Talk:January

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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 ✉ 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January source

I think there is some useful info to be gained from here: http://57.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JA/JANUARY.htm . I have heard several stories about whether it is in the public domain, though.

[edit] Other names

I just wonder wether i should enter arabic names for each names or not Eblis 18:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. However, there are two traditions of naming the months of the Gregorian calendar in Arabic: the Egyptian and Maghrebi names are just versions of the Latin names, whereas the eastern names are based on the Syro-Babylonian tradition. Turkish month names are a mixture of both of these and some Trukish traditional names. It might be good to have a January in other languages section. However, a good few of these will just be different renditions of the Latin names. Gareth Hughes 18:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of view straw poll

I have spoken with Laurel Bush about the edits made to this article. I am concerned that they are POV. The latest edit at time of writing was mostly a reordering of material. The reordering was, in effect, the promotion of material relating to the Zodiac and paganism, and the demotion of material about the Roman historical origins of the month. I feel that the reordering of material in this way is POV as the concept of January comes from Roman tradition, and actually has little meaning in the Zodiac and paganism (which use alternative ways of dividing time). Please can contributors here voice there opinion so that we can reach a consensus on this.

I refer to this diff.

Gareth Hughes 13:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although the Gregorian calendar is a fully solar form of Roman calendar 'first month' does not of itself give seasonal or zodiacal position to January. I would agree the pagan Imbolc is considered better as an event than as a division of the year. Laurel Bush 13:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC).
My point is this: this article is about January. The relationship of this month to other calendars is secondary. That means that zodiac and wheel of life should go at the bottom of the article. January is not a sign of the zodiac or part of pagan reckoning. To promote these issues to the top of the article is to introduce bias into the article. Gareth Hughes 18:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How else do we define January's position in the solar year? I do like the article's current second sentence, with refernces to both astrological and astronomical perceptions. Laurel Bush 14:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).
However, astrological divisions of the zodiac are much more regular (each having 30 derees) and rather more fixed than are the astonomical (which shift second-by-second with respect to the solar year). Laurel Bush 17:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Romans seem to have been fixated on the (northern hemisphere) vernal equinox and perhaps January (and other Gregorian/Julian months) can be can positioned in reference to this equinox? Laurel Bush 18:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).
I'm not sure that fixated is the right word: it's just important. The older Roman calendars began with March, and Julius Caesar wanted to get his Julian calendar to fix the northern vernal equinox to 25 March. There are a few possibilities regarding how that date seemed so right to the Romans for the equinox. Perhaps, centuries before, the equinox was set to 1 March, so that the calendar began with equinox, and inadequate science and corrupt politicians caused the move to later in the month. I think a better explanation would be that the calendar began on the full moon before the vernal equinox (suggesting that the calendar was originally lunisolar). The months of January and February were late additions to the calendar. It seems that there was a uncounted wintertime between the full moon after winter solstice and the full moon before vernal equinox. There is also suggestion that the Roman purification rituals (Februaria) occurred at the beginning of winter originally. Gareth Hughes 18:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I guess traditionally focussed is beter than fixated. Sorry. Laurel Bush 12:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC).
January and the Gregorian year begin approximately ten days after the Capricorn solstice? (Capricorn here is a reference to the sun’s latitudinal position.) Your speculation about the original timing of March 25th does create a calculation which would put the date into a waxing phase of the moon. I believe Passover is similarly timed, and so was Easter in the Celtic Church. Laurel Bush 12:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Monthlong Events?

Aren't there any other mothlong events for January other than 'soup month'? I think I've heard of more before. -- Raimu

[edit] January 1st as beginning of year

"Although March was originally the first month in the old Roman Calendar, January assumed that position beginning in 153 BC when the two consuls, for whom the years were named, began to be chosen on January 1. The reason for this shift of the new year into the dead of winter was to allow the new consuls to complete the elections and ceremonies upon becoming consuls, and still reach their respective consular armies by the start of the campaigning season."

May we have some materials to back up these points please. Imboot 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the month template

Discussion needs to take place to determine if the calendar template on this page needs to be changed. While it would be helpful to change the template to a self-updating one, there seems to be dispute as to whether the calendar should be yearless. I believe that the current format is good and if we are going to have a calendar-looking thing, it should be a valid calendar and might as well be for the current year. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Bold text