Talk:New Year

message: For some reason the following important comment was removed.
Many people do not realise that the new year only begins in London when Big Ben strikes 12 midnight on 31st December .It really begins at Greenwich which is about ten miles away but Big Bens time is synchronised with Greenwich.
The new year does NOT begin at the international date line or in Australia or Berlin or New York (the new year is five house old by then.) It begins in London at midnight. Allthis was agreed at the  Washington conference in 1880
The use of UTC..universal time makes no difference..the plus or minus signs used with UTC always direct one back to the place where time actually starts which is always Greenwich London Personally I think using UTC and not GMT is confusing for most people which is why GMT is still used so widely in the media. This is an important comment ..Please do not remove it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.73.199 (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In England the new year did not legally change from the twenty-fifth of March to the first of January until 1752,
I've NEVER understood this. Does it mean that before 1752, the year changed in March, ie the day after March 24 1700 was March 25 1701? Please someone explain! -- Tarquin 19:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Your example is quite right. What's there to explain? Gdr 17:41, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
I think there's a lot to explain. You don't. Think.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncategorized

message: According to the UK national archives and according to "The Oxford Companion to the Year" (-3), England moved new year to 1 January in 1752, not 1753.
I'm changing it back to 1752.
-- Claus Tondering Oz1cz 15:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1752, not 1753 

message: I remember seeing a documentary this year on UK TV about a village in Wales that still celebrated New Year in March; does anyone know the name of the village?--Gyouseino 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wales village

message: I've noticed this article switches between New Year and new year in a number of places.
Shouldn't all references to New Year be capitalised? Red minx 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalization is the bane of American writers! Some pages look like they were written in German. If I remember the Wiki manual of style, the subject of the article is capitalized throughout. If it's an ordinary statement about the new year, no capitalization: I will begin dieting in the new year. New Year's Day is the proper name of the holiday and should be capitalized, just like Christmas, Hallowe'en, Labor Day, etc. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Year vs. [https://wishyouahny2019.blogspot.com new year]

message: I think there's a lot of confusion about this, which I'm not totally able to clear up.  The page about the Gregorian calendar, there is evidence (Samuel Pepys' diary) that English people believed Jan 1 to be the start of the year.  I think there's too much bland acceptance that 25 March was New Year's Day (in England at least).  This would make a rather strange calendar in practice.  Can anyone produce a calendar that shows this???  Is this rather a minor tradition existing alongside the calendar year - like our current financial/fiscal year - that has been preserved by antiquarian, eccentric interest to the extent that in presentation of the issue it distorts the reality of the case?  Doesn't it seem to be true that the Roman tradition of starting the year on Jan 1 has continued to the present day?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since then I have read the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750article which shows that this was an official calendar but not in "common usage".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an official calendar, I'm sure it must have been in "common usage", but in a formal way. It is quite possible that informal usage preferred Jan 1. Europe was quite conversant with both changes of the New Year, and with differing new years in different locations. Since they had to deal with those complexities regularly, they may well have felt comfortable with treating them casually according to preference, when they were able. Evensteven (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical dates of new year and the Julian Calendar 

message: I understand that Bede began the New Year sometime in September, but I will try to find the reference. This means that some of his dates for events happen in a different year  with a different to that which we would call it.Streona (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the indiction in Septemeber see R. L. Poole, "The chronology of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica and the councils of 679-680", Journal of Theological Studies, 20 (1919) 24–40; reprinted in Reginald Lane Poole, Studies in chronology and history (1934).  For Christmas in December see Wilhelm Levinson, "The beginning of the year of the Incarnation in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica", Appendix VI in England and the continent in the eighth century (1946) 265-279. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ancient Christian liturgical year always and everywhere began on September 1, the date of the new year of the Indiction. This was still the case in Bede's time, and none of the subsequent changes to the liturgical year had yet happened in his time. In Bede's time, it was generally the educated monks of the church who served as keepers of the calendar for their locales, as was indeed the case with Bede himself, so the liturgical calendar was de facto the civil calendar also. Even modern researchers place Bede's death on Thursday, May 26, 735, though while we know he was live in the afternoon of Wednesday the 25th and past sunset, we do not know whether he died before or after midnight. However, the liturgical day always began with Vespers, the service conducted around the time of sunset, and he was living then. That made the day (liturgically speaking) already Thursday the 26th, and therefore likewise civilly. Midnight was not a consideration at the time. Similarly, Bede was among the first to count years as AD, a practice that did not really catch on for many centuries. As such, the indiction was the primary tool for him to use to ascertain the year, as indeed it still is for historians of those times. The September 1 date for the change of the year of the indiction was not the same as the January 1 New Year date of the Julian calendar, but there was no commonly-used year number at the time, so the January 1 new year was irrelevant to counting long times. Historians have long been required to convert years by means of the indiction, and then to adjust for the January 1 "new year" depending on the time of year. Evensteven (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bede

message: It is Feb 7th 2008 and today we are celebrating the Lao New Year.  It is not in April.  You may want to research that more since there may be a discrepency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeFKnoL (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lao New Year 

message: 1 January or January 1.  Take your pick but be consistent. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: Dates of the various new years should be updated to reflect the year 2009. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Apparently this is still celebrated in Amalfi, Italy, and was set on 1 September. Any sources or explanation for the changes? (from the Julian 1 January system to this one, and from it to the current Greek one?) -114.91.65.233 (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the year of the Indiction: a new year began on September 1. This ran concurrently with the January 1 civil new year in the ancient empires, as the Indiction was a basis of taxation rather than civil operation. The ancient Christian church adopted September 1 as the start of its annual liturgical cycle, which became the source for a later change of the civil new year, and civil (not religious) new year observations. Evensteven (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Byzantine New Year

message: The article has some major problems in simple syntax and legibility. For instance, the entry "According to the Christian tradition, on January 1 coincides with the circumcision of Christ (eight days after birth), when the name of Jesus (Luke (II: 21))," which just seems to end in mid-thought and, immediately preceding, "January still remains a symbol of New Year's celebration," which just doesn't make sense. And, as already mentioned, several "this year" mentions that might already be out of date. PurpleChez (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the term syntax pertains to natural languages as well, and predates the invention of computers. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax, etc.

message: I would like to seek out you opinions on removing the following line "...the date that is considered the most festive."  I believe there is no reason for it  to be there Mod mmg (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: removal

message: "Millions converge on Times Square each year"
Millions is a LOT of people! Everywhere else I read that the crowd has been estimated at "up to a million".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.95.82 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: average space occupied by an individual in a crowd is two square feet, not four. Not familiar with the American block system, but Times Square is not square - it's between 42nd and 48th street one way and between 7th and 8th avenue the other. Lastly, there's a masssive amount of space that is not on either of the roads which cross, and thus not accounted for in your calculation - most authorities give the area as close to 1.4 million square feet.129.67.49.203 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I told you a million times not to exagerate 

message: "Sinhalese New Year" section says that astrologer select the time of New Year bigging but this giving wrong impression.  Actually Sinhalese New year time is the exact time of Sidereal astrology Sun moves from Pisces to Aries.
D dasun (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinhalese New Year 

message: In the article, it is written that "Malayali New Year (Vishu) is celebrated in the South Indian state of Kerala" during mid April. This is factually incorrect. As per the definition, "New Year is the time at which a new calendar year begins and the calendar's year count is incremented". The malayalam calendar's year count DOES NOT get incremented on Vishu. The year gets incremented in the malayalam month of "Chingam", which normally falls during August or September in the Gregorian calendar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk662003 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malayali new year 

message: Links in the "Adoption of 1 January" section don't have spaces after them, this results in the words: Veniceuntil, Russiafrom, erain, equinoxday. Fixed but it got reverted. Ikmxx (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: My recent edits have removed a "dubious tag" (dated Nov 2011) from the "Christian liturgical year" section of the article, which was questioning the Latin Rite's definition of the beginning of Advent as "4:00 pm on the Saturday preceding the fourth Sunday prior to 25 December (between November 26 and December 2)". I doubt there is any question of the date of Advent Sunday, and I cannot speak to exactly 4 PM. However, the practice of beginning the Christian liturgical day at sunset is extremely ancient, borrowed from Judaism in fact. The evening Vespers service was created to be the first service of the new liturgical day. And so it is still practiced, as it always has been, in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So it was also practiced in the Roman church, for 1000 years before the East-West Schism, and for well after. I believe the Roman Catholic Church still views Vespers in this way also. The common practices of modern church liturgical life probably do not highlight or call attention to this fact in the Roman Catholic Church as much as in the Orthodox Church, but as far as I know, there is no discontinuity between them. Therefore, the evening of the (civil) Saturday before Advent Sunday is technically to be counted as Sunday when one speaks of liturgical matters and calendars. Assuming the Latin Rite is explicit about 4PM, then that is how the Roman Catholic Church defines it. The Orthodox today usually use something like 6 PM instead, but it's not an absolute thing there. In either case, though, the "evening before"-ness is very far from dubious. For verification, perhaps the Latin Rite itself could be consulted? I don't have one myself. Evensteven (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubiousness of the start of Roman Catholic liturgical year 

message: The second paragraph of the "Historical European new year dates" section and its subsequent Christmas style description are in conflict (and were before I made recent changes). The latter implies the use of Christmas style beginning before the 13th century (but evidently after 1066 and probably William I). The former neglects mention of that, and speaks only of March 25th, which certainly was around later. I don't happen to know the actual historical details at present, but some sourced info appears to be needed. Evensteven (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Parliament of the United Kingdom article will tell you, Parliament does include the Lords. Other than that I agree with what you wrote about the constitutional status of the constituent countries (your take on Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement are rather fanciful). But I am struggling to discover which part of the article you think should be changed? I think it already says that Scotland changed to 1 Jan in 1600, whereas England, Wales and Ireland did not do so until they adopted the Gregorian calendar. Would you identify, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical English new years 

message: Although the following comments are interesting they do not make clear the entire picture
The proper title of the United Kingdom today is The United Kingdom of Great Britain (Great simply means the bigger of two islands) and Northern Ireland, with Power Devolved (devolved simply means transferred) from the Crown (Crown means the Monarch/King or Queen)to Parliament (Parliament means ALL the present 640 Members of Parliament elected by the people...it does not include the Members of the House of Lords ...Parliament is the same as the American House of Representatives without the Senate)
Since Parliament contains the MPs of all parties and from all parts of the United Kingdom,Scotland Wales England etc it represents the sense of the United Kingdom being a united country
In 1688 there was the English Revolution when Parliament threw out the new Catholic King...he went to Europe and Parliament  brought in a new King Dutch nobleman William to rule them with his wife Mary. Since then the UK has essentially been a Republic as if the Queen or any other Monarch did not sign the Laws that Parliament had passed they would be thrown out within a week and Parliament would appoint someone else as King etc That person could be anyone
Americans distort history by thinking that they created a revolution but that is wrong. It was the English revolution of 1688 that inspired the American war of Independence and the French revolution \\\\  
Although the documents that created the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 did use the phrase 'United Kingdom' in one instance, that was an adjectival usage - like "the united States of America" in the American Declaration of Independence.  It was not meant to be taken as the name of the country.</br>
Rather, prior to 1707, Scotland and England (which formally annexed Wales during the reign of Henry VIII), were separate nations with the same monarch.  In 1707, they merged into the semi-federal Kingdom of Great Britain.  On 1 January 1801, Ireland was added to the union and the name of the country changed again, to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. </br>
Prior to the change of calendar in 1752, Scotland observed New Year's Day on 1 January while England observed it on 25 March.  This difference did not change when the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 as Scotland's legal system remained (and remains) separate from the rest of the country, as does its system of education, and a few other things.  That is why the Kingdom of Great Britain was, and the United Kingdom *is*, "semi-federal".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:6500:3060:1813:67F6:4766:10A7 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Parliament of the United Kingdom article will tell you, Parliament does include the Lords. Other than that I agree with what you wrote about the constitutional status of the constituent countries (your take on Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement are rather fanciful). But I am struggling to discover which part of the article you think should be changed? I think it already says that Scotland changed to 1 Jan in 1600, whereas England, Wales and Ireland did not do so until they adopted the Gregorian calendar. Would you identify, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK v. KGB 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621043226/http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk:80/Egypt/ptolemies/chron/roman/chron_rom_cal.htm to http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Egypt/ptolemies/chron/roman/chron_rom_cal.htm#eponymous
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Septem, Octo, Novem, Decem are seven to ten in Latin, yet nine to twelve on the calender. How did this discrepancy arise? March 1st should be New Year's Day by that reckoning surely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.175.27 (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Years Day should be March if we look at Roman Numbering.. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011111840/http://homepages.tesco.net/~jk.calisto/calisto/calendars/change_dates_ny.htm to http://homepages.tesco.net/~jk.calisto/calisto/calendars/change_dates_ny.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I deleted the line:
: In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII while reforming the Julian calendar established January 1 as the beginning of a New Year of the Gregorian calendar.
as it's simply not true. The papal bull Inter Gravissimas, defining the Gregorian calendar, does not mention the date of New Year, and is itself dated in the Annunciation Style.
In the Wikipedia article, the next section Current readoptions of January 1 states when the different parts of Europe (re)adopted January 1 as New Year; these years are often different from the year they adopted the Gregorian calender.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhemar (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian reform 

message: Rijanmagar (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018 

message: Please change
 a Happy New Year sign in northeastern China
to
 A Happy New Year sign in northeastern China 78.149.76.158 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Paul  ❬talk❭ 10:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021 

message: Shorten per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: In section "Adoptions of January 1" change "Start year" of Russia from 1725 to 1700 like it done in Russian version of this article.
Source: Decree of Peter I No. 1736 from 19 (29) December 1699 "On the celebration of the New Year": http://nlr.ru/e-res/law_r/search.php Lexa070301 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: the source we have (for 1725) is supported by [and probably originates from) this citation:  So which is correct?  the citation you have given is only a search box: would you give us the text (in Cyrillic is fine) that we need to put in the box (so as to get that decree), please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notice the Russian Wikipedia article does use the date of 1700 in a table, however, there were few if any applicable references to support this. The closest applicable reference I could find was a table from Calista perpetual calendar program by John Kent. That said, I believe Lexa070301 is referring to this document perpetrated by Peter the Great. You may notice that his English Wikipedia article refers to the new year and calendar change proclaimed in 1699 and uses page 197 of Atkinson's translation of Oudard's work published in 1929 as a reference. I imagine we could use the same here and you can peruse a copy of such here at the Internet Archive. —Uzume (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's good enough for me. I will change the article accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  --11:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022 

message: I would like to either change or fix the statement, for example:
"Many cultures celebrate the event in some manner."
To:
"About numerous cultures around the world came here to celebrate this event in some approximate way of form."
This is the change I requested for. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This does not seem to be an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @ScottishFinnishRadish Are there any reasons? How? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your suggested prose is difficult to parse and poorly written. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it doesn't make any sense in English and has several grammatical errors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023 

message: One seems like it should be sufficient. This is not the fireworks article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need 4 fireworks pics back to back? 

message: Great Britain would be better replaced with England and Wales as this is more accurate and renders the 'except Scotland' clause unnecessary. 31.185.154.241 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes agreed. I suspect that the prolix version arose from the fact that Scotland changed its civil year to 1 January wef from "the day after 31 December 1699" but it did not adopt the Gregorian calendar at the same time. It took England 150 years to catch up , changing both at the same time. I have changed it as per your suggestion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper use of Great Britain in change to Gregorian table. 

message: Since the animated GIF at the top of the page was alongside other content and auto-played, looped infinitely, and did not provide a way to pause it, I replaced it with a still image from this article's gallery (which had previously been in the lead section).
* Wikipedia's Accessibility Guidelines about animations.
* Web Content Accessibility Guidelines on "Play, Stop, Hide".
AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fireworks animation in lead section