar, some the other, and some a mixture of both, this can cause considerable confusion. In the interests of clarifying apparent discrepancies with other sources, both options are given here wherever a particular date is specified.


 * Matters are further complicated by the contemporary English habit of regarding the year as beginning on 25 March. It is here regarded as beginning on 1 January, but notes are added where this may lead to confusion (for instance, the Complete Works of Joseph Mede are dated 1664 but were in fact published in the early months of what we now call 1665).


 * I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making. Old Style uses the new year as 25 March. New Style can mean just an adjustment to use 1 January (Here is a source that uses "New Style" to mean start of year adjusted). The problem is other sources - like Sussex university quoted above - use the term "New Style" when they mean Gregorian calendar so it is not possible to tell from this statement "Charles I was executed on 30 January 1649 (NS)" whether it means new style beginning of year adjusted, or Gregorian year adjusted --Philip Baird Shearer 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Archives site goes on in the very next paragraph to use "New Style" in the sense of "Gregorian Calendar." There's clearly a lot of confusion here. But I think it would be best to just use New Style/Old Style as synonymous with Gregorian/Julian, and simply ignore the year adjustment. john k 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd noticed that :-) and yes it does show that there is confusion. For that reason I think the alteration I made to this article makes sense, because the article is not a wikipedia guideline and it explains this issue to a person who has come across the National Archive page and wants to find out more about it.


 * But I also think that we need to decide how Wikipedia should cover this area and at the very least I think that this issue needs a footnote on articles that use this terminology to explain what Wikipedia means my OS/NS. It also needs to be in a guideline, (probably Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) --Philip Baird Shearer 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that we ought to be clearer on the guidelines, and you're right, I think, that this ought to be discussed at a manual of style talk page, rather than here. john k 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.

—Yamara ✉  22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mergefrom dual dating
I see no need for another article about the the same subject so I think that new article Dual dating should become a redirect to this page. If there is any information on that page which is not on this page then it can be incorporated into this page. What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But for someone looking for info on double dating, the new article is clear.  Clearer, I think.  So such a change should not be done lightly nor too quickly.  (Exception: the last 2 sentences of Dual dating give advice = OR or POV, whichever.)  --Hordaland (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Philip for the welcome message, and all the help from everyone. Wikipedia is awesome.  I originally started this subject because I was looking for advice on dates on an historical document, so merging might work, however, theoretically OS/NS are not the same as the G/J distinction.  Also, I think a short blurb to give people a quick and dirty explanation is helpful.  Hordaland: I absolutely agree, the last two sentences are opinion, and I tried to indicate that, edited a couple times, and then gave up.  Do you suggest I just say something like: "One contemporary researcher suggests . . ."  What is the proper form here? Also, do I needt the NEHGS's permission for that reference?  Thanks again folks. Mak--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One could argue that the Europe & colonies NS/OS is just one case of dual dating. This  article already has references tacked on related to calendar changes in Asia. A separate dual dating article could give the overview then this article could concentrate on NS/OS as "we" know it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as "we" know it? Not sure what that means.  I haven't thought a lot about this topic lately, but have earlier written a couple of articles about it in connection with genealogy (not WP).  It's always been my opinion that using OS/NS to refer to Julian/Gregorian is flat out wrong, but that one does see that confusion a lot.  IMO, OS/NS should only refer to dates 01 Jan. to the local first day of the year.


 * To McIntire: whatever weasel words you choose when adding your opinion or advice, you're likely to be called on it. Best to find a "recognized" authority to quote.  --Hordaland (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will go find one.  FYI, the Dual dating article was nominated for the Did You Know page, so I think that is some evidence of the inherent worth in having a separate article for it.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "We" in western europe and its then colonies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"FYI, the Dual dating article was nominated for the Did You Know page" the nominator probably did not know of this page. I still do not see the point of having two pages that replicate each other. It would be easy to add a redirect to "dual dating" to a specific section in this page. Hordaland I think you will find the discussion in the section above interesting as whether you think it right or wrong OS/NS are used for both 25-3/1-1 and J/G. All we can do on Wikipedia pages is report the differences. But to address this issue when writing Wikipedia articles see WP:MOS which refers to MOSNUM --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the nominator did not know of this page could be taken as an endorsement that there should be a separate listing for Dual dating. The separate OS/NS page and Dual dating page do not replicate each other.  Dual dating encompasses the leap year change and the start of the year change.  The OS/NS page should encompass only the start of the year change if you respect the 'pure,' traditional use of the OS/NS definition.  In the interest of being precise, I think WP ought to adhere to the more strict definition.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI:
 * The talkpage at Dual dating is now active. --Hordaland (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Close? Shall I remove the merge suggestion from the Dual Dating page? Please reply on the Dual Dating Talk page. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave it I am not convinced that the merge should not take place and to date there have been few editors involved in the discussion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Dual Dating has transformed itself from a duplicate fork into a useful generic world-view article on calendar migration, and points to this article as the authoritive specific article for OS/NS transition in Europe. So I'd support deletion of the tag now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Against the merge, all for removing tag. The dual dating page has to skim over this subject, but dual dating is not the same thing as OS/NS. It is not needed. Dual dating is its own individual subject.

Lukewarm and proud, LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Austerlitz
I have watered down the allusion to problems at the Battle of Austerlitz to "may have," but I am not convinced the reference should be there at all, since it is poorly supported. The citation is to Lord Robertson, but he is a politician, not a historian, and a worthless source for this matter. If someone can find a better source, that would be great. Languagehat (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted it. NATO is a military organisation, he was not talking to the WI. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However if you do not think that the citation is good enough you could have done a simple search on Google Books with [Julian Calendar Austerlitz] to confirm the source. Here are two books returned by the search if you think it necessary please add one or both:  --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation changed, following User:Philip Baird Shearer's proposal. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Old Moonraker. I didn't have the time to do a search for a better reference, but I'm glad one was found.  Seriously, some politician giving a talk is not a useful source; I don't care if he was talking to NATO, he's not credible.  People say all kinds of stuff. Languagehat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Languagehat for spotting this in the first place (and, while I'm here, to User:PBS for tweaking the internal link). --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As Lord Robertson was NATO Secretary General at the time that that NATO article was published, it is unlikely that if he had been wrong in the first paragraph of such an article -- that was aimed at better relations with the Russians -- that it would have remained on line as it could then have been seen as insulting to the Russians. Personally I can not think of a much more reliable source, as it would have been very thoroughly vetted before and after it was published. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I can not think of a much more reliable source": Really? You wouldn't consider an actual history of the Napoleonic Wars, or a memoir by a participant, more reliable than a speech?


 * Although I thoroughly disagree about the reliability of the speech (I doubt anyone vets all historical references in detail, going back to original sources -- if someone else had said the same thing, that would have sufficed), I am no longer questioning the inclusion of the statement, since it is doubly referenced. I continue to find it odd that after much research I cannot find this referenced to a contemporary source; the closest I can come is Burton's "it is related that they made the curious mistake of omitting to allow for the twelve days' difference between the old calendar, observed by Russia, and the new one."  I hope I'm not the only one who hears warning bells at the sound of "it is related."  But if it's an urban legend, it goes way back. Languagehat (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree: Chandler's work is well respected and widely quoted, and is more than adequate as a source here, but I didn't find the breadth of material I had expected. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to relentless prodding from User:Languagehat, an eyewitness account contradicting this fable has now been unearthed and inserted.--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly wish I were noble-minded enough not to feel even a slight tinge of glee at this news, but alas, I am not. I'm very pleased to have contributed to the accuracy of the article with my nagging, even if User:Old Moonraker did the actual work. Languagehat (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

correct usage
I have only just found this article and thus did not contribute to an earlier debate. My understanding is that the correct (and contemporary) usage of OS and NS (before 1752) referred to the Julian and Gregorian calendars, not the change in the date of the New Year, dates in diplomatic and overseas trade correspondence being given as 28 February/10 March. However family historians have applied it to the change in New Year, in my view incorrectly, but the error is so common as to need to be explained in the article. Comments please. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to determine which is "the correct (and contemporary) usage". Take for example the article on Death warrant of Charles I in the UK National Archives, which uses change in the date of the New Year for old style new style. While this document also from the UK National Archives site manages to confuse the two in two adjacent paragraphs (see "So if you see a document ..." and "The Calendar Act 1752..."! This is why we give equal weight to both interpretations. All this was discussed before with these examples in the section . --PBS (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Survival
I would suggest a section on survivals of OS dating in England after 1752: The tax year starts on 6 April, which is Old Lady Day. The Customs year started at Christmas before 1752 (Christmas - not 1 January - being the standard quarter day). After 1752, it start on Old Christmas Day, 5 January. Certain books are thus wrong in suggesting that the 354 day year of 1752 is distorting trade statistics. In fact it was a full year according to the old system. I suspect that this practice ceased long ago, but have no information on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can only note that "Certain books are thus wrong in suggesting that the 354 day year of 1752 is distorting trade statistics." if you have another reliable source that makes the claim. Also I am not sure that this is the article to place such economic details. Perhaps Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 might be more appropriate. --PBS (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusing
This article really needs some clarification as it is confusing and seems incosistent. E.g.:

''Usually in modern histories, to avoid confusion and to keep dates consistent, the OS dates are mapped onto NS dates with an adjustment for the start of the year to 1 January. For example modern histories all state that Charles I of England was executed on 30 January 1649. But Parliamentary documents investigating the regicide during the Restoration eleven years later all state that the event happened on 30 January 1648.[2]''


 * Surely these are not "NS" dates, but in fact are OS dates with the calendar year adjusted? As far as I understand it, a 17th-century OS date is equivalent to a NS date 10 (?) days later, so 30 January 1648/1649 (OS) would be 9 February 1649 (NS)

''To add to the confusion, the Battle of Boyne which took place only a few months later in Ireland on 1 July "Old Style" is not mapped to 1 July "New Style" but is remembered as taking place on 12 July. The keeping of the recorded date (not a mapped date) for the anniversary of this battle has more to do with Protestants not at first recognising Gregorian dates, so they continued to celebrate the anniversary on their Protestant 1 July and now traditionally do so.''


 * Why would it be mapped to 1 July (NS)? Surely 1 July (OS) is 12 July (NS)? The next sentence goes on to say that the anniversary IS celebrated on 1 July, but according to the Battle of Boyne page, it is actually commemorated on 12 July. There are lots of contradictions here... 143.252.80.100 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The term NS in English usually refers to the habit of keeping Julian calendar dates but adjusting the start of the year. For example Charles I was executed on 30 January 1649 (NS) or January 30 1648 (OS). Usually the only need to comment on the date is if it falls between the new start of the year and the old start of the year (as with the execution of Charly) or because the date is being compared to that of another country which was using a calendar different from that used in England. If it were only a question of defining New Style dates as Gregorian dates then there would be no need for the term, one could write the Battle of the Boyne took place in 1690 on 1 July (JC)/12 July (GC). (The only reason for commenting on the date of the battle of the Boyne is because unlike nearly all other dates of the that period where they year is the same old and new styles, there needs to be some explanation of why there is a date conflict in the commemoration of the battle.) As is shown in the paragraph on Russia, after England adopted the Gregorian colander, the term is still used in English language histories but it is then used as a synonym for the Gregorian calendar and dates are fully converted. During the middle ages date involving England in English language histories are usually written New Style (Julian dates with January 1st as the start of the year) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I recently raised a problem about the Battle of the Boyne's date on that article's talk page. The main concern is that 1 July 1690 (OS) does NOT, repeat NOT, equate to 12 July 1690 (NS), but to 11 July 1690 (NS).  That's because up till 1 March 1700, the difference between the calendars was only 10 days.  Then it went to 11 days till 1 March 1800.  Then it was 12 days till 1 March 1900, and it's been 13 days ever since.  The reason that the Boyne is celebrated on 12 July today cannot be attributed to a calendric conversion between Julian and Gregorian - unless they got the calculation wrong.  Clearly, the above comments perpetuate this misconception, as does the text in the article on this issue.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you think that 1 March, (March 25 ?) is significant in this because the the act of Parliament (Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 )which altered the type of calendar used also altered the start of the year to 1 January. So even if the type of calendar used is ignored the start of the year is 1 January from 1752.


 * See also Fiscal year and the UK tax year. I don't think we need to consider dates after 1899, as this source (Parliamentary Papers By Parliament, Great Britain, House of Commons) (p. 398) for the year 1835 is talking about events on the 12th July. Here is another source (J. T. Coleridge. The Quarterly Review LXXXVI, Published December 1848 & March 1850, By Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board, Southern Baptist Convention, Sunday School Board. (see footnote on Page 232). So clearly by the middle of the C19th the date used today was established and like the tax year it was no longer thought necessary to include the difference thrown up by the calender alteration for the year 1900. This source (History of Bank & Public Holidays:Historic Note) says "Two additional days were subsequently appointed in Northern Ireland: St Patrick's Day (17 March) by a special Act of Parliament in 1903 and 12 July (Anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690), by the Governor of Northern Ireland in 1926." which seems to have fixed the date to a specific calender date by the (Bank Holidays Act of 1871).


 * So what we need to do is find a source from before 1800 and all should become clear as to why the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne is on 12 July. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason that 1 March is significant gets back to why the discrepancy between the calendars changes three centuries out of four, or at all. It's because in the Julian calendar there's a Leap Day (29 February) every 4th year, without exception.  However, in the Gregorian calendar, there was a Leap Day in 1600 and 2000, but not in 1700, 1800 or 1900.  Consequently, on 1 March 1700 (NS), the difference just increased by a day; and so on.  There's a handy table at Gregorian calendar.


 * My main focus, however, was on 143.252.80.100's "Surely 1 July (OS) is 12 July (NS)?", and your "... one could write the Battle of the Boyne took place in 1690 on 1 July (JC)/12 July (GC)...". You seemed to be agreeing with him/her, and I felt I had set both of you straight.  But I agree with your conclusion*, and thanks for the research. (* Normally, I'd call this almost hair-splitting, but in the context of this discussion it pays to make the distinction: the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne is on 11 July but is celebrated on 12 July.) --  JackofOz (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the opening comment of this section. This article is confusing about the basic issue involved. It says that N.S. and O.S. can be used to distinguish between two different versions of the Julian calendar or between the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian calendar. Is this really true?  If it is true how does one distinguish the meanings?  Is there some context that one would assume its use to distinguish between the two Julian calendars and in some other contexts would one assume N.S. and O.S. are use to distinguish between some form of the Julian calendar (which one?) and the Gregorian calendar.  This article provides lots of information about the history of the calendar changes in Europe but it fails to clearly explain the most significant issue that people are probably reading this article to find out.  What do N.S. and O.S. mean and if their meanings vary by context, how does one determine the meaning based on the context?Davefoc (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just realized that this issue was discussed in more depth in the section below. I'm not going to move my comment, since it also goes to the idea that this article is confusing about the basic facts.  If there is not an unequivocal answer as to what the basic facts are this article needs to clearly state what the two possible meanings are and what kind of support there is for both interpretations of N.S. and O.S. (IMHO of course) Davefoc (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that the first sentence and first two sections do state what "the two possible meanings are", the problem with "what kind of support there is for both interpretations" is that unless we can find a reliable source that quantifies the usage, for us to attempt to do so would be OR. As to articles in Wikipedia we have a clear guideline on the issue MOSNUM including the advise:


 * Using reliable secondary sources side steps the issue of "what kind of support there is for both interpretations" and a footnote makes it clear to a reader which a Wikipedia article is using. -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response PBS. The problem from my perspective is that the article gives two conflicting definitions. The most important information to a reader of this article is what do the terms mean.  The reader is informed that it might mean A or it might mean B but the reader isn't given any information about when it means A or when it means B. I understand, I think, your comment about the difficulty of finding a reliable source for this information, but without this information the article fails to provide what is amongst the most expected information from an article like this.  But I've probably made too big a deal out of this.  Overall the article was interesting and maybe that's enough. Davefoc (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ugly bias
I came to this article from a resolved conflict about Russian dates and found it is presented as a British thing. Until the 6th paragraph, the sole mention of other countries is "many countries" in the first line... If I come to this article expecting to find info about Russian transition from OS to NS, I don't want to read things about dates in letters sent to England, dates of execution of English kings, or dates in U.S. tombstones, written as if they were what the thing is about.

Is it me? --euyyn 12:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * no, but the situation first arose in Britain and its colonies, so that's as good a place as any to start. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC on a proposed major change.

 * See above

I have been concerned for some time that we have two articles that have different targets but are gradually evolving to duplicate each other: this article and the Dual dating article. I propose that we make the following changes: IMO, the only other alternative is to completely merge the two articles.
 * add a hat note
 * delete the material on other date changes (China, Korea, Japan, Russia, etc), merging it into similar pre-existing material in the Dual dating article.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Dual dating should be merged here, because in English language books the OS/NS qualifiers are used regardless of where the change took place. If one day the article gets too large, "Dual dating in foo" could be spun off into a subarticle. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, the OS/NS article is subsidiary to DD, being a special case of it. So I would oppose such a merge because the OS/NS text would dominate it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the older article, and I was against the creation of dual dating so I agree with Skäpperöd. But if there is a consensus for two articles then all OS/NS should be here including Russia (IE any changes from Julian to Gregorian that can be so initialled in other articles). The other stuff, (such as duel dating in Arab countries which we do not seem to cover at the moment), could be moved into the dual dating article.  -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I complained on a previosu occasion that this article is dealing with multiple subjects:
 * 1) The dating in international communications in diplomacy, trade, etc between countries one using gregorian and the other julian dating, where a date may be expressed as 3/14 June 1750 or 25 May/5 June 1750.
 * 2) Disputes as to whether the year ended on 31 December or 24 March, leading to the date 3 March 1750/1.
 * 3) (possibly also:) Dual dating in completely unrelated systems, e.g. Muslim/European; Jewish/European
 * The transition to European Gregorian dating in different countries is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, but I think it would be better as a section in one of the articles: I suspect that "Dual dating" is the better (and NPOV) title of the two, particularly on account of the confusuion as to which of 1 and 2 is properly described as OS and NS: contemporary usage is undoubtedly 1, but geneologists often apply it to 2. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (with a doctorate in economic history)

FYI: This article has some 3,000 incoming links, I guess since people writing about the Early Modern era likely indicate if a date is OS or NS and link the abbreviations to this article (at least I do it that way). The dual dating article has about no incoming links at all, at least not from mainspace. I think that is an important fact to consider, since most people coming here probably click on an abbreviated OS or NS behind a date and wonder what that means. Also, this article has about 20,000 views per month, as opposed to the dual dating article with 500 views per month (December values). I guess the reason for this difference is the same as for the difference in incoming links. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion is still open, I don’t think this article should be merged; it is clearer, and better written than the Dual dating article, IMO, as well as covering the subject better. OTOH I agree with the comment (above), it would be better for this article to concentrate on the particularly "English" (ie British, American, etc, using the English langauge) aspect of the subject. Dual dating seems to be a wider subject than this (I've made some suggestions, there); I would suggest trimming both articles of overlap to reflect the difference (with summaries and main article links), rather than merging them together.Moonraker12 (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Weekdays?
The article presently lacks information about how weekdays must be treated when converting e.g. Russian OS to NS. To take a random example, January 16th 1910 (NS) was a Sunday outside Russia, and corresponds to January 3rd 1910 (OS) (minus 13 days). Now, does that mean that January 3rd 1910 (OS) was a Sunday in Russia (like Jan.16 elsewhere), or was it a Monday (like Jan.3 elsewhere)? Please clarify. ChrisZ78 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The calendar change did not affect weekdays. January 16, 1910 (NS) and January 3, 1910 (OS) were different names for the same Sunday. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to understand
I just wanted to say that I think this article is a pain to read and more confusing than I think it should be. The introduction is especially abstract and hard to follow; I still have only a vague idea of what Old and New style dates are after trying for ~10 minutes to read it. 174.18.17.161 (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think that this is a fair comment. Accordingly, (and as this is a much debated article), I would like to propose this revised opening paragraph:

The terms Old Style (or O.S.) and New Style (or N.S.) are used in English language historical studies to indicate that the dating system used in the source material is one or other of the (historic) methods for determining the day on which the year starts. In the Old Style dating, the year began on 25 March, whereas in the New Style it began on 1 January. Additionally (more so in other parts of the world), the terms are used to indicate the change from the historic calendar [for example, the Julian calendar in Europe and the Americas] to the (modern) Gregorian calendar.


 * References are unchanged from current version


 * Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to complicate matters, the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 article says that England did both changes on the same day (making the debate about to which change the OS/NS terms refer somewhat academic [US, moot], whereas Scotland took another 48 years to adopt the Gregorian calendar had changed the year start in 1600 but waited 152 years to adopt the Gregorian calendar (being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain). Does anyone know when the US changed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No they did not do both on the same day, but on the same year (See Calendar (New Style) Act 1750). The confusion arises because both were adjusted under the same act, and over time it has become common to retrofit the start of year to January 1 but not to otherwise alter Julian dates. -- PBS (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Accepted. And thinking about it further, the primary concern must have been the 74-day jump in the start of the year, more so than the 11-day correction for having had too many leap years. I'll have another go. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Revised lede proposal, version 2
Following the discussion above,I would like to propose this revised opening paragraph: The terms Old Style (or O.S.) and New Style (or N.S.) have been used in historical documents in English to indicate that the dating system that they use is the older or the newer of the (historic) methods for determining the day on which the year starts. Prior to 1752, the year began on 25 March in England and its colonies (rather than on 1 January as at present). Following enactment of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, it became neccessary (when speaking of a date in then-recent history) to identify which dating method was being used. [For example, the warrant for the execution King Charles I was dated January 1648 – but it was in the least quarter of 1648 in the old calendar: it could be given later as early 1649 in the new calendar. ] Additionally (more so in other parts of the world), the terms are also used to indicate the change from the historic calendar [for example, the Julian calendar in Europe and the Americas] to the (modern) Gregorian calendar. In England and its colonies, both changes happened in the same year so there is no need to distinguish between them, though the 75-day change in the start of the year was more significant in document dating than the 11 day correction for the Julian calendar's excess leap years.


 * References are unchanged from current version, except shifted down by one due to the insertion of a ref to "1600 in Scotland"


 * I think this suggested change shows that you are still missing the point that there is confusion in reliable sources (See above ). It is not really an issue for professional historians because they are quite familiar with the problem and the time frame and so make adjustments automatically (and hence probably do not get confused if the point is not explicitly made). The problem comes for armatures like us because unless we are told the dating method, or unless we are very familiar with the time line, it is easy to make mistakes. The problem we have is that reliable sources use New Style both for new year adjustment to the Julian calendar and for a short hand to mean Gregorian dates.


 * Juliet Barker in her Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle describs the problems for medival scholars (and year adjustment is a minor issue) as dates are given in all sorts of different ways, for example from the the year of the monarch's reign (do you number the start of the year from the coronation, or March 25 or some other date?) So two enemy chroniclers recording event may number the year of a battle differently by recording it in terms of the offset since the coronation of their their own king rather than in the "year of our Lord", which is how we do it today. Then there is a choice for the day date: so many days from a saints day (eg "two days after the feast of St. John") or so many days on the ide, or the day of the month. To the modern mind this is all very confusing, but we still do it to a certain extent when we count down to Christmas "only so many shopping..." etc or comment on how long there is between certain public holidays, its just that we use one specific dating method for formal writing and assume it has always been like that.


 * With regards to this specific issue, different reliable sources mean different things when they say "New Style" and they are usually internally consistent. However here is one that is not. It states "In publications you may see this written as January 1750/51, the year as it was known at the time / the year as we know it now. This is also known as OS (Old Style) and NS (New Style)." and then in the next paragraph states "Other Catholic countries followed and adopted the Gregorian Calendar but England, being Protestant, did not. England therefore remained 10 days ahead of the New Style Calendar."


 * So as neither is "correct" we need to give both meanings equal weight in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, in an early draft I had indeed given equal weight, but then noticed that one of the citations is emphatic that it is the start of year change that is the more important. By the waay, I certainly think that the National Archives article you cite has confused itself by using the same words to mean two different things, a fatal error.
 * Yes and I have been using it as an example for five years! It is clearly an oversight (probably like our pages originally written by more than one person). I wonder when they will notice. ... -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I don't think that we should sacrifice accuracy for clarity, I do think that the text as it currently stands is impenetrable to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. The lede should encapsulate the concepts succinctly and clearly, leaving it to the body to add the ifs and buts and excepts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Revised lede proposal, version 3

 * How about if we say

The terms Old Style (or O.S.) and New Style (or N.S.) have been used in historical documents in English to indicate that the dating system that they use is the older or the newer of the (historic) methods for determining dates. Prior to the application of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (in 1752), England and its colonies used the Julian calendar and began the year on 25 March (rather than 1 January). After the Act came into force, they used the Gregorian calendar that we use today, with the year beginning 1 January. Consequently it became neccessary (when speaking of a date in then-recent history) to identify which dating method was being used. [For example, the warrant for the execution King Charles I was dated January 1648 – but it was in the least quarter of 1648 in the old calendar: it could be given later as early 1649 in the new calendar. ] In England and its colonies, both changes happened in the same year so there is no need to distinguish between them, though the 75-day  change in the start of the year is usually more significant in document dating than the 11 day correction for the Julian calendar's excess leap years.

Similar changes have occurred in other parts of the world.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * References are unchanged from current version.


 * The lead is meant to describe what is in the body of the text. The first sentence says:
 * "Old Style (or O.S.) and New Style (or N.S.) are used in English language historical studies either to indicate that the start of the Julian year has been adjusted to start on 1 January (N.S.) even though contemporary documents use a different start of year (O.S.); or to indicate that a date conforms to the Julian calendar (O.S.), formerly in use in many countries, rather than the Gregorian calendar (N.S.)"
 * I think that is a more succinct summary than your proposed replacement because: It describes briefly the first two sections; and it is careful not just to describe the situation in England but in English language documents which also covers things like the Russian Revolution. I think you proposed text is much too detailed for the introduction. As we have a second paragraph on the Julian/Gregorian calendar which is a summary of the second section, it might be appropriate to place a small paragraph before it summarising the first section. I am not sure about the paragraph that starts "The internationally used..." it was tacked onto the first lead sentence some time ago and I recently moved it down to the bottom of the lead because I thought it made the lead harder to read, but it does contain useful information and I don't see where else it could go in the article without a new section and I think it is too stubby to have its own section. -- PBS (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it is more succinct. But it is so terse as to be impenetrable to anyone who is new to the subject, which is why this section begins with an anon editor saying that it is unintellible. Yes, the present version is correct but it is not legible. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead when 174.18.17.161 made his/her comment was the Revision at 21:30, 21 February 2011. As can be seen it included the Latin and foreign terms in the first paragraph. I had thought it confusing as well which is why I moved it down to the bottom of the lead. I now think the lead is much clearer. However I think the lead might benefit from the addition of a new second paragraph that briefly describes the first section. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

confusing
"contemporary documents use a different start of year (O.S.);" ... CONTEMPORARY documents use OLD style ?? confusing article. --boarders paradise (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Contemporary' means 'at the same time'. If talking about today, then it is modern. If talking about the 17C, then it is 17C. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Annunciation style
(Washington James Evans, 1998 The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy p. 170).

The green text was added in the last 12 hours. The use of A.S. in histories is very uncommon so it will need a very good source to back up the claim. Evans 1998, Page 170, is available on-line and it does not support the writing in green, because the writing in green implies that one would find "30 January 1648 (A.S.)" for the date of the execution of Charles I.

Also Evans is presenting one of two usages for old style/new style, there are other sources available that show that modern historians also use old style/new style to indicate an adjustment for the start of year (see for example British National archives: Death warrant of Charles I - Citizenship).

-- PBS (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My edit was meant to "imply" no such thing as you have inferred above in relation to the specific date of 30 Jan. 1648. The specific 1648 date was given in the previous sentence with the words "for example". My edit is intended as a general statement, not to refer specifically to that 'for example' in the preceding sentence. It merely explains the term "Annunciation Style" - information that is freely and easily obtained anywhere outside of Wikipedia. The Evans source is only the first among hundreds that discuss the meaning of "Annunciation Style" that was discontinued in 1752 concurrently with the Julian calendar, in English speaking places. The abbreviation A.S. is indeed rarer but may be encountered on old documents and is still legitimate information. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:PROVIT "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article". Your cited material does not do so. -- PBS (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please supply an example source of the use of A.S. (and also consider if this disputed sentence does not give undue weight to a fact). BTW are you aware that there is another article that contains this information? See New Year. -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why this article must remain 100% silent on explaining Annunciation Style being discontinued on the same day as the Julian Calendar in the UK, just because you say so. You do not WP:OWN this article and continue to revert experienced editors who try to fix the biased lack of relevant information with references, and you seem to think you are entitled to quibble with the references and remove them according to your whim.  This is very soon about to go to another level here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the "Bold Revert Discuss (BRD)? If so then you will be aware that it is bold edit revert edit and then we discuss to reach a consensus. While that consensus building exercise is on going you should not be edit warring your change into the article. You say in you most recent editorial comment "rv - no attempt to justify excluding this on-topic information has been attempted; seems to be a case of WP:OWN" Yet I have explained in detail why I think that the sentence you have included is inappropriate. Do you need me to repeat the explanation? I am more than happy to follow the dispute resolution. The first step being a third opinion. do you want to initiate taht or would you like me to do so? -- PBS (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have now removed the sentence :-) However your replacement text is not accurate "Two changes to the calendar were made concurrently in Britain and her colonies effective September, 1752." See the lead of this article and the article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. -- PBS (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also the section where you have placed the new paragraph is about the change in the start of teh year. The change in the calendar type is described in the next section so why do you want to conflate the two? -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Really?
Maybe for accuracy's sake we should make all articles in seconds, kiloseconds and megaseconds. This is ridiculous. Most of the English-speaking world uses the Gregorian calendar, and we really don't need this notation. It should be addressed on one page, and all other pages should be assumed as Gregorian dates. Stevetac (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a far more complex issue than you seem to think. A great many sources were originally published a long time ago, and many of them contain Old Style dates.  But some have NS dates.  If converting from OS to NS, it's crucial to be confident that what you're converting from is still an OS date and hasn't already been converted to NS.  Labelling dates, where appropriate, is key to making sure we all know what we're talking about and blunders get eliminated.  Simply assuming all dates are Gregorian is hopelessly inadequate and it would lead to a proliferation of historical errors.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Stevetac's remark is off-topic. This is an article about Old and new style dates. It is not a Wikipedia style guide. You can tell because the name of it does not begin with "Wikipedia:", which is a name space. Page names that do not begin with a word followed by a colon are in the main space. Those are articles about the world at large, not about internal Wikipedia matters. Old style and new style dates do exist and will continue to exist until all the old books are burned, all the old buildings with cornerstones are torn down, and all the old gravestones are stolen by vandals. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

execution of Charles I early in the year
I see this:

"so for example the execution of Charles I was recorded at the time in Parliament as happening on 30 January 1648 (Old Style).[8] In modern English-language texts this date is usually recorded as "30 January 1649" (New Style).[1]"

OK, we're talking about different New Year's day, but the string I just quoted is mentioning 30 January in both the Old Style and the New Style, which were actually 10 days apart at the time. Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Modern English-language texts, when writing about historical events in one country where the Julian calendar was in effect, will usually give dates in the Julian calendar, but treat January 1 as new year's day. "Old style" is sometimes meant to refer to only the new year's day change, independent from the Julian/Gregorian change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The modern practive of historians (and WP) is that the year runs from 1 January not 25 March, but the days are given according the contemporary English calendar in England. According to contemporary dating, Charles was executed on 30 January 1648, which we now refer to as 30 January 1649 (or 1648/9).  A contemporary from another country might have given the date as 30 January 1648/9 February 1649.  However I have only seen that form in international correspondence - diplomatic and mercantile.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

UK Fiscal Year
According to the article, 25 March in New Style is 6 April, and this date is still the first day of the fiscal year in the United Kingdom. This is simply not true - the fiscal year starts on 1st April (hence the frequent jokes about various budgetary measures being April Fools' jokes). See for example Fiscal Year. I suggest deleting this whole sentence - or can somebody clarify? Maybe it used to start on 6th? --81.101.197.228 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There was an edit made by an IP address on 1 April this year that removed all mention of the personal fiscal year from the UK section, along with the detailed history of why it runs from 6 April until 5 April the next year. I have reverted most of that edit, so there is no reason to delete the sentence in this article. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bamboozled
Am I missing something? In the "Difference in the start of the year" section I can't understand the reference to the Battle of Hastings being universally recognised as taking place on 14 October 1066, followed by the next sentence beginning with "But the start of the Julian year was not always 1 January...". Where's the contradiction? There is no question mark over when Hastings was fought because October wasn't in the slightest way affected by any subsequent decision regarding the start of the new year. Only events in the first quarter of that year would be affected, as they would have been recorded as 1065. So, the "for example" in the sentence can't apply to Hastings, can it? The example needs to be a relevant one. 00:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is because the date 14 October 1066 is in the Julian Calendar, if one was to map it onto the Gregorian calendar it would be a different date, but next to no one does this. Things get more complicated when one starts to look at dates earlier in a year. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but does that mean in giving the date 14 October as an example the emphasis is on the 14th, as the day of the month, and not on the year, which would still be 1066 for both styles of dating? I focussed on the year date as I understood the paragraph to be an explanation of how the point when the year changed would affect dating (if the battle had been in February, it would have been 1065 to contemporaries and 1066 translated to the Gregorian calendar). Unless I'm particularly obtuse (always possible), I think the intended sense of the sentence is unclear. Kim Traynor | Talk 21:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Battle of Hastings example was not useful and probably misplaced. I have now deleted it as a part of rewriting much of the lead Section. Mike Spathaky (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cultural references: Eleven Day Empire
Can someone add the Doctor Who/Faction Paradox reference to the Eleven Day Empire - the eleven days that Faction Paradox purchased from the British government when it changed over from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar on 2nd/14th Spetember 1752??? -Tra- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.23.30 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead on 9 March
There are a number of problems with the new lead.


 * 1) Wikipedia does not user "terms" in the lead.
 * 2) "From sixteenth century onwards in contemporary documents" is OR both for the start and for the implication that all documents still use them".
 * 3) There are not three possible ambiguities there are two. The confusion of the edit is shown by the use of "Mike Spathaky" footnote on point three.

For these reasons I am reverting the changes. It may well be possible to clarify what is there but I think that this attempt is confusing and misleading. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use "terms" in the lead? What on earth do you mean by that? If we're talking about terms, then certainly we should use "terms" in the lead. I thought the edit was a definite improvement - the version you've reverted back to is certainly more confusing and inaccurate - could you not have corrected the imperfections of the new version rather than lazily reverting back to an inferior one? W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles describe things not terms. Ie "genocide is" not "genocide is a term for". Lets salami slice it (I have retrospectively put numbers before the points I made) Please comment on those numbered points and explain how how those points makes for a less confusing and more accurate lead than the current wording. -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please show me another example of writing where one would write "either whether ... or whether ..." rather than "either that ... or that ..." because in my dialect of English "either whether" just looks and sounds odd. one could write "" either whether ... or whether ..." but the advantage of "either" is it indicates a binary choice "whether" does not (one can daisy-chain "or whether"s together). -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Terms are things - in this case, the things we are describing are terms (or perhaps there's a better word - designations?), so it seems entirely appropriate to use the word "terms" (or some such better word) in the lead. And this "either whether .... or whether ..." would not be my first choice, but it's a consequence of your insistence on saying the whole thing in one sentence rather than separating it into clear points as the previous editor had done. It can't be "either that... or that ..." because that would mean that OS and NS can indicate (in total) two things, whereas in fact they can indicate four things. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The do indicate two things: NS either indicates the start of year has been adjusted adjusted or the use of the Gregorian calendar. Likewise OS is the other side of the same coin it indicates that the start of year has not been adjusted, or it indicates that the Julian calendar is in use. How do you count four? -- PBS (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The four that you've just listed: NS indicates one of 2 things, OS indicates one of 2 things, and 2+2=4. To adopt your metaphor: two coins have a total of four sides. (The sentence as it was phrased before implied that only two out of these four "sides" could be designated by OS and NS, which is not what it wanted to say.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In practice there are only three things: true Old Style dating (Julian Calendar, and year beginning 25 March); true New Style dating (Gregorian Calendar, and year beginning 1 January); and the "compromise" version (days and months given according to the Julian Calendar, but the start of year set at 1 January), which was often used informally in Britain pre-1752 (sometimes with dual dating, e.g. 1733/4); and is commonly used by modern historians of the early modern period, often explained by some such formula as "all dates are Old Style, but the beginning of the year has in all cases been adjusted to 1 January". The theoretical fourth option, use of the Gregorian Calendar but with the year beginning on 6 April, is to my knowledge only found in the very specific context of the UK fiscal year, and there it is never given an "Old Style" or "New Style" label. The final wording (whatever it is) should make this clear. GrindtXX (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is about terms; ultimately, it is about what name to give a particular orbit of the Earth about the Sun. But it is also explains which orbits, and portions of orbits, go with which names. The article concentrates on four systems: Gregorian, Julian, starting the year on January 1, and starting the year on March 25. Since the article is predominantly about the four systems, and not-so-much about what to call those systems, I think it is best to avoid the word "term(s)" in the lead. This contrasts with the article "Common Era" which isn't about when the years occur, but rather, what to call the system. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The 6th of April is a bastard, because the British tax authorities changed from the Julian leap year system to the Gregorian one in 1900, so that can be put to one side. There are only two things described by NS/OS either Julian calendar adjusted to 1 January or the a date using two different calendars (Julian to Gregorian). The lead meant to summarise and introduce the content of the article and there are two sections (not four used to describe the two different usages of NS/OS): --PBS (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Differences in the start of the year
 * Differences between Julian and Gregorian dates
 * Yes, two sections, each of which is a "whether", not a "that" (it would be a "that" if we were talking about either O.S. or N.S. individually, but we're talking about both of them together). But as GrindtXX points out, there are actually three (not four or two) options. The first paragraph clearly needs some major reworking. The emphases on "English-language" and "historical studies" are also inappropriate - use of these concepts is not restricted to either of these domains (of course other languages use different words or letters to express them, but that's true of everything we write about). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the final text will look like, but it should not be inconsistent with the fact that Scotland used January 1 as the beginning of the year, together with the Julian calendar, from 1600 to 1752. This is currently relegated to a footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ? It is not relegated to a footnote it is in the second paragraph of the lead: "In Scotland, the legal start of the year had already been moved to 1 January (in 1600), but Scotland otherwise continued to use the Julian Calendar until 1752" -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it not in fact be better to be consistent with the title of the article, and begin "Old Style and New style dates are...", or perhaps more practically: "Old Style dates are ..(one or two sentences).. New Style dates are ...." ? W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it necessary as the article title is a descriptive one, the dates is simply a from of disambiguation as there are many things for which there are old and new styles. It may be desirable to include "dates" in the first sentence, but it should included for other reasons than simply to mirror the article title. -- PBS (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would also move away from the present situation where the first paragraph strongly implies that the subject of the article is the terms "Old Style" and "New Style", which you and Jc3s5h both say it is not. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(not normaly) converting pre 1582 dates

 * See above Bamboozled

In the discussion above on the example of the Battle of Hastings is was said: "It is because the date 14 October 1066 is in the Julian Calendar, if one was to map it onto the Gregorian calendar it would be a different date, but next to no one does this." Although the location in the text of this example was incorrect, the fact that "next to no one" corrects the older OS dates to the current system is, i.m.h.o., an intresting point to make and more people should become aware of this, especialy on subjects that where influenced by the time of the year (e.g. weather, times of sunset) like the Battle of Hastings; fought on 14 = 20 oktober. The current artical gives the perfect place to do just that.

Its says now: "Usually, the mapping of new dates onto old dates with a start of year adjustment works well with little confusion for events which happened before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar. For example the Battle of Agincourt is universally known to have been fought on 25 October 1415, which is Saint Crispin's Day. But for the period between the first introduction of the Gregorian calendar......"

I propose to change that into: "Usually, the mapping of new dates onto old dates ...... For example the Battle of Agincourt is universally known to have been fought on 25 October 1415, which is Saint Crispin's Day. Well known days like this are usualy rememberd on their original date wihthout converting them to the Gregorian-dates. Although, unknowigly, the events are rememberd nine days early as in 1415 25 oktober fell in the same time of the year as the modern 3 november.

But for the period between the first introduction of the Gregorian calendar......"

Looking forward to your reactions. Vlaascho (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've moved your section down to the bottom of the page so others can see that there is a new section. I nearly missed you new section when it was placed near the top of the page


 * It is not just well known days but all days. It is actually quite difficult to work out the dates prior 1582 from primary sources. I mentioned this in a conversation earlier on this page (now archived)


 * So when medieval historians like Juliet Barker put together dates they work in out from primary sources and then usually present the date in the Julian Calendar (and indicate in some way or other the start of the year they are using if a date that falls before before 25th March). I think that they stick to the Julian Calendar because at the time that is how Easter was worked out and to use Gregorian dates would mean that Saints days and Christmas would be on days different from their original calendar dates and leap year become a problem. One would have sentences like "The King went to Winchester on 29th of December to celebrate Christmas the next day."! So historians do it for all dates not just those which are particularly notable. -- PBS (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Article not covering world perspective
I would like to nominate this article for deletion since, like I said in the subject line, it doesn't cover world perspective, but rather says "When recording British history it is usual to use the dates recorded at the time of the event with the year adjusted to start on the first of January. So, for example, the Battle of Hastings is universally known to have been fought on 14 October 1066. But the start of the Julian year was not always 1 January, and was altered at different times in different countries." To my understanding, British history is NOT WORLD history. Fandelasketchup (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Deletion policy describes Wikipedia's deletion policy. Articles about a particular area of the world, rather than the whole world, are certainly allowed. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The phrases Old Style and New Style have been used at least since the seventeenth century to describe different calendar changes. The context of the use of these particular phrases has mainly been in English-speaking countries and (through the English parliament's 1750 Act) "England and her Dominions" which then included most of European-settled North America. This is English Wikipedia. All in all an English language bias is therefore inherent in the subject. The section on countries that used lunisolar calendars may address the world perspective issue anyway. However I am not sure (and the section does not state) whether the terms Old Style and New Style have actually been used in those contexts. That asepct of the general subject of calendars is covered in the article Gregorian calendar and is probably best left there.


 * It is important that somewhere in WP the complexities of this subject are explained clearly and fully as they are often misunderstood even by historians. What the article should focus on is explaining actual usage of the terms, not what some editor(s) may think should be the "proper" usage, either in general writing or in WP artcles. That is for elsewhere.


 * I oppose deletion. Mike Spathaky (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It would probably be best if the non Julian/Gregorian calendar sections were moved into Dual dating and this article was kept specifically for the New Style Old Style differences. -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Section worldview
I have changed the title of the section about 'start of year' to make it explicit that the section is about Britain and its colonies. Nobody should expect such a section to have a 'world view' so I have also removed the tag. If someone wants to add relevant material about start of year date in other cultures, then let them add this to another/a new section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Anniversaries
"the usual historical method of commemorating events of that period within Great Britain and Ireland by mapping the Julian date directly onto the modern Gregorian calendar" How do we know this, and how widespread was the custom? Jefferson's O.S. gravestone inscription is suggestive, and it would make sense for people to celebrate Name days in that fashion, but I can't help wondering if Bach had birthday parties on St. Benedict's Day or that of the other Guido. Sparafucil (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence says "historical method" not "contemporary behaviour" the clue lies in the bracketed clause "(as happens for example with Guy Fawkes Night on 5 November)." -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Boyne
Presumably the reason why the Orange Men of NI commemorate the Battle of the Boyne on the 12th is the same reason that the UK tax year starts on the 6th of April as explained Fiscal year
 * "... the 1752–3 tax year was extended by 11 days). From 1753 until 1799, the tax year in Great Britain began on 5 April, which was the "old style" new year of 25 March. A 12th skipped Gregorian leap day in 1800 changed its start to 6 April. It was not changed when a 13th Julian leap day was skipped in 1900, so the start of the personal tax year in the United Kingdom is still 6 April"

-- PBS (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The situation is more complicated than suggested by PBS. Initially the celebartions were more focused on the Battle of Aughrim (qv) which took place on 12 July 1691 (OS). The date of the Battle of the Boyne was 1st July 1690 (OS) which converts to 11th July 1690 (NS) - not the 12th. The principal focus of the celebrations later changed to the Battle of the Boyne for propaganda reasons (see Battle of Aughrim) but the date of the celebrations remained and remains 12th July when "Derry, Aughrim, Enniskillen and the Boyne" are typically celebrated by the Orange Order. Mike Spathaky (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

170 8/9
I wonder if this is an example. Maybe you want to add it to the article. Watchduck (quack) 23:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)