Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Date Of Easter

The Act also introduced the Gregorian Rules for the date of Easter Sunday (cf. the Computus page); that seems worth a mention.

82.163.24.100 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Leap Year Rules

The Act introduced the omission of February 29th on years divisible by 100 but not 400. That needs specifically mentioning.

82.163.24.100 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Easter Tables

There is http://books.google.com/books?id=pSoIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1 The British Calendar Act, imaged, but alas without the Easter details. Many, if not all, copies of the original Act on the Web omit the 12 monthly Saints' Days pages and the important pages on the Date of Easter Sunday. But http://books.google.com/books?id=zr8PAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=#PPA24,M1 Book of Common Prayer (1815) - imaged - has Easter tables which are presumably those of the Calendar Act itself. Note - view with broadband. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation not bloody well needed

Seriously? Someone thinks the date of the UK tax year is controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.153.189 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that too but I don't think it is the date (because it could have been put on the first sentence) rather it is because of the way the date was arrived at. --PBS (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

HM Revenue & Customs

HM Revenue & Customs have a theory Frequengly Asked Questions: Why does the tax year start on April 6?

They are not clear as to why it was originally 6 April, but a interesting sentence is "The dates were adopted for income tax on its re-imposition in 1842 and have not changed since." Which would seem to imply that for a time there was no annual tax year. --PBS (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates for Scotland

Can we get primary sources for Scotland? The Act of the (Scottish) parliament in 1600? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The text of the Scottish decree is printed as a footnote on pages xvii–xviii of the Handy-book of rules and tables by John J. Bond (1875). Technically, Bond is a secondary source. I'm not sure if the original document exists as I've only seen it printed in secondary sources, such as the (British) Statutes at Large and the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 1st series, vol. VI, p.63. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that these would be more authoritive than a modern geneology society, even though they say the same thing. I suspect what we have now is a tertiary source, relying for its info on the sources you have given. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Text of the Act

The "Official text of the statute as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom", linked to in the top right box of the Article and in the References, is in respect of Easter self-evidently internally incorrect, when considered as a meant-to-be-meaningful document. Compare it with the original Act, and with the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. But I do not know whether the error was introduced in an amending Act duly passed by Parliament and given the Royal Assent, or whether it was introduced by some minion of the State when preparing the material for the Web or other distribution. It might be interesting, but not definitive, to check in Halsbury.

Since the Article's title is that of the original Act, I suggest that it would be safer to make the Article evidently and essentially about the original Act, with links to the original (Statutes at Large 1765 suffices), and to deal with the current version either in another Article or in a separate major section of this Article.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In any Article about an Act of any legislature, it would be useful to have a boilerplace box listing all amending Acts. Perhaps Wikipedia could add those boxes throughout, with a "data needed" note?? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

England 1751

Do the changes to the new year mean that there was no January 1st through to March 24th 1751? Give us back our 83 days! Myrvin (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct in England and British colonies only. Those dates did exist in mainland Europe, colonies of its countries, and in Scotland. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That apparently omits consideration of Ireland and of Wales. Better to cover the British Isles explicitly and then say "the rest of Europe" or "elsewhere". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The present second and fourth references use different URLs redirecting to one (different) URL, and should be combined. Another URL, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo2/24/23, leads to the whole Act on one page, and would seem better.

Because the page set to which they lead is clearly in error, I suggest omitting "as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom" on the grounds that the first part is dubious and the third part is superfluous. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The original act and its first amendment are not combined in the modern UK law database, so they must have separate URLs. I agree that the "open whole act" option is better, which requires a different "path". I've changed both titles to include both 25 March and 1 January years via "1750/51" for the original act and "1751/52" for the first amendment. The wording "as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database" is part of the {{UK-LEG}} template and cannot be changed as long as we use that template. That wording is correct when referring to the modern version of the act: It includes all amendments at least through 1986, many of which removed words in the original act. It is in force today, but only in the United Kingdom, not in the United States or any other former colony. I suppose it is also in force in all current UK possessions such as Bermuda. However, the Wikipedia article refers to the original act as well as the modern version, so the 1765 Statutes at Large links are also needed. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Act's Effect on Microsoft .Net Computer Programming

Microsoft's .Net framework (used to define standard items in Windows programs) includes a "DateTimePicker", that displays a calendar and makes choosing a date easier for the user. The earliest date it can accept is January 1, 1753, apparently to avoid the complication with earlier dates that this Act set out to fix.

I'm not sure where (or if) this belongs in the article, but the fact that an Act from 1750 has to be taken into account in 21st century computer programming might be of interest.

Maybe for a "Popular culture" section. This isn't the only place such a restriction exists. Macintosh time begins in 1904, I figure to avoid the 1900 non-leap year. OpenVMS uses 17 November 1858. UNIX uses 1 January 1970. There are others. For instance, using 1753 as a starting point wouldn't work in countries (mostly Catholic) which switched in 1582, or which switched later, such as Russia in 1918, and others which haven't switched yet. See Adoption of the Gregorian calendar for details. This isn't an isolated issue. - Denimadept (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Appalachian resistance to moving the date of Christmas

I know we have a policy of wp:verifiability not truth, but the article cited in support of resistance by Appalachian citizens to 'moving the date of Christmas' has got its maths wrong. At the time of the Act, the difference was 11 days, not 12 - which would only take us to 5 January. I rather suspect that the author has incorrectly laid the blame on the calendar change, in reality something else must have happened. January 6 [in any calendar] is the Epiphany, a day that is still celebrated in Spain and Italy in preference to Christmas Day.

According to the article Little Christmas, The eastern tradition of celebrating the birth of Jesus on 6 January precedes the creation of the Gregorian Calendar by hundreds of years. By the year 1500 AD eastern Churches were celebrating Christmas on 6 January and western churches were celebrating it on 25 December even though both were using the Julian Calendar. I suspect that the ethic group in question had a tradition of celebrating the 6th but found that everyone around was celebrating the 25th. I suggest we delete this addition. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Entirely possible that confusion between the calendar change and Epiphany was involved; a West Virginia oral history from the early 1970s notes that some people marked it on Jan. 5 and others Jan. 6, likely due to that confusion. It's a trivial example, but a verifiable example of resistance to the calendar change. I would add the Hammons oral history as an additional citation, however. Carter (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Protestants, especially Presbyterians and Baptists, saw it as a Popish plot by the Antichrist and thus inherently wrong. [Eastern Orthodoxy hasn't accepted it to this day]. I just wonder if this is really the best example we can come up with, since the numbers don't add up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Popular culture references

This section is typical of 'Popular Culture' material in every other article in which it appears - unsourced or poorly sourced trivia. Does anyone agree with me that it should be deleted? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Denimadept (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Chesterfield introduced the Bill into Parliament on 29 February 1751 (1750 Old Style)

An anon editor rightly points out that this statement cannot be correct, since 29 February only arises in leap years but 1751 NS (1750 OS) was a common year. Is the item cited correctly? Vandalism? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The citation given does not seem to support the statement (though it may be intended as a cite for the Scottish Act). The "Handy Book of Rules and Tables" is available at [here at Google Books. I haven't searched it from cover to cover but it not in the preface where the Act is discussed. There is a reference to 29 February 1751 on page XV that deals explicitly with this apparent error and if Chesterfield had indeed introduced the Bill on such an anomalous date, then surely it would be mentioned. Consequently, I will just delete 29 February 1751 as a silly error. If anybody cares to investigate further, be my guest. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to the anon IP who cleared this up. Citation says 25 February 1750/1. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style changes to tax year section

I accidentally hit the return key instead of backspace when writing the edit note to explain some minor changes to the 'why the tax year starts on 6 April' section. What it should have said is this: MOS:BLOCKQUOTE specifies that the highlighting effect of the quote template is sufficient, that quote marks should not be used. (Also, the quote template indents 'as standard', it doesn't need additional indenting). Also, replaced ellipsis with three dots, per MOS:ELLIPSIS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Give us back our eleven days".

I don't suppose anybody really cared about a change in the dating system but the real reason for the various riots was that the landlords were round for a whole months rent money eleven days early. AT Kunene (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There were no riots—please read the reaction and effect section. The Calendar Act also explicity prevented landlords from collecting rents early: "That nothing in this present Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to accelerate or anticipate the Time of Payment of any Rent or Rents, ..." — Joe Kress (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, there was concern about financial hardship for some people caused by the change to New Style: Being charged for a month's rent but only being paid for work they could actually do in such a short month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Act does in effect, cheat the poorest workers of the time. They were mostly hired as day-laborers, paid for each day they worked. But their rent was charged by the month. While the Act does have a provision to allow them an extra 11 days to pay their rent, in the end they are still paying a months' rent for only 20 actual days. So they didn't get paid for the 11 days that they hadn't worked, but still had to pay rent for those 11 days. But I agree that there are no records of serious rioting over this.

Still, this should be mentioned in the article. Leaving out this relevant fact makes the people seem foolish & un-scientific, and trivializes their legitimate grievance. T bonham (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As I read it, they rent was to be approx two/thirds normal. The main problem is to find a reliable source that says anything about it. The apparent lack of any contemporary evidence suggest that the dispute did not actually happen. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not that the rent was 2/3 of the normal rent, but the Act provided that rents would be due on the same "natural day", that is, 11 calendar days after they otherwise would have been. So if a tenant had to pay rent on the 1st of every month, say, August 1 and September 1, 1752, after the date change the rent would be due on the 12th of every month, starting October 12, 1752. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That would make sense. Source? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It's discussed in this article at Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#Legitimate concerns where it mentions that in Section 6 of the Act, this is provided for. See the current text or the original text at pp. 191-92. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, according to the act, rents which had been charged for a calendar month were charged for 30 days, being due October 12, then the next rent month running October 13-November 12, etc. How did we get from there to rents being due by the calendar month now? Granted no modern lease was in effect then, but no landlord said, "Well, then, I'll leave the place empty from the 13th through the end of the month." Nor could a tenant move from a 13th-12th lease to a 1st-31st lease without some weird arrangement. Or is it the case that rents were still due by the calendar month but were not payable until a lapse of 11 days, which cheats the tenant of the value but saves him/her the interest?Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think "per calendar month" just means "on the same date every month", so not e.g. every four weeks. The lease doesn't have to start on the first of the month. After a void, the lessor will take what they can get! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why the United Kingdom income tax year begins on 6 April - section too long, no encyclopedic style

Devoting more than half of the article to one minor sub-topic seems to be gravely undue. I would remove most of this section, but I will not take such bold course of action without further discussion. Your opinion? Inviting also a major contributor to this section: Honandal2. Pavlor (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It would merit transfer to its own article rather than disappearance. But I found it very confusing and was unsure which claims were to be considered reliable. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Very busy at present. Will respond later. I think rest of article needs expansion. Tax year section is long to deal with what I believe are errors on many websites.

Many thanks for the comments (Alan O'Brien). I will try to address each in turn. 1. SECTION TOO LONG. I was surprised by this comment for three reasons. First, the beauty of Wikipedia is that even niche or minority subjects can be explained in depth. There isn't the space constraints of a physical book. Second, the generally accepted explanation of the origin of the British tax year is, in my view, wrong. The wrong view is on many websites including such illustrious sites as that of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales. Hence I felt it was necessary begin by setting out the accepted view before going on to explain in some detail what I think is the better view. It would be unhelpful to write a short statement of the "correct" view. Third, to say the explanation ought to be cut because it is out of proportion to the whole article is, I feel, looking at the matter the wrong way round. The rest of the article is too short in my view. Much more could be said. For example, it is often claimed that Elizabethan England rejected the Gregorian calendar reform because it was a Protestant country which could not stomach a proposal from the Catholic Church. In fact English officials favoured the change and even introduced a Bill to implement it (which fell because of other pressures). They recognised the merits of the reform and the practical advantages for trade of keeping in step with the rest of Europe. I discuss this and other issues at some length in my book about the tax year (Why the Tax Year Begins on Sixth April, which is available as free eBook from Lulu.com). I have thought about expanding the rest of the article but I haven't got the time.

2. NO ENCYCLOPEDIC STYLE. I plead guilty! I am new to Wikipedia authorship and just tried to write my contribution in as simple English as I could manage. I am not sure how the correct style differs. I could study the issue, but not while the future of the article is in question.

3. MERIT TRANSFER TO ITS OWN ARTICLE. This seems a good idea but I don't know how to do it!

4. CONFUSING. I am disappointed to hear this. It is clearly my fault if readers are confused. As I said earlier, there is a widespread mistaken explanation out there on the web and I felt could not ignore it. So I felt it was necessary to let the reader know about it before going on to what I think is the right view with my arguments in favour. I agree it would be less confusing if the piece just described one view but that would be misleading. If the article is to survive in its present length I could think about how to improve the clarity. I, obviously, thought it was clear!

Honandal2 I think you may read WP:RGW and especially WP:DUE (which is a part of the Neutral point of view policy). Wikipedia "rules" sometimes seem to be overwhelming, but they help us to build this encyclopedia. In short, one small paragraph would be more than enough for this particular topic in this article. As of possible new (sub)article about income tax year date, that could be a viable solution, but requires someone with enough experience to write one (beginner´s error: WP:OR). Be also careful not to promote your own book, which could be viewed as a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). Expanding an article is not always the best solution, sometimes less is more. Hope that helps. Pavlor (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to guidance on Wikipedia rules. I would be glad to study them and endeavour to apply them subject to one caveat. Writing the existing section on the tax year took a good deal of time and effort. I would need a lot of persuading to spend yet more time and effort only to produce what I regard as an unsatisfactory shorter article. I'd rather delete my contribution and let someone else produce an article of the appropriate length and style. You repeat your assertion that the present piece is too long without giving any reasons. Of course sometime less can be more. This might be especially true when the subject is of no interest to you! But not, I think, in a work of reference which ought to give as complete an account of each issue as possible. There are, as I said, two explanations in circulation about the tax year. Both, I think, need to be mentioned as well as the reasons for preferring one over the other. My footnotes provide links to both. The coverage of the two views seems to be required by the Neutral Point of View rule to which you refer me.Honandal2 (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This raises the interesting question of who decides what it is an appropriate length. Is it you? Am I compelled to accept your verdict?Honandal2 (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is even another "rule" for this WP:CONS. In short, if other editors dispute your edit with policy based arguments (eg. concerns of due weight or original research) and your only argument is in the line of "I like it this way", then consensus is against your edit. In theory, your addition could be considered as a bold edit, which - when disputed - is not based on prior consensus, so return to status quo ante (when a new consensus is not reached) would be before your addition (see WP:BRD). However, I will not push any change without input from other editors. Pavlor (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will study the various guides to try and get closer to the correct style and also consider JMC Hutchinson's concern that the text was unclear.Honandal2 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Honandl2, a possible way forward might be for you to study policy article wp:lead – not with a view to writing a new lead for the whole article of course, but to consider writing a concise and pithy summary of the tax year material, which would go in the main body of this article. Then make the comprehensive version into either a new article or as a long footnote to this one. That way, it doesn't bog down this article in a level of detail that is unimportant to most readers but very important to a significant minority. The beauty of hypertext is the ability to have ever deeper levels of elaboration for those who want it and avoid boring those who don't. No-one is saying that your material is over-length in principle, only that it is too long for this article, it takes a disproportionate share. (Of course if you create a new article, it will need its own lead anyway so you get two for the price of one: write it once, use it twice.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Honandal2 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Thanks! Will do. Currently a bit under the weather and hope to get back to this. At this stage I don't know how to create a new article.

Updated

{{ping|Pavlor|Pavlor}} {{ping|Jmchutchinson|Jmchutchinson}} I have substantially recast the material about the origin of the British income tax year in an attempt to better reflect the Wikipedia style and to try to make things clearer. This is to try to meet the criticisms of Pavlor and Jmhutchinson. The material is still lengthy, which has been the subject of criticism but I hope it can be made a separate article with a link to it in the Calendar Act article. Many thanks! Honandal2 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor:,@Jmchutchinson:, see precedinng line. (My attempt to explain to Honandal2 how to use template:ping missed the mark, recreating). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Editions of the Book of Common Prayer

Honandal2, at #Leap day, you reverted my change of This practice ended in England some time after Henry VIII split from Rome as can be seen in the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer.  – to 1762 – back to 1662. The source two sentences on is for a 1762 edition. Do you really mean 1662 and if so, do you have a source for it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Yes I did change it because 1662 is correct. The confusion is caused by the fact that the 1662 book "has gone through literally hundreds of printings" according to the website (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/baskerville.htm). The 1662 Book is still the official Prayer Book of the Church of England. The 1762 print is one I picked because it seemed especially clear. I agree this will confuse people. I will consider. Either an explanation is needed or perhaps I can find an actual 1662 edition.Honandal2 (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I have gone for the explanation option. Will it do? "The feast of St Matthias is invariably on 24 February and leap day is shown at the end of February. "Honandal2 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

How about doing it this way? put the explanation inside the ref tags but outside the citation template, like this: Note that I've moved the edition year out into a year= . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Or probably better and more standard to do it like this:

Thanks. I have gone for the last version you mentioned although I can't help feeling this all above my pay grade! I hope I have inserted it correctly.Honandal2 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that worked. At this stage, it is fairly subjective: all versions are technically correct. But the key thing, in my view, is to focus on what is needed for this article and try to avoid getting side-tracked into interesting asides. It much easier to say than to do! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Deceiving the Church of England

The article says in a few places that the change was smuggled past the CoE Bishops who might have objected to anything that might suggest primacy of Rome - but it is not supported by citation. We need to cite or delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Acknowledging the primacy of Rome would of course be avoided (in accordance with the 39 Articles), but the implication that the Bishops were somehow unaware of the origins of the Gregorian Calendar is simply too far-fetched. Cite or delete. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for change

Honandal2 has extended this section extensively. I'm a little worried that it may be too close to a wp:fork of Dual dating. Am I unduly concerned? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have solved this problem another way! It was actual the Dual dating article that was forking both this and the Old Style and New Style dates, to the extent that it had seriously wandered off the topic of "printing two dates". I have edited it back to basics. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A better Computus

The article says that Parliament accepted the Gregorian calendar by persuading itself that it has improved on Gregory's calculations, but it is not cited. Would this suffice?

When Pope Gregory reformed this part of the calendar he entirely laid aside the use of the golden numbers and substituted thirty sets of epacts in their stead But his method is so complex and at the same time so different from that of the Church of England that it was thought better still to retain the use of the golden numbers which will be much less troublesome and yet by means of the aforesaid calendar tables and rules will give the time of Easter as exactly as the epacts will do.

— Lord Macclesfield speech in House of Lords, 1751

Comment? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that one speech by one member does not establish that this is the reason the vote on the measure succeeded in Parliament. Ideally a historian would have weighed this speech along with other available evidence and reached a conclusion about why Parliament adopted the measure. I've never looked into exactly how Parliament was persuaded to adopt the act, and am not familiar with the sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is true. I accept that to use it may be a bit close to OR and/or WP:PRIMARY, but it's all we have unless someone finds a wp:SECONDARY that comes to the same conclusion. I suggest that the telling quote is on the next page of the citation: "The Bill passed without debate", which suggests that the other "Lords Spiritual and Temporal" don't seem to have been that bothered. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

By chance, I recently came across a description of an astronomical manuscript owned by George Parker, the second Earl of Macclesfield. The manuscript bears no relevance to the calendar question, but is further evidence of Macclesfield's interest in mathematical astronomy.

A google scholar search reveals that JSTOR has a freely available May 1750 proposal by Macclesfield for Calendar Reform that appeared in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. If I may venture a historical interpretation, the lack of interest you mention by the remaining members of Lords may be that they were simply not interested in such mathematical technicalities as epacts (and other aspects which Macclesfield discussed in the Phil Trans). I am not familiar with further literature focusing on Macclesfield and the Calendar question. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. In Chesterfield's letter to his son, he says that Macclesfield's speech all went over their Lordships' heads. WP: SYNTH of course, but I rather suspect that a consensus had already been reached among business interests that the time had come to adopt the Gregorian calendar anyway and the Golden Number stuff was just a fig-leaf. I also suspect this was intended more to deprive the Tories of electoral ammunition than to hoodwink the bishops. But it would be nice if we could find an RS that says so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I just found a passage discussing the Calendar Reform debate in Lords at pp. 111-112 of Robert Poole's "Give us our Eleven Days…, which is already cited in the article. The section (and the references cited there) deserve a careful reading by those more directly involved in this article. The following passage at p. 112 seems to address our concern with the Lords debate:

The new Easter, more surprisingly, did not feature in public debate, perhaps because few people understood how Easter worked anyway. Care was taken, however, to defuse the issue. The papal origins of the calendar were glossed over, and whilst the involvement of British experts was trumpeted, that of the Roman Catholic mathematician Father Charles Walmesley was hushed up.[61] Further to conceal the Roman connection, a peculiarly British system for determining the date of Easter was drawn up to be inserted in the Book of Common Prayer, different from the Gregorian in execution but identical in effect: "the papal calendar with the papal moon omitted", as a later writer put it.[62] All this had been carefully squared by the astronomers with Archbishop Herring of Canterbury, to whom it had been explained as a technical correction which left intact the traditional Anglican method of calculating Easter by golden numbers.[63]

Given the Archbishop of Canterbury's involvement in the change, the claim that "the change was smuggled past the CoE Bishops" doesn't seem to be supported and probably should be deleted. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey: Thank you, Steve. I suspect that this quote is the original foundation for the myth in the article, but "the tale has grown in the telling" over the years so much that it has become a complete travesty of it. Now is not a great time to visit a library for a copy but at least I can remove the fanciful assertions in the meantime. I suspect that when I get a copy, it will provide the answer to Jc3s5h's challenge too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: There's a pdf online at: http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/684/1/Poole_GiveUsOurEleven.pdf --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The expression "smuggled past" is ambiguous. A smuggler hopes to beat the Customs by entirely concealing his activities. This is not what happened here: Chesterfield & Co knew Bishops sat in the House of Lords and would be aware of the Bill. I took "smuggled past" to mean something different, namely, that the real Catholic nature of the Easter reform was obscured by clever spin which persuaded Archbishop Herring that this was a technical change based on purely British scientific research. This is what I take Dr Poole to be saying in his book and in his article. The article says: "All this had been carefully squared by the astronomers with Archbishop Herring of Canterbury, to whom it had been explained as a technical correction which left intact the traditional Anglican method of calculating Easter by golden numbers". I attach below an extract from Chapter 8 of Dr Poole's book, page 115 onwards, which gives some more detail:

… Davall [Counsel who drafted the Bill] approached him [Archbishop Herring] tactfully. He began by soliciting the Archbishop’s opinion on the uncontroversial question of how the eleven days could best be deducted … Then came the difficult bit, introduced by a flatteringly lengthy explanation of the Easter tables for the prayer book, which were enclosed for Herring’s special perusal. The error in the Julian Easter was explained in astronomical terms, and Davall opined neutrally that “the full moons as computed by the Gregorian calendar, happen sufficiently near to the true ones, to found our ecclesiastical computations upon”. However, the Gregorian system of epacts had brought with it complicated rules which were best avoided …

… On the question of how the eleven days should be deducted, he [Herring] simply passed on the comments of “a better judge than myself”. The conclusion was that the days should be deducted in one block …

… Herring had nothing in particular to say about Easter, but he was nervous in the extreme about the general issue of altering church feasts …

Dr Poole says Herring was exercised about the changes to feast days because this might stir up the mob. However, of course, the material changes would occur not because of Easter reform but because of the omission of 11 days so that, for example, Christmas would fall 11 days earlier. The moveable feasts dependent on Easter already changed each year and any different changes would not be noticeable after the reform.

Hence I am not sure the Church was "fully consulted". Consulted but not fully and deceived by spin! Perhaps the use of "smuggled past" could be abandoned in favour of something more appropriate? Honandal2 (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That extract from Poole's book is indeed more helpful because his description in the (more widely available) 1995 article for Past and Present glosses over the question. But he does say that "The new Easter, more surprisingly, did not feature in public debate, perhaps because few people understood how Easter worked anyway.",[p 112] so any feast days based on Easter wandered around the calendar in any case. Of more concern were big fairs and markets traditionally associated with Christian feasts, notably the Michaelmas fairs, when people got paid for the past year and hired for the coming year. "Fairs, as we have seen, were specifically exempted from the calendar reform; that is, they were to change their nominal date to retain the same place in the season, thus in effect observing the Old Style."[p 122]. I don't know if Poole says so explicitly (as we would need, to avoid WP:SYNTH), but that exemption would seem to be a direct response to Herring's concern, which would seem to be more about their temporal welfare than their spiritual salvation.

But to come back to the original question: do we have any evidence that the Bishops were deceived? I don't see that we have (and I don't believe that they were). Everybody concerned knew what needed to be done and just wanted to do it without giving too much 'capital' to their political opponents (Whigs v Tories, CoE v Non-conformists). In my opinion, the mumbo-jumbo about 'the English method' (of Golden Number etc) was just a face-saving exercise, especially when we see that the actual tables in the Book of Common Prayer follow Gregory exactly. Again, my opinion doesn't matter: what we need is a balance of RS opinion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: You could be right. My difficulty is that Dr Poole thinks the Archbishop was led to believe that the change was merely "a technical correction which left intact the traditional Anglican method of calculating Easter". Dr Poole also says the Archbishop had no questions about the Easter provisions. This seems to be evidence that the Bishops did not understand what was being done. Dr Poole's spent time researching the original documents, including those for the Archbishop in the Lambeth Palace archives. Dr Poole could have misunderstood the sources or he could have failed to find the evidence that the Bishops knew what was being done? However, your question about evidence of deception could be turned round: what evidence is there that the Bishops fully understood the change? I don't know but I suspect the Bishops were scholars of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and the Bible, so it is possible that they were not naturally inclined to penetrate the astronomical calculations underlying the Bill. -- Honandal2 talk 15:18, 21 November 2020‎

@Honandal2: If you can quote where exactly Poole says that he "thinks the Archbishop was led to believe", that's all the evidence we need. It is not for us to question Poole's competence or good faith. So long as we have a citation, our conscience is clear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Honandal2: I didn't really answer your exact question. Within the structures of Wikipedia's policies WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, no, I don't believe that we can draw inferences. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While it would be reasonable to suppose that the Bishops didn't understand the astronomical calculations, there can be little doubt that they knew the consequences of adopting a calendar that was invented in Rome. Poole describes how an attempt in 1584 to introduce it was shot down because it was the work of the Antichrist [Poole (1995) p. 106]

A proclamation was drawn up, but the scheme was sunk by the opinion of the bishops consulted, who argued that "seeing all the reformed Churches in Europe for the most part do hold and affirme and preach that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, therefore we may not communicate with him in any thing", and held up the possibility of a schism between England and the rest of the Protestant world.

So there can be no doubt that the Bishops knew that it would be a high risk strategy that might lose even more 'market share' to the non-conformist chapels. "Advisors advise, Ministers decide" is as true here as it is in politics: whatever the science said, it was always a political decision and some serious spin doctoring must have been done to prevent a Great Schism between Anglicanism and Non-conformism. [I am working on the draft of a new 'Religious dissent' section and am struggling to find anything organised - plenty of moaning among the peasantry but no traction]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dr Poole does not use the words he "thinks the Archbishop was led to believe". That is my summary of his view about the Easter provision in the Calendar Bill which was potentially the most controversial element. I think my summary is justified by a combination of:

1. Dr Poole's statement in connection with Easter changes that "All this had been carefully squared by the astronomers with Archbishop Herring of Canterbury, to whom it had been explained as a technical correction which left intact the traditional Anglican method of calculating Easter by golden numbers". If Herring was "squared" it suggests he was persuaded the change was a mere technical correction and Anglican traditions were safe; and

2. Dr Poole's observation that, following Davall's explanation of the Easter changes, Archbishop Herring had no questions. Surely Herring would have had questions if he had understood or suspected? He certainly had concerns about the effect of the omission of 11 days on fixed feast days; and

3. Dr Poole's reference to Augustus de Morgan's book in which he observes that the body of the act adopts the old prayer book formulas but uses Gregory's Easter dates in the tables at the end of the Act. Thus it would appear to the lay reader that there was no change of principle since Easter moved about in mysterious ways that few understood.

However, having said all that, I have no strong views and I am content to let you and others decide what to include or exclude.

The Elizabethan discussion of the calendar reform is surprising (to me anyway). Dr Poole opens Chapter 4 of his book as follows:

"What is interesting about the reception of the Gregorian calendar in England is not that it was rejected, but that it came close to being adopted."

Walsingham asked John Dee (one of the leading intellectuals of the day) for advice about the Gregorian reform and Dee was in favour although he wanted some modifications (returning the Spring Equinox to the time of Christ and not the time of Council of Nicaea so that 11 days should be omitted; and removing those 11 days in stages and not in one block). The government rejected those ideas and preferred to keep in step with the rest of Europe. [Dr Poole's book pages 47-49 and Dr Poole's article pages 106-107.]

Dr Poole in his book (but not his article) later offers a more nuanced account of the 1584 position of the bishops which suggests the church was also concerned about who had the authority to make changes — church or state.

"What about the bishops? … All concerned — council, bishops, men of science — were anti-popish. All agreed that the calendar itself was a thing indifferent to salvation. The question was: who had the right to determine things indifferent in a mixed "civil and ecclesiastical matter" — church or state? … [The bishops] implied that within the mixed sovereignty of the royal prerogative it was the prerogative of the church to decide … " [page 55]

Elizabeth's government continued to favour the reform and introduced:

" 'An Act giving her Majesty authority to alter and make a calendar, according to the calendar used in other countries'. It was read in the House of Lords on 16 March 1585 and again on 18 March. However, it went no further and was lost in the dissolution on 29 March … In the aftermath of the Throckmorton plot and the assassination of William of Orange, the main business of the parliament was to provide for the queen's safety … " [Dr Poole's book pages 52-53]

Not far ahead lay the huge challenge from Spain and the Armada of 1588 and the opportunity for reform passed. Honandal2 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your item 1. I don't consider it significantly SYNTH. It is clear that pains were taken to preserve the Anglican tradition of Golden Number. I think the article covers this one adequately but feel free to develop further if you think it could be improved (I haven't reread it).

I don't agree with your number 2. That definitely is SYNTH. I draw a different conclusion (which is equally synth, of course), that he wasn't interested in the technical details – he had no need to be – but he was very aware of both the effect on traditional feast-days and the risk of being cast as a papist heretic by the hardliners. So the "spin" was very important. So we have a difference of view and neither if us can point to a source that supports conclusively one or other view. Without such evidence, we can't say anything at all. Specifically we have to remove any suggestion of legerdemain because we have no evidence that it is true. We have to leave to readers' own judgements.

I agree with your number 3 and will be including that item in the Religious dissent rewrite.

The article would be improved with a section on the John Dee attempt. You have almost written above the section needed, would you transpose? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Religious dissent

No doubt there was religious dissent but the example given in the article does not illustrate it: the journalist who wrote it can't add!

First, from Christmas 1752 to Christmas 1799, 25 December (OS) was 5 January (NS). (It was 6 January from 1800 to 1900, 7 January at the time the article was written). It would be reasonable to suppose that religious dissent would emerge in the first 48 years after the act, not wait until 1800.

Second, there is a long tradition in many parts of Europe to give Epiphany pride of place over Christmas day: I don't know that this was the custom in Appalachia but see Little Christmas as well as the Epiphany article.

In my view, this is such an embarrassingly poor example of religious dissent that we would be better off with nothing. Agreed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this source, which deals correctly with the Julian-Gregorian offset during various centuries:

• Young, Chester Raymond; Brown, Louie (1977). "The Observance of Old Christmas in Southern Appalachia". In Williamson, J. W. (ed.). An Appalachian Symposium. Essays Written in Honor of Cratis D. Williams. Appalachian State University. pp. 147–158. JSTOR j.ctt1xp3mkm.16. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is hugely better, IMO, and addresses directly the theory that it is a misappropriation of Epiphany (and destroys it - ouch). Yes, we should use this instead of the (dead) magazine article. Would you care to write it up?

The writer says (correctly) that Old Christmas was indeed celebrated on 5 January NS until the end of February 1800 (Julian) whereupon it moved to 6 January NS all through the 19th C. It is a pity that he doesn't say explicitly that by the time the C20 came around, practitioners had long forgotten why they celebrated Old Christmas on 6 January – and so failed to move it another day when the Julian calendar had another leap year but not the Gregorian. The first move was because the reason was still in living memory but was lost from memory when the next Julian-only leap year came round. But for our purposes, it is enough to record the C18 and C19 dissent, and leave it to readers to jump to their own conclusions about the C20. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman I have some virtual courses I'm supposed to be taking, would you mind writing it up? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to draft something for comment in the next few days. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I decided to just WP:BEBOLD and upload the replacement text. Comments (and corrections!) welcome.

The most obvious omission is any reference to Appalachia. I had actually written a segment on that but decided that events in the 19th century are outside the scope of the article. So I will add it to Little Christmas instead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Partial and drive-by "sanity check".

• MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". I would certainly GAN-fail the lead on this and probably the sections on "Government not keen on reform", "Date of the Act", and definitely "Scotland" and "Old explanation for 6 April tax year".

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article, containing nothing not included - in more detail, in the main article. See MOS:LEAD.

• It needs a thorough proofread or an external copy edit (see GoCER for the latter). To pick a single paragraph at random:

• "had changed somewhat, The" Either a lower case 't' or a full stop, not a comma.

• "traditional saint's days" 'saints' days', not "saint's day".

• "The religious calendar of the established church continued, but it encompassed a shrinking proportion of the population as Dissent expanded at the expense of Anglicanism, and as parish wakes, feasts and saints' days were themselves disowned by many parish clergy" Long and unecessary quote - see above.

• "So the Act explicitly exempted" lower case 'a'.

• ""that is, they were to change their nominal date to retain the same place in the season, thus in effect observing the Old Style." Quoting again.

• "the authors of the Act and the associated text to revise the Book of Common Prayer" IMO more readily understood as 'the authors of the Act to revise the Book of Common Prayer and the associated text'.

• "expressing the revision in terms familiar to the traditions of the established Church of England". As "the traditions" are not animate beings, things can't be "familiar" to them. Needs rewriting without the anthropomorphism.

• This is just what jumps out at me on a skim, but it likely gives you plenty to go at for now.

I may be setting the bar a little high on some of these for GAN - depends on the amiability of your assessor and their interpretation of the criteria, but I would be flagging up these at GAN at least for explanations, and I am far from the strictest GAN assessor I know. My drive-by may seem harsh, but hopefully you can at least see my point on each of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider that the act was passed amid a religious dispute that in some times and places resulted in significant violence. The dispute still exists between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the rest of Christianity. This creates a lack of trust that editors will fairly summarize sources, so a greater propensity to use quotes. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, thank you for these helpful comments that will give us a few sign-posts as to what we should work on. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jc3s5h and all: my apologies, I really should have forewarned you that I was leaving a request at WP:Wikiproject History to ask if an uninvolved editor would do a quick skim for comment. I believe that the article is nearly a wp:Good Article candidate but before submitting for a formal peer review, I felt that a 'sanity check' by an uninvolved editor would identify our blind spots caused by being too close too the subject. That is the context for Gog the Mild's remarks. As for the quotes, maybe we need to look in particular at the ones that use {{quote}} to see if each and every one merits this 'highlighting' treatment? would any be more appropriate just to quote inline? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I entirely understand a desire to include the occasional quote. I got "The ensuing hand-to-hand combat was described as "murderous, without pity, cruel, and very horrible"." into the lead of Battle of Crecy and through FAC and would not have looked kindly on any suggestion that it be removed. Your case is rather different, with the majority of several whole sections consisting of quotes. I think that your suggested approach of looking at what part of each quote you really need, if any, and paraphrasing the rest is the way to go. Jc3s5h's point about trust is a common issue on Wikipedia, but how we deal with it is by paraphrasing reliable sources and citing them. We are a tertiary source, not a mirror site for reliable secondary sources. While I am here, note the bit in MOS:QUOTE "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". The emphasis is in the original and is one of the extremely few parts of the MOS so emphasised, so you can assume that they really, really mean it, however much it breaks up the flow of the text. You cannot simply put a cite on the end, the author has to named in line. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I also saw the request at WP:History. I'd echo Gog the Mild's points but I think that there is a more fundamental issue with structure and tone. At the moment, the tone of the article is really too colloquial and jocular to meet WP:EPSTYLE ("Double trouble", for instance). In addition, the article needs to be more of a summary of the history, issues, and controversies and I do not think this is helped by many of the sub-headings which are probably too numerous and too vague in scope. "Reaction and effect" is the certainly the best section at the moment for these reasons. It will need some addressing but I'm sure it can be got to the right stage! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Chesterfield's letters to his son

I have begun work to restructure the article according to the advice above. For that reason, I have removed (hopefully temporarily, until I find a better place for them) Chesterfield's letters to his son. For convenience, I am parking the removed text here in the meantime: Chesterfield said in a letter to his son that he introduced the Bill to the Lords without understanding the details:

... But then my difficulty began: I was to bring in this bill, which was necessarily composed of law jargon and astronomical calculations, to both of which I am an utter stranger. However, it was absolutely necessary to make the House of Lords think that I knew something of the matter; and also to make them believe that they knew something of it themselves, which they do not. For my own part, I could just as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well: so I resolved to do better than speak to the purpose, and to please instead of informing them. I gave them, therefore, only an historical account of calendars, from the Egyptian down to the Gregorian, amusing them now and then with little episodes …

Lord Macclesfield's speech to the Lords gave a detailed explanation of the Bill but, as Chesterfield observed in the same letter to his son, it went above their Lordships' heads:

… Lord Macclesfield, who had the greatest share in forming the bill, and who is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterward with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of: but as his words, his periods, and his utterance, were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me …

Legal fallout

I removed this from the leap year section of the "Background and context" since it happened so long after the event. Which is a pity as it is an interesting snippet, so I am parking it here in case we decide to add a 'consequent legal cases' section:

• In the 1817 case of The King against The Inhabitants of Roxby where the length of the year was crucial the court said the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 "enacts that leap year shall consist of 366 days".

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Financial concerns

I have not been able to keep up with recent amendments but I have noticed the inclusion of a reference to the James West paper under the heading Financial concerns. This paper proposed legislation to over-rule the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 to stop the confusion the author feared would arise from two sets of due dates for government payments. He was mainly concerned about payments by the government and not receipts like taxes. That is, interest paid on government borrowing (then called "annuities") and the salaries and wages of government office holders and employees. The key point here is that the author's proposal was not adopted and so mention of the paper may not be helpful. More relevant may be the various newspaper articles which explained the effect of the Act and contained advice on how to deal with servants wages, rents etc because of the short quarter caused by the omission of 11 days. One might think the logical solution would be the one provided by the Act; that is, to defer by 11 days the date for payments due on or after 14 September 1752 (ditto for West's problem with new obligations being paid on the same dates). For example, the wages due on the quarter day of 29 September 1752 could be paid on 10 October 1752; and so on for later due dates. However, it seems getting paid on the traditional days was so engrained, especially amongst the uneducated classes, that this was viewed as impractical. Hence the recommended solution was to pay on the traditional quarter day of 29 September 1752 (now 11 days earlier) but minus a proportionate reduction to reflect the fact that, for example, the servant had worked for 11 days less. Subsequent payments would then be made in full on the old due dates (now also 11 days earlier). One example of this advice is contained in The True Briton of 20 September 1752. The proportionate reduction in principle required the agreement (willing or not!) of the payee to ignore the Calendar Act rule.

I obtained images of the West paper from the British Library and I searched the archives for evidence of any discussion about it, especially in the voluminous Treasury files in the National Archives. I found nothing although is is possible that something remains to be found. However, we know that there was no legislation to apply the proposed solution. Dr Poole says James West was the author because he found the paper in West's archives, but I have doubts. West was an MP and Secretary to the Treasury, much like a modern Treasury minister. The bulk of the paper contains laborious calculations of the reduction required for numerous sums ranging from 2/6d to £1 million. The paper is more likely to have been the work of a Treasury official which West happened to have retained. If you need to see the images of the West paper and The True Briton article they are in my book which is available as a free download from Lulu.com (Why the Tax Year Begins on Sixth April: Appendices 44 and 51). Honandal2 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Honandal2. Yes, I have been deploying the blue pencil rather heavily to reach the standard set by WP:Wikiproject History, as discussed above. (I will leave a note at your talk page in case you want to save the old version). I'm worried about your caution re West because the text that describes his table of abatements is attributed to Poole (1998) and I'm afraid we will just have to assume his good faith since there are no more reliable sources [or a consensus of opposing RSs] that disagree. This is a case for WP:Verifiability not truth, which is a cop-out but I don't see we have any alternative. I suggest that the section as it stands is sufficiently 'broad brush' as not to frighten the horses: digging into newspaper archives for greater detail and interpreting what we find is both too detailed for an article of this nature and a violation of wp:no original research.

Thank you too for the timely reminder about HMG receipts were not just taxation (as indeed Income Tax had yet to arrive). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Poole in both his 1995 article and his 1998 book makes it clear that the Treasury's proportionate reduction idea for government payments was not pursued but he says the work may have led to the proportionate advice to the public which was widely reproduced in newspapers etc. Hence I still feel it is odd to give prominence to the West tables. I have drafted a revised version in my sandbox which I will try to ping. This is a quick effort and I have not tried to get the references right. Honandal2 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have given The True Briton link in my sandbox but got muddled trying to amend the draft and, I fear, decided to leave this job to you. Honandal2 (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Plan to move "Why the tax year begins on 6 April" to another article

I think I have found a better home for the 'tax year' material: History of taxation in the United Kingdom.

Unless anyone objects here (or there, I will post a similar message at its talk page), I will use the 'bold' version of the WP:SPLIT procedure to move the entire section there (as a new section at the end) in the next few days or so. I will keep a copy of its summary sub-section in this article, with a {{main}} directing readers to that article for the detail. My reason to do so is that it has a lot of excellent material but there is too high a chance that the challenge raised a few months ago will be resurrected and someone will just delete it as disproportionate for this article. 'History of taxation in the United Kingdom' should be a more welcoming environment. I will of course give attribution to Honandal2 as its leading editor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Would someone check my maths?

At Passage through Parliament, the text currently reads

"... a Private Member's Bill, proposed in the House of Lords on 25 February 1750{{efn|7 March 1751 by modern reckoning}} by Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield. "

where the modern equivalent of 25/2/1750 (OS) is given as a footnote but (given that 1751 is the date in US usage), I think we should expose it like this:

"... a Private Member's Bill, proposed in the House of Lords on 25 February 1750 – 7 March 1751 by modern reckoning – by Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield. "

I got to 7 March like this: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 but would someone please double-check my maths please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Turns out that I was right when I just counted on my fingers. The right answer is achieved by starting from the right place: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10. D'oh! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Second question: use OS/NS notation?

Would it be too anachronistic to write it as

"... a Private Member's Bill, proposed in the House of Lords on 25 February 1750 (OS) [7 March 1751 (NS)] by Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield. "

because it OS/NS notation hadn't yet been invented? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Or would

"... a Private Member's Bill, proposed in the House of Lords on 25 February 1750 – 7 March 1751 Gregorian – by Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield. "

be better? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about being anachronistic, since it isn't a quote. I don't like the notation with a dash, because a reader's first instinct is to try to interpret it as a range, and it takes a few moments to figure out it's a conversion. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the range interpretation is really obvious now that you point it out. I'll go with the 25 February 1750 [7 March 1751 (NS)] version. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't mention Gregorian?

Perhaps it would be better not to mention the Gregorian date of any date before 14 September 1752, which was the first Gregorian date observed in the UK (although it wasn't called a Gregorian date). Also, the article should reflect the exact date the change occurred, which I quote from the law:

The days to be numbered as now until 2d Sept. 1752; and the day following to be accounted 14 Sept. omitting 11 days.

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think we have recognise that our US readers are expecting "Calendar Act of 1751" so we need to explain the apparent discrepancy. Your challenge seems to me a good reason to write "[8 March 1751 Gregorian]" (rather than "[N.S. 8 March 1751]" because the Gregorian calendar did exist at the time (and the reason why I raised the question of anachronous terminology in respect of N.S.). Describing it a Gregorian date seems to me to be valid because the term 'Gregorian' was never used in UK law, whereas using "New Style" (for the First Reading, for example) is just anachronistic and will (rightfully) be challenged. (Perhaps I should mention that the reason for my raising this point was this diff, where Alekksandr inserted "(as stated above, at that time the new year did not start until 25 March) ", which I thought could be expressed a little more elegantly. Maybe I should have just left it alone! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Passage through Parliament

The article currently reads "The Bill was passed by the House of Commons on 13 May 1751, and received royal assent on 22 May 1751. For consistency, should we give those dates in the same format as "25 February 1750 [N.S. 8 March 1751]"? http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/#juliancalendar suggests that 13 May Julian was 24 May Gregorian and 22 May Julian was 2 June Gregorian. Alekksandr (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is essential but best tie off loose ends. Yes, please go ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm continuing to work on the copyedit, so I will do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References