Talk:January

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).

Disputed

I notice that when you click the link for "Ianuarius" it explains that Juno is actually the source of the name January, not Janus. It says the same thing on the Janus page. I am not comfortable resolving this, but I think there needs to be some sort of agreement between the pages.

Hoff0839 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. I've changed it. I can't verify the (offline) sources used at Ianuarius and Janus, so I've added a Template:CN tag. An older version of the Ianuarius article suggested that it might also be from the masculine of Diana, but that never got a source, so it's probably scuttlebutt. Grayfell (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It still says "Janus" 96.63.53.152 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I read a few snippets on the Diana stuff too. I think your choice of revision was the right one, with something so ancient, noting that their are alternative theories seems to be a better route than trying to pick one theory. Hoff0839 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Name Etymology

The article makes a bold claim that the name comes from the word ianua (door in Latin) "since January is the door to the year and an opening to new beginnings."

This doesn't make much sense, when January was added in the Roman Calendar it was not the first month of the year, nor was it the last. Also there are no sources to back this claim & the word ianua is derived from the God name Ianus which only makes it look more like it's actually derived from God Janus.

The second part of the same paragraph also says "The month is conventionally thought of as being named after Janus, the god of beginnings and transitions in Roman mythology, but according to ancient Roman farmers' almanacs Juno was the tutelary deity of the month.".

There are two problems with this sentence: 1) It makes it look like an absolute truth that the name being from Janus is wrong. 2) It backs that it's actually from Juno, which has only a single offline source and Juno already has a month for her, June.

This whole paragraph should be rewritten and more sources, if possible, be found. So far could not find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An dz (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"but according to ancient Roman farmers' almanacs Juno was the tutelary deity of the month" - in spite of the misleading (i.e. incorrect) use of "but" there is no contradiction here because there is no claim that the month was named after Iuno. 106.71.234.101 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe the introduction of this alternative etymology, based on a single source, is erroneous. I am unable to access the full text of the Scullard book to see what he has to say on the topic, but if one reads the Juno page section about the relationship between Juno and Janus, it becomes clear that Juno and Janus together held a special place in the kalendae rituals at the start of each month. Since at the time that January was named, it was not the first month of the Roman calendar, it makes no sense to ascribe its etymology to the word ianua (as the gateway to the new year). It makes more sense, as described by Britannica, to attribute January's primary status as resulting from its name rather than deriving its name from its primary status. I can find no other source to attribute the name January to the word ianua, and I believe its use here is based on a misinterpretation of the source. I recommend restoring the prior etymology (January from Ianuarius (Janus' month)). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I do not specifically remember making this edit, nor where I got any of that info, which is embarrassing. The Scullard sources was added afterwards. Maybe it was imported from one of the other articles on this topic, which isn't great. This seems like a high chance of being WP:OR, folk etymology, or severe over-simplification, so a reliable source is important. Using the Britannica article as a tertiary source to rewrite would be better than nothing, but removing it completely until a source is found would also be fine with me. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: You made the change here, in March 2016. Admittedly, the prior etymology also spoke of January as the "door of the year", so I don't think it was entirely accurate either. I'll rewrite according to the Britannica writeup, with a simple mention of Janus' month, and no reliance on its position as the first month of the year. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not denying that I made the edit, I am saying I don't remember having done so. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Open RfC related to this article

See Talk:List_of_month-long_observances#Keeping_this_article_and_the_various_articles_on_months_in_sync. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Second month of winter

This is a very vague and unsourced claim. While some may claim that January is the second month of winter, others can claim otherwise. In Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, January is the third month of winter. Halloween, a Gaelic festival, traditionally marked the end of Autumn and the beginning of Winter. Even in Manx, January is referred to as Jerrey Geuree, or "Winter's End". Imbolc, which takes place on the 1st of February, marks the start of spring. The phraseology here makes it seem like January being the second month of winter is a universally accepted truth. I can't speak for other cultures and how they determine their seasons, but for my own this is simply not true. Is there a way to possibly qualify this statement by stating that, say, meteorologically (with references) it is the second month of winter? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)