Talk:Christmas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Image

I just wanted to cange the image deleted (?) with equivalent Image:Adorazione del Bambino - Beato Angelico.jpg --Sailko (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the very first paragraph, there are two sentences which stood out as completely out-of-place and bad writing style. I suspect they are vandalism by the user "Kazuba" who, according to the editing history, added this text:

07:14, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Christmas‎ (Christmas) "There is no mention of Christmas being celebrated by the early Christians in the New Testament. This holiday celebration is not supported by scripture. It was created by Pagan Christians. Christianity did not destroy Paganism. Paganism absorbed Christianity adding it's tradions and Pagan touch: holidays, song, dance, pageants, art, the giving of gifts, and music to it, etc. Otherwise Christianity would not have survived."

First of all "song, dance, ... music" -- very bad style. Secondly, "and music to it, etc." -- very, very bad style.

Thirdly, this clearly presupposes that christianity is accused of killing off pagans and tries to dispel this supposition. This also makes the article sound very biased.

Finally, "Otherwise Christianity would not have survived." -- What does this mean? How does Christmas' relation to pagan traditions have anything to do with the survival of Christianity? Bad logic, bad style.

I an not registered, so I cannot delete these sentences (it is protected from vandalism). For now could someone change it so something like this:

"As Christianity evolved in Europe over the years, various pagan traditions, especially the winter festivals, came to be celebrated as Christmas. These festivities include song and dance, pageants, and the giving of gifts. Nowadays, Christmas is celebrated as a festival in it's own right with several traditions, especially music, made specifically for the celebration of the holiday."

The beginning of this article is terrible- it's fine to discuss absorption of paganism by Christianity, but it really seems like whoever edited that part last was trying to make a point, as if they were offended by something. 24.21.165.109 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Secularity

I think the Christmas controversy section, and perhaps this article needs to be rewritten somewhat because it focuses too much on the so-called modern secularization of christmas, yet misses on this important point:

Didn't christmas somewhat originate from the purley secular winter festival celebrations, especially Yule?.Like the article on Yule says,"Christmas, which is essentially the symbology and traditions of Yule with the Christian story of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth superimposed upon it".

And doesn't this article document how historically christians and non-christians have debated why and if the celebration of the nativity of jesus is important, or even nessesary?, yet somehow its now the most important and celebrated time of the year.

On top of that, wasn't the date of december 25th partially chosen historically to coincide with the idea of winter soltice celebrations?, as there is no biblical reference to dec 25 as a birth date for jesus.

What I'm getting at is instead of people complaining that the whole religious aspect behind christmas has been faded, maybe it should be considered that it was never really there in the first place, that maybe christmas was historically created as a reason for christians and others to gather and celebrate during the end of year/winter soltice.Maybe the Nativity of Jesus was a good excuse for such.

Logically speaking, isn't that a fair assumption?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More than fair, actually. Pretty much all the historical scholarship on the holiday (and I’ve read a lot) has found its genesis rooted in ancient (pre-Christian) European and Near-Eastern agrarian society seasonal calendars. By about this time each year, the harvest work was done, the meats were slaughtered, (about the only time fresh meat was available in any quantity to communities) and the darkness and cold began to push folks indoors. Feasting and recreation followed naturally. (It was “Miller Time!” if you will.) Being annual, these celebrations began to have local traditions and become ritualized (and sometimes spiritualized) in the different communities in the years B.C.E.

The spread of Christianity across Europe eventually left its mark as other religions had before it, changing some practices, banning some, and redefining & re-labeling others to fit with the new ideology. Among the new names that stuck was “Christmas.”

I think your main point – that one definition of Christmas is a secular and civil celebration predating Christianity, only tenuously connected with it since the advent of the faith, and now even outlasting it in some communities and societies – is totally valid and an important critique of this entry which tends too much (in my view) to define Christmas in the privileged sense it has among Christians.

As to your other specific points:

1. As I understand it, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches and most Protestant sects have long believed that Easter, which celebrates the resurrection of Jesus, is the most important holiday of the faith.

2. The Bible gives no date as to Jesus’ birth. I have read that controversy over the date began early in the life of the faith, with many of the suggestions inspired by symbolism rather than historical analysis. (Most recent Biblical scholarship is doubtful of the December date and leans towards an early spring birth.) I believe disapproval of the very idea of fixing a date to Jesus birth and celebrating it was also widespread in early Christianity.

3. It has been suggested that the current date used by most of Christianity (set officially in the early fifth century if memory serves), was chosen specifically to co-opt existing celebrations both secular and from competing religions. This was certainly a documented strategy of the Church in other instances, but the suggestion about Christmas is still quite controversial among laymen, and I cannot say where the scholarly consensus (if there be one) is on it. TheCormac (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Christian date was set long before the fifth century - 2nd century I think. The Nativity article covers it I think. The first mention of Dec 25 celebrated as a holiday/feast day (a different thing) is in the Chronography of 354. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By “official” I was referring to the setting of it as a calendar feast day in the Roman Church by Julius I round about 350, and the Eastern Churches mostly following suit from c380 through 432. So really the 4th and early 5th century. While the date of December 25th was promoted as early as 221 (or so), it had rival theories and only came into acceptance over time. (But I am quick to add that I am doing this from memory, so I could well be off on various dates.) Thanks for catching and clarifying! TheCormac (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And a little of topic, but doesn't this somewhat apply to Easter as well?, and its now semmingly secular traditions.From what I understand, the idea of egg-painting and decorating, and the fact that bunnies and hares are associated with easter, is due to the fact that eggs, laid by birds, and bunnies, which highly reproduce, are symbols of fertility, which coincides with the fact that easter is tied to the beggining of spring when new animals and plants are born and come out of hibernation, symbolizing another time of celebration.

So it seems both Christmas and Easter are historicaly tied with purely seasonal, secular celebrations, and are now celebrated mainly as such.How much does the history of christmas relate with easter, in how they truly originated?. Rodrigue (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The history of the holiday is important, yes, and there is a lot of secularism in the holiday. However, the way it is actually practiced is also important. Many, many millions of people see it as significant in a Christian way. To say that Easter and Christmas are now celebrated mainly as secular holidays is way too broad a generalization. Wrad (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not just in terms of history, but just for why they are even significant.You say the religious aspect is still very important to many.But technically, I believe easter, representing the resurrection of christ, is the most, if not one of the most significant times of year for Christianity, as it is close/tied to the significance of the birth of christ.

But then why is Christmas seemingly so much more celebrated?, and why fewer even know the religious significance of easter.Because the secular origins of Christmas make it much more significant than easter.Even devout Christians regard Christmas as the most significant time of year, yet easter is not nearly as celebrated in terms of what it represents, even religiously. 67.71.60.47 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody here have a source for the claims they're making? This really doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Making broad claims about why people do or don't celebrate Christmas is very dangerous. Not everybody celebrates it the same way. You can say "some do this and some do this," but to say that "Christians see Easter as more significant," or "modern culture sees Christmas as highly secular" is to repeat broad, inaccurate statements that have no place here. Be more specific! Wrad (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally in sync with your devotion to references, Wrad, but I think you are being more than a little pedantic in this case. This is the discussion page. If we all had all the citations at our finger tips, we'd be editing the article, not chatting here. And you want a source for Easter being the most important celebration in Christianity? (What are you, a Tibetan recluse?) Next you'll want a source for statements that America is a democracy. There is a difference between rigor and trying to smother conversation.

Someday I'll have the time to go back and look up the passages and pages numbers from years of reading on the topic of Christmas. Until then, I'll share what I think I know (politely) here in the discussion and those who agree or don't and have the interest and leisure will debate and dig into those comments themselves. If you ask me, that kind of stranger collaboration is one of the chief virtues of Wiki. (By the way, do you have a source for your "broad statement" that the statements you note are "inaccurate?") TheCormac (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, heres what I basically said: Do you really think jesus's birth is that much more significant than his resurrection, as to justify why Christmas is so much more highly regarded among christians, and others than easter?.

Or perhaps, like I said, the secular element of Christmas is what makes it so much more important, regardless of how devoutly you celebrate it. Rodrigue (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just because at Christmas you get presents :) Wrad (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So isn't Christmas %100 just Yule?, just with the artificially added Nativity of Jesus story being either a central, or non-existing part of celebrations, depending on who you are.

The why is there even a Christmas controversy section.the whole point is christmas didn't come from religious origins, so why complain about its secularization. Rodrigue (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a devout Christian, but I totally support the view that an article about Christmas should be about the religious festival celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.

Just because two events occur on the same day does not mean that a festival on that day is celebrating both of them. The celebrant chooses what they are celebrating. So just because Saturnalia or Sol Invictus or whatever happens to fall on 25 December does not mean that any festivities on that day are celebrating either one of them. Either this page is about Christmas, or it is about Festivals on 25 December, but it should not, IMHO, try to be about both of them. 86.146.121.86 (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas...and so I will: Merry Christmas to all! Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi vobiscum, amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.251.55 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy festival and a joyful new year of the Common era!---Steven Evens (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if his irrelevant section will even last, but yeah, don't see the point of saying such a politically incorrect statement in an academic encyclopedia anyways. Rodrigue (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of wishing you a Merry Christmas is self-explanatory. It might not be 'political' --- but it is correct. And anyways...there is always so much vitriol on Wiki that a little friendliness couldn't hurt, now could it? --137.186.251.55 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it could not. A very Merry Christmas to all! TheCormac (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with being friendly. Merry Christmas all. Phoenix1177 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WOW. What a Grinch! "Don't see the point of saying such a politically incorrect statement in an academic encyclopedia"... Good God, where is the world going to when we have to put someone down just for saying 'Merry Christmas'? Would you say the same for someone who said "Happy Hanukkah"? "Happy Birthday"? "Happy Anniversary"? Merry Christmas to all... or if you don't celebrate it, just enjoy your day! 206.248.156.132 (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Xmas was invented in 300 AD

It was previously unknown, there is nothing about Christmas in the Bible.

When the Roman Emperor decreed Christianity the official Imperial religion ca. 300, he re-branded the traditional Roman solstice party.

Santa Claus and Rudolph the Brown-nosed reindeer were invented much later.

Ho ho ho!!! Fourtildas (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The End of the Game

I would just like to mention that the picture description about the Slovenian Santa is wrong:

The name Ded Moroz is Russian, it's just not written in the Russian alphabet. In Slovenia it is Dedek Mraz.

And translation will be Grandfather of Frost, not father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpykc (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondly he isn't Slovene, well not just Slovene. He is the communist replacement of the Christian Sveti Miklavž or historicaly St. Nicholas of Myra and the Capitalist Santa Clause, so many of the former communist countries make up their own stories about him.

Dedek Mraz comes on the night of 31 December so be good :)

Lenko 89.212.183.159 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nativity Scenes

St. Francis was the first to put together a live nativity scene. He did this as a teaching tool. It caught on and has been popularized since then.

Santa

(This is my first time commenting so I am sorry if it's wrong)

I thought I should just say that almost everyone in Germany celebrates the kristkind or Christkind and not just in the South. I could try to edit it myself although it is protected or whatever, but I thought I should just point it out to any administrators if any of them should read this.

84.68.13.231 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Mike 24/12/07

A Helpful External Link

I would like to suggest this external link to the above discussion:

• Catholic Encyclopedia: Christmas

I found it helpful, and not offensive at all. Merry Christmas!AMC0712 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a very helpful resource. But this brings up a problem which particularly touches on this Wiki article. For obvious reasons, Wiki posters have a bias towards resources easily accessible on line. But the vast majority of historical research is still available only in book form (and likely to be for many years, if you ask me). Your flagging of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which must be one the most hevily referenced resources in Wiki, makes the point. It IS a great resource, but one of limited scope and focus. A number of historians, anthropoligists, and related scholars have done a great deal of work to unearth information about Christmas through the centuries wholly beyond the narrow scope of the CE. Since the Wiki Christmas entry consists almost entirely of references found on-line, we lose much of the mass of human knowledge assembled about the cultural importance of Christmas and the changes wrought by evolving religious, economic, and political relationships, all of which can only be found in the books. Instead we get all kinds of detail about early church debates on the date of Christ's birth and isolated revisionist essays arguing against any borrowings from the Saturnalia. Why? Because that information is easily available and the main body of research is not. TheCormac (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, TheCormac, in the spirit of wikipedia, you should be bold and change that! If you have access to better resources/information, then add them in!MightyAtom (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Constantinian Origins" section a mess

The "Constantinian Origins" section (section 2.2.1 as of this writing) is a mess. Poor grammar, punctuation, and capitalization; redundant information (multiple editors?); etc., to the point that the section is barely readable. I don't want to touch it because I don't have the requisite information, but it needs attention from someone who does have the information and is capable of writing a coherent English sentence. JBJD (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also entirely factually wrong -- Christmas was not celebrated on this date at that time. Roger Pearse 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Infobox picture

Am I alone in this or does anyone else think the infobox picture is too busy? The individual elements are too small to even tell what is going on. Also, the licensing is problematic - several of the constituent images are GFDL and one is CC - they aren't mixable. I really think a single picture of a Christmas tree, a crop of Image:Happy new year 06463.jpg, or a manger scene would look nicer. --B (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, and there you have hit on the problem! That picture was a compromise. There used to be a single picture of a Christmas Tree, but some folks didn't like that fact that the main picture wasn't religious, and others didn't want a Jesus picture as the main picture, and.....we have the busy compromise.MightyAtom (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This one is hideously bad, though, and has the side effect of being a copyright violation that will be deleted from Commons as soon as anyone gets around to nominating it. Maybe a work of art could be used - perhaps Image:Worship of the shepherds by bronzino.jpg? It would satisfy the desire to have a religious image and would have more encyclopedic value than a random conglomeration of unidentifiable images. --B (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor mistake

There is a minor mistake using the wrong version of sun as in sun god i wanted to edited but couldn't. Geeko8800gtx (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Event tag

I dont really think that this is necessary as it impolies that the information will be changing because of the passing of christmas which it isnt, not much use otherwise. 81.129.23.206 (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

christmas is??

I don't know if this is a real encyclopedia or a christian website... since when is christmas a celebration of the birth of jesus? since 2000 years ago, what about before that? when the egyptions were celebrating the birth of : HORUS ( egypt Dec 25th, 3000 BC ) .. Attis ( greece Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. Mithra ( Persia Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. Krishna ( india Dec 25th, 900 BC ) .. Dionysus ( greece Dec 25th, 500 BC ) ..

Would you please document any evidence of any of these assertions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.233.70 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can go on, but I think my point is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee hax (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, please go away.–Steven Evens (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be polite, Steve. the opening sentence is very biased if it only says Christmas celebrates Christ's birth. It's also a winter celebration. Everybody knows that, even me, and I'm a Christian. Wrad (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting valid information, Steve. All you have to do is read the article and you will see that Christmas has just as much to do with Winter Solstice as it does with Christ. Anyone who's read even a tiny bit into the subject knows that. Wrad (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, Christmas itself is a celebration of Christ's birth, but it is adopted from other holidays and celebrations. Cultures that celebrated the winter solstice were not celebrating Christmas- they were celebrating the winter solstice. Similarly, we don't introduce Easter as a celebration of the spring equinox.-Wafulz (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Wafulz. Previous pagan holiday aspects have definitely been greatly incorporated into Christmas, but this does not change the definition of the holiday, Christmas. If we were to write an article on Saturnalia, or Yule, or Natalis Sol Invictus, things would be different. Irregardless of the varying personal celebrations of Christmas, the definition remains unchanged.—Steven Evens (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus." is a biased first sentence. The rest of the article makes it very clear that this holiday is also heavily connected with celebrating the winter solstice. I propose a different first sentence: "Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the coming of winter and the birth of Jesus." This is a pretty balanced sentence to my mind. Wrad (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas does not celebrate the coming of the winter solstice. If you believe this, that's your belief. We need reliable sources if we're going to put it here.—Steven Evens (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Steve. As defined in reliable sources, Christmas is Jesus' birthday. Unless there are Church documents stating that the purpose of Christmas was to celebrate the coming of winter, then there's not much of a case.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are of course several winter festivals which Christmas took over, but there is no one I'm pretty sure who is celebrating Christmas as the beginning of winter, and if they are simply celebrating winter they are not celebrating Christmas. To celebrate Christmas is to by definition celebrate Jesus' birth. If you're celebrating the solstice you're celebrating something else. Romans who celebrated the Saturnalia at the same time Christians were celebrating Christmas were certainly not celebrating Christmas, even if they had a celebration on the same day. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, that if Christmas celebrated "the coming of the winter solstice", as per Wrad, it would need to fall before December 20, as the winter solstice occurs between Dec. 20–23.—Steven Evens (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, I can see that it's all right the way it is. Wrad (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important that in the "Christian Origins" section someone should add this sentence/phrase: "Many unlearned and ignorant people today think that December 25th is the day of Jesus' birth" even though the church itself has denied this claim".Reinoe (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wafulz, there is no reliable source saying December 25th is Jesus's birthday. In fact, everyone knows it isn't. It's unclear as to the exact day, but every expert on the subject has said that 12/25 is almost certainly not. The origin of the date was in old celebrations of the winter solstice. The fact that today we know the solstice is not 12/25 is irrelevant. Enigmaman (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely reliable sources that Christmas is a holiday celebrating the nativity of Jesus, which was the issue here. We know Jesus was not born on December 25, but we also know that Christmas was a holiday created by the Catholic church as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, irregardless of varying personal interpretations and celebrations, or issues of pagan syncretization.—Steven Evens (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

People in the southern hemisphere celebrating Christmas today are obviously not celebrating anything to do with winter, nor are they celebrating the summer solstice. Roy Brumback (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and the Julian Calendar [Was: Greek Orthodox world]

The article currently states, "[I]n the Greek Orthodox world [Christmas] is in early January." The Website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which uses the "new" calendar) indicates that the nativity of Jesus Christ is observed on December 25. Yes, I realize that is just one archdiocese but I doubt that it's unique. --anon70.23.139.160 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then revert it and provide your reference. Be bold.—Steven Evens (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed Greek to Russian because here in Russia we still celebrate the Christmas on January, 7 while Greek Orthodox church does it on December, 25 now (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Julian_Calendar#From_Julian_to_Gregorian). Illarionov (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other Eastern Orthodox churches (some of them Greek Orthodox) that use the Julian calendar as well. This part should be rewritten to reflect this, possibly with the inclusion of a link to the appropriate Wikipedia article. (I don't have the time to do this.) --anon70.23.146.237 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NOT ONLY are there "other Eastern Orthodox churches...," the vast MAJORITY of Eastern Orthodox Churches do NOT recognize the Gregorian or so-called 'revised' Julian, and they still celebrate the Julian 25 December which is 07 January on the Gregorian; The Russian Orthodox Churches and faithful alone outnumber all other Orthodox churches that follow the Gregorian/Revised calendar. Therefore, the "some" and "other" erroneous quantifies should be changed to "majority of Eastern Orthodox churches."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.140.107 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article to which you provide a link also says that some Eastern Catholic Christians use the Julian calendar. Anyway, the second and third paragraphs of the article now are redundant in part. (I am changing the heading of this section of the discussion page to make it broader. I also would like to belatedly wish a Merry Christmas to 216.166.140.107.) --anon70.23.158.110 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Christmas controversy section

I just wanted to point out a minor error:

On December 19, 2000, the decision of Ganulin v. United States was upheld by the 'Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals', not the 'U.S. Supreme Court'. On April 16, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the case certiorari, but this only means that the body chose not to try the case, not that it affirmed the Six District Court’s ruling.

Could anyone fix this error? Thank you!

I added that in. Thanks for the correction. Enigmaman (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First line

Suggestion: "Christmas is an annual holiday that ostensibly celebrates the birth of Jesus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and how about "St. Patrick's Day is a holiday that ostensibly celebrates Saint Patrick", and the same for Valentine's Day, Martin Luther King Day, etc... Or not.—Steven Evens (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not agree that this should be included wih the article, there is no need to be rude. RC-0722 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well these types of suggestions are ridiculous and ignorant, sorry if I can't help to appear rude. We celebrate getting drunk and wearing green on St. Patrick's Day a lot more than we "celebrate" the life of St. Patrick, but that doesn't change the definition of the holiday.—Steven Evens (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the first line to: "Christmas is a Christian holiday and popular secular festival celebrated on December 25.", but it gets reverted. Are we denying the secular part or does this cause offense in some other way? Stronimo (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These changes are not supported. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus as per the intention of the Catholic church at its creation. It is still widely celebrated as this, and there are no reliable sources to say that it is equally a secular festival celebrated on December 25, just that it has secular properties.—Steven Evens (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't accept that it's also a secular festival? OK, I can try and work with "properties". Would you accept "secular elements"? I think that would flow better.Stronimo (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What we know is that it is a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus, whereas some celebratory properties are secular in nature, as with many other holidays with religious connotations. Many of the secular properties have been borrowed, or syncretized, from former pagan festivals, but this does not in any way make Christmas a "secular festival". The syncretization of these pagan festivals is already mentioned in the lead paragraphs. What are you proposing?—Steven Evens (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas is self-evidently a more widespread phenomenon than the birth of Christ. That's such an important element what Christmas is *today* (not when it was founded) that needs to be said in the first line. It should also include the date. The first line as it currently stands is not NPOV.Stronimo (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This line was reached as consensus over a long period of discussion in 2006. It was deemed the most NPOV option. As for the date—if you'd bother to read a further 2 sentences down the article you'd see how the varying dates of Christmas are explained. Christmas is and always has been defined as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, regardless of its Christian, pagan, or secular properties. Christmas cannot be "the celebration" of its own secular properties. It's the celebration of Jesus' birth. The secular properties are definitely important and prominent, but deserve no mention in the first sentence. First paragraph, sure, but the first sentence was reached as a consensus and you'd need to reach a new community consensus to have it changed, as per Wikipedia policy.—Steven Evens (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to evangelize. The article failed a GA review in Dec 2007 because it isn't sufficiently NPOV, over-emphasizing the religious. It's time to seek a new consensus.Stronimo (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus as per its accepted definition. Mention of the secular aspects is warranted for the first paragraph, but not sentence. Unless you can have others agree with you, it should remain unchanged as per previous consensus. I agree with a change to the intro as it is somewhat flawed, but not in the way you edited it. Christmas is not a "secular festival" as per documented sources, though people who may only celebrate its secular aspects may call it this. Please provide us with your sources.—Steven Evens (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If large amounts of people are only celebrating the secular aspects would that not make it "more of a secular holiday?", just reflecting on North America and the large number of non christians and non practicing that celebrate christmas, I would think they are definately celebrating it secularly 99.247.120.178 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Vatican released this on Dec 19 2007: "The Pope acknowledged that many people make the effort to separate the Christmas celebration from the message of the Incarnation". The Pope acknowledges it, and so should this article. The Pope, of course sees it as a problem, we merely need to document it.81.86.170.157 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should point out I haven't read all the (I assume volumes) of talk about the first line before. I made my suggestion after coming to the article, reading it (especially the first line/paragraph) and not seeing a reflection of how I understand Christmas celebrated my urban North American slice of the world. Perhaps it is a worldview problem. Hard to reflect all. 99.247.120.178 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Been ignored, but I still think the lead/first line needs work 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk)

I agree. I've tried various edits, but every contribution has been reverted.Stronimo (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, and on Language bias

In the Commemorating the birth of Jesus section, someone had scripted the first few Bible passages to appear in the body of the article, only instead of Bible passages it was all cap nonsense about INSANE CLOWN POSSY WOOT WOOT! I fixed.

As for the comments below on Language Bias, i suggest further grounds for removing the "some who later claimed to be Christians" wordplay. Its just redundant, in a grammatical and linguistic sort of way. Look up Christian and you wont get one definition, youll get something along the lines of multiple groups of Christians. You also dont need to say "some who claim" because its implied that if they are Christians that is because they are calling themselves that.

Eric Forest (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Language Bias

I object to the bias in the following sentence:

"According to the new Encyclopedia Britannica, some who later claimed to be Christian likely "wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun'." The festival was celebrated with similar customs (gift giving, feasting) that are done to celebrate Christmas today."

It is not for a Wikipedia article to make a judgment on what a "true Christian" is. The cited source does not imply the "some who later claimed to be" language and stating that it does is dishonest. I would also like to note that this paragraph seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a Jehovah's Witness publication. I suggest the statement be evaluated and changed to more accurately reflect the cited source and the "some who later claimed to be Christian" phrase be replaced with something more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.231 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes, part 94

Jesus's birth, not Jesus' birth. Unless Christmas is now the celebration of the birth of several people called Jesu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.209.81 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, please change it back. There are a few ancient historical figures that use s-apostrophe for their possessive case, and Jesus is one of them. I think most of the other ones are Greek philosophers. --76.69.131.175 (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The anon is right. I couldn't find it in the style guide, but the article apostrophe discusses the usage. I'm changing it back. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When a noun in a possesive state ends in S, you just add an apostrophe. No matter what. " Jesus' " is the correct possesive form. When you have plural possesive, say, multiple bananas on one branch, you are speaking of "the bananas' branch, and not the bananas's branch. Adding an s after the apostrophe is ONLY for words not already ending in S. source: English degree.

Moreover I would like to point out the Jesu is actually closer to the Latin and Greek spellings of the name (said something like Iesu, actually) and so you are even MORE fail on pointing all this out. So in a way if you wanted to go by old-school spelling (which I dont think you do) then maybe you could argue that you mean multiple people names Jesu (but not Jesus). Saying he is Jesu, and that its "Jesu's birthday" would be in fact be correct in all possbile ways. Dont believe me?? Type Iesu or Jesu into wikipedia or google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

In the "Decorations"picknels section, it says large decorations such as illuminated sleighs and snowmen and outdoor lights only appear in Europe to a lesser extent than in other parts of the world. Speaking as someone from the UK, this is incorrect as nearly every house has some form of outdoor Christmas lights and large decorations. I am unable to edit the page because of its semi-protection, but I believe that part of it needs to be changed. After eight mints are a traditional snack.

I will look at it and make changes if neccesary Αδελφος (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Greek (χ) chi has been used as an abbreviation since Constantine's Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. The practice began long before the 16th c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.180.104 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also inaccurate that the term Santa Claus is only used in North America, Australia and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.241.214 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While the phrasing hadn't included the word "only", it (evidently) could have been read as if this were implied. I've made a general attempt to broaden the possibilities, but if you know of a particular place that might deserve mention, please feel free to suggest it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive Omission

This article seems to omit a great deal of relevant information regarding worldwide secular observance practices; namely, the shift of Christmas in developed nations from a strictly religious holiday to a holiday based on a tradition of consumerism. The current article pays only a small tribute to the economic significance of the celebration, despite widespread commercialization and noteworthy analysis of such practices.

I scanned through the talk pages, and the word "consumerism" is mentioned not once, even though the increasing secularization of developed societies has rendered standard Christmas observance to be a widely practiced ritual of buying.

The consumption rituals associated with the observance of Christmas deserve some mention in the article, along with a link to the article on consumerism. Readers looking for information on typical Christmas observances should be presented with a balanced view of the modern Christmas ritual, along with links to articles explaining the social dynamics of consumerism.

This should be discussed here on the talk page before insertion, since any edits to the page without prior consensus are sure to spark controversy. Stevenm55 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the detail about Christmas having become a largely consumerist-driven holiday is missing sorely from the article. I think it even merits mention in the opening paragraph, because it really is one of the defining aspects of Christmas as we celebrate it today (especially in Western, secularizing countries). We're going to need some reliable sources documenting the consumerist-driven shift, with at least a few off-Internet sources being a good idea as well. I've done a minor rearrangement of the intro. paragraph already, and I think we can stick in a sentence or two about the consumerist shift either between the second and third or the third and fourth sentences. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You both make excellent points about the consumerism and apparently secular nature of this holiday. The problem is that I think you (and many others) imagine that at some point, people somehow understood the "true" meaning of Christmas, but we lost that meaning some time after the industrial revolution of Western civilizations at which time, Christmas bacame about presents and shoppping. This is simply not true. Here is a general breakdown of the history: long before Christ's birth, most agrarian civilizations in the Northern hemisphere celebrated the winter solstice (or gods representing the sun) through feasts and other traditions (decorated trees, yule logs, wreaths, etc). Christianity largely ignored these celebrations until proto-orthodox christianity began to emerge in the first few centuries of the Common Era. These early Christian churches denounced these winter celebrations as pagan. Nevertheless, Christian leaders could not stop these celebrations as they were so deeply ingrained in the cultures of these civilizations. Christianity wrestled with this issue for centuries. Should they embrace the holiday, but give it a Christian twist or should they condemn it all together? For centuries (and maybe still today) the debate continued. In the United States, Christmas celebrations did not become ingrained in the culture until about 120-150 years ago. What helped spark this renewed interest? Retailers, for the most part. The holiday as we know it today, was developed as a retail marketing campaign that capitalized on long-standing traditions. Where did Rudolph the Red Nosed Reigndeer come from? Who introduced the concept of Santa to the masses? When did gift-giving (and of course shoppinf) become popular and who pushed this tradition? The answer is that retailers, not Christ or Christianity, influenced this cultural phenomenon. I don't mean to discredit the importance of Christ's birth, but I do mean to say that Christ's existence has little to do with Christmas (past or present). Even in the behavior of true Christians, you will find that Christ only plays a part of a small percentage of their Christmas behaviors. It's really a fascinating story, but most people don't realize from where modern Christmas emerged. I think that's the story we should tell on Wikipedia rather than concoct some story about how the true meaning of the holiday was lost when some retailers and non-christians declared a war on the true meaning of Christmas. It's a hybrid holiday with strong secular roots and it was only recently named after Christ to appease Christian leaders who otherwise opposed these pagan holiday traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the history of Christmas is certainly nowhere near black-and-white. From what we know through various sources, the actual holiday named "Christmas" is the commemoration of the birth of Jesus (as sanctioned by the Catholic Church), but the date of December 25 was likely chosen to correspond with either the winter solstice or another pagan festival from the last centuries BC or first centuries CE. There is no direct evidence to suggest that any elements from these festivals themselves were incorporated into the celebrations of Christmas from the beginning, but it seems likely, as Christian leaders of the time were very likely trying to Christianize a pagan holiday to help convert pagans of the time. But Christmas itself is not a "pagan" holiday, because it is a totally separately-named and sanctioned holiday (done so, again, by the Roman Catholic Church). As for modern (19th/20th century) commercialization, you're right, it was retailers that pushed for this and also Santa is believed to have originated in 19th century American media (as mentioned in the intro. of the article). We certainly should be incorporating more about this modern commercialization, but we can't be adding any original research to the article. This means we can't say Christmas is a pagan holiday, we can't say the modern gift-giving and other aspects were all instigated by retailers, because there are no sources to confirm this. The exact origin of Christmas gift-giving, etc., may seem obvious as having been retailer-driven, but the true origin remains disputed and thus unknown. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point (you make some good ones) but historians generally do not feel that the origin of Christmas is up for dispute. In addition to cannonical documents, many other early church writings (letters, manuscripts, etc) clearly document the debate among early church leaders as well as the existence of these winter traditions before the Common Era. I guess my point is this, you can't change the name of a pagan holiday and then say it is somehow a new and separate holiday. For example, if we changed Halloween to Christian-ween and then claim that the holiday is meant to celebrate the baptism of Christ, it's not really a new Christian holiday. This is especially true if 90% of the behaviors and customs of this "new" holiday still mirror those of the original halloween. This holiday hijacking would be made worse if people started saying that we need to get back to the "true" meaning of the holiday as if it were always about Christ's baptism rather than costumes and candy. I don't propose changing the article based on this conversation, but it would make me more comfortable with the content if these historical points were considered as well as the counter view that the original and pure version of Christmas has been somehow been tarnished by consumerism and secular behaviors/customs. Perhaps this discussion really belongs on the Christmas Controversy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The so-called pagan "origin" of Christmas is only modern supposition and theorising, for which no solid evidence exists. Practically every day of the year was a pagan festival of some sort, so whatever date was chosen to celebrate Christ's birth, someone could say it was a pagan festival. The dates of Christmnas (Dec 25th) and The Annunciation (March 25th) correlate by the necessary 9 months - and this is the most likely origin of the dating. Doubtless some pagan habits of the winter season (Yule log etc) were adopted and christianised by ordinary people, but this does not make the festival a pagan one. Also the wide adoption of Christmas with very variable customs across the Christian world from Egypt to Scandinavia, Russia to Spain, indicates that there was a pure Christmas long before US shopkeepers cottoned on to it. Xandar 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"so-called pagan 'origin'"? Really? Even among Christians, nearly all of the behaviors exhibited during this season are pagan. You can say that Christmas is about Christ's birth, but your behavior says something different. Your behavios says you are pagan. (of course, when I use the term "you", I am using it as a general pronoun and I'm not targeting a certain person).Also, December 25 was not "practically every other day of the year". Please research Mithras, Sol Invictus, Pan, the list goes on. When were their birthdays? Why was Christmas switched from January 6 to December 25? Was this a coincidence? I guess I agree that it's not fair to call modern-day Christmas a pagan holiday. I'm also not sure it's fair to call it a Christian holiday either, but either way, please don't any of you forget that early Christians had a difficult time competing with pagan traditions and beliefs. It is a historical fact that dwliberate actions were taken to "christianize" these people and customs. There is nothing wrong with this, just don't try to pretend that Christianity evolved without any influence from pagans. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elielilamasabachthani. And I also have to say that, for Christians such as myself, Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. Sure I enjoy getting presents, but I don't view Christmas as getting holiday; it's a giving holiday, and you should give to those in need. (Oh, by the way, I thought it was Eloi eloi lama sabachthani. But maybe there is different ways of spelling it) Αδελφος (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be much more accurate to conclude from all this that, de facto and regardless of history, Christmas is currently a secular event with Christian and non-Christian elements? Much (in fact very much) of the article, as it stands now, explicitly contradicts the initial statement that Christmas is a "Christian holiday". You might as well define a horse as "a brown animal ..." and then spend several pages describing all horses that are not brown as if they were exceptional. AlexFekken (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Side comment: Someone earlier hypothetically suggested changing "Halloween to Christian-ween." In actual fact, the word Halloween apparently originated as a contraction of "All Hallows Even," referring to the eve of All Saints Day. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the date for All Saints Day (November 1) was deliberately chosen by the church in an attempt to supplant the Celtic pagan festival of Samhain (October 31) the way Christmas apparently supplanted earlier pagan solstice festivals. (Since the ecclesiastical calendar follows the Jewish custom of counting the day as starting at sunset, All Saints Day technically begins at sunset on October 31.) It didn't work, however. Halloween as celebrated today is not a Christian holiday by any stretch of the imagination. It's really Samhain with a different name. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading?

The following sentence is in the article..

Prominent phrases in Dickens' Yultide tale, 'Bah! Humbug!', and 'Merry Christmas', entered the English language.

This is misleading since clicking on "Merry Christmas" takes you to an article which states that the first recorded use of Merry Christmas was in 1565. Helsingann (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the article..in 1565 'Mery' meant "agreeable", something completely different to 1843 when 'Merry' meant "joyous"/"cheerful" - the context Dickens used it, hence the term had new meaning. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/merry-christmas.html Secondly, first source i looked at, Readers Digest - "Dickens popularized many aspects of Christmas... our language has been enriched by the tale.... "Bah! Humbug!" when feeling irritated or disbelieving. And the phrase "Merry Christmas!" gained wider usage after the story". http://www.readersdigest.ca/christmas/kind_christmas/burns.html

— Raf45Martinez (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious, not historical, Roman festival

We err to say that the Roman significance of 25 December was anything but religious. In the first paragraph, "...may have initially been chosen to correspond with either a historical Roman festival or the winter solstice," should in no uncertain terms reference "a historical religious Roman festival."CalebPM (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical, in this context, means a festival that no longer exists, but existed at the relevant time. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sprucing up

The article needs some serious sprucing up before Christmas this year. It is not at all comprehensive in its treatment of the festival and its celebration, and in places is poorly written and badly ordered. I've made a start by restoring the original order, with the section on the nativity coming just after etymology, and before the very lengthy historical section, which most readers will be less interested in. I've also begun to add a more comprehensive account of how it is celevbrated. The sections on decorations and Santa Claus need work too, and there needs to be a section on important worship events, and other events of the Christmas period, religious and secular. Xandar 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some serious work, especially in the body of the article. I've tried to fix up the intro as best as possible so far, but even that needs more work. I hope we can all work together to vastly improve this article before Christmas. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Father Christmas

The article currently says: In addition, Father Christmas (known as Santa Claus in North America and Ireland) is a popular mythological figure in many countries, associated with the bringing of gifts for children. Two issues to discuss

• 1 According to the Father Christmas article, he was not originally a gift-bringer nor associated with children
• 2 To say FC is known as Santa Claus indicates this is a different name for the same figure, when actually there are a number of differences - emphasized to diff degrees by diff people
• 3 the present wording gives primacy to the name FC - suggesting the other name is somehow an alias, mistake, or misnomer.

Instead, perhaps, say something like:

A popular mythological figure, known as Father Christmas in many countries, and as Santa Claus in North America and elsewhere, is associated with the holiday--JimWae (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That change seems fine to me. When I made that edit in my intro revamp I wasn't sure exactly how it should be worded, because although both figures have differing histories, they are essentially the same character. And since FC is the norm in more countries than Santa Claus is, I thought he chould come first. But nonetheless, your change looks fine to me. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also the factor of Saint Nicholas - who doesn't currently get enough mention. Xandar 00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "corruption" is strongly misused in this article. Linguistic borrowings hardly merit the connotation of "To render unsound or impure by the contamination of putrid matter; to infect, taint, render morbid." (Oxford English Dictionary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.101.108.227 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of the term Father Christmas, as I would assume all north americans haven't. Surely more people say Santa Claus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The name Kris Kringle was a corruption into the English language? As stated above, the word corrupt has negative connotations. I will change it to a more neutral point, if you don't mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.146.141 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nativity scenes and U.S. law

Haven't there been a few court cases since 1984? Isn't the standard now that such displays are OK if they incorporate other seasonal displays, but that if a level of gov't displays ONLY a creche it IS a first-amendment "establishment of religion" problem--JimWae (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, yes on both points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There still seems to be a lot of controversy about this in the US. It needs a bit more research. Xandar 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You listen to too much talk radio. Certain municipalities have adopted "Creche +" policies concerning publicly owned/displayed Christmas decorations - and right-wing American media outlets certainly like to imply this is the "national standard" as ammo for their "culture war" - but Donnelly is the definitive case in regards to publicly owned and displayed religious symbols. City Nativity displays (and similar religion-specific iconography) are allowed without regard to other religions, ideas, expressions, etc. This coincides with a general shift toward the secular in regards to Christmas over the last couple decades in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.237.25 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Structure reorganization

With this edit, I've restructured the entire article. I know there has been some controversy about the placement of the "Nativity of Jesus" section, but this clearly belongs as a "Celebration" subcategory, and I've listed it first there. The "history" section must come before the "celebration" section, as with any other Wikipedia article. I hope we can, together, further improve the readability and flow of the history section, because currently the "Pre-Christian" history section does not flow well at all, it just lists short summaries of Sol Invictus and Winter festivals. We need to incorporate a flow here, explaining the influence of these festivals on Christmas in a historical context. Please, I hope people can come here to discuss how to improve this. The article's body has been messed up for the longest time, and I think it's about time we really went about fixing it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the placement of the "history" section above that describing what Christmas is and what it is all about. I think it is important to have the description section first. History sections, especially if they are extremely lengthy and esoteric, are not always sited at the top of articles. To compare this with the treatment of equivalent articles on other major festivals: Easter starts with a section on religious significance, before history and disputes over origins, etc. Passover does the same thing, as do Diwali and Eid ul-Fitr, where there is little about history at all.

95% of readers will want to know first what Christmas is and what happens at that time. I can guarantee that they will not want to read through long pages of theories about Roman Gods and Sol Invictis, followed by large reams on Lutheran and Calvinist interactions with the festival in the 16th Century. If the history section was short and to the point, having it first would be less of a problem. But we should be producing an article for Readers not Editors. An early and basic explanation of Christmas is the most necessary and sought after section, and needs to be at the top (after etymology). At the moment most readers will be puzzled what the article is about, and stop reading, since they won't immediately want to be bogged down in irrelevant (to most people) theories about pagan gods of 2000 years ago. The current layout is confusing and off-putting IMO. We need to restore a nativity section to the top. I agree that details of Celebration etc. can be lower down. Xandar 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we can swap out "History" for "Celebration", reverse the order? Does that sound okay to you?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. I just want us to explain what Christmas is NOW, to people who might not know fully, or expect this information to be prominent. Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim readers, for example might not have any prior knowledge at all. Xandar 23:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Still Needed

I think we need something on the dating difference between Orthodox and Western celebrations. We need more on the economic impact of Christmas. Something on Christmas Carols. I also think we could use a short "Christmas Traditions worldwide" section to link up with the main article on that topic. On an allied idea, do we want to mention special Christmas foods? other ideas? Xandar 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Some important points and good ideas, I encourage you to go ahead and start adding some of that. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Article says oldest form is Cristes maesse (1038) but the OED gives Xpes. maessan (a1123 OE. Chron. an. 1101) and Cristes maesse (a1134 OE. Chron. an. 1127). 4 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.82.108 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the article is the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a reliable source, and states 1038. We could quote both I suppose. Xandar 02:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Date error

he was noted for the care of Children, generosity, and the giving of gifts. His feast on the 6th of November came to be celebrated in many countries by the giving of gifts. This should say "the 6th of December". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliroze (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Corrected (actually before I even read this note).D. J. Cartwright (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, it's not about what you get, but the thought that counts. Also, the mostimportant is the time being spent with your family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.91.241 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity

This article falsely states that Christmas is on December 25th, which is true. However, for a large portion of Christians, it is on January 7th. Therefore, I think that should be included in the introduction, and the infobox.

Christmas is a holiday celebrated by all Christians, and all Christians should be included in this page. --77.122.109.26 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We already discussed this to death in talk archives. January 7 is only celebrated because it corresponds to December 25 in the Julian calendar, which Orthodox Christians use because they reject the Gregorian calendar. Adding January 7 in the intro and the infobox will just add unnecessary confusion because it is really December 25 in the Julian calendar. All this is already clarified in the "Celebration" section. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"some eastern national churches, including those of Russia, Georgia, Egypt, Armenia, the Ukraine, Macedonia and Serbia celebrate on January 7"

Armenia celebrates on January 6.

Kusko (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro celebrates on January 7. Bozocv (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• • January 7 is only celebrated because it corresponds to December 25 in the Julian calendar, which Orthodox Christians use because they reject the Gregorian calendar.

- This is a very missleading and incorrect statement, both politically and in terms of factual accuracy. The Christian world respects two calendars and neither is the pivotal one. If you're insisting on facts, the Gregorian calendar has stuck to the dates which were celebrated 2000 years ago, while the Julian calendar has introduced reforms and modifications in terms of dates some centuries ago. Orthodox churches did not "reject the Julian calendar" but simply continued to celebrate according to an ancient calendar. Nevertheless apart from the dates the Christmas remains the primary festivity for entire Christendom. Noone has the right to monopolize that holiday and declare other side to be a pariah, especially the 200,000,000+ Orthodox Christian believers.NeroN_BG

Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7 only if you go by the Gregorian calendar. People within that church go by the Julian calendar, meaning they are celebrating on December 25 (of the Julian calendar that they are extrapolating the date from). So everyone celebrates on December 25, but most use the modern and worldwide-spread Gregorian calendar, while Orthodox Christians use the Julian calendar date for December 25, which is January 7. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

-I agree with you that "neither is the pivotal one", but one should make sure that people understand that the Gregorian calendar is the ACCURATE one!According to the Julian calendar, the tropic year is EXACTLY 365.25 days long, which is WRONG!Unless you don't mind the Spring equinox, which should fall around the 21st of March, advancing till it falls in January after a few millenaries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.123.139 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How would including January 7th in the infobox be confusing? The fact of the matter is that people of the Orthodox faith celebrate Christmas on January 7th. Not December 25th. Trust me, they don't follow the Julian calendar in their daily lives. So, one part of Christianity celebrated Christmas on Friday. Another part will celebrate it the 7th of January. Because the calendar used by this wiki is Julian, January 7th should be included in the infobox. It won't be confusing at all. --TheDmitryPetrov (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, January 7 is okay in the infobox. But I still don't think it is necessary to include in the main paragraphs of introduction to the article. It is clearly explained in the first "Celebration" section, so there is no need to cause unnecessary confusion over the issue in the intro paragraphs. I will add to the infobox. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate. That's all I was going for. Cheers. --TheDmitryPetrov (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is one page adequate for the subject?

(Page division needed?) The purpose of this article is, in my opinion, unclear and mixed. It attempts to explain both the cultural tradition and Christmas as well as Christmas as a Christian festival. While these traditions are obviously heavy linked, they are still distinct enough to perhaps be split as articles. Often explaining the folklore, pagan, secular etc parts of Christmas is impeded by the religious element, and vice versa I am sure. For example, description of this festival as an iteration of a larger and older Eurasian tradition is prohibited. Also the description of many non-Christian parts of the season are either omitted or non-rigorously alleged to be linked or even born out of Christianity. I am concerned, because many of the people who see the Christmas are looking for a description of the cultural festival (Santa, presents, trees, nuts etc) [perhaps a project outside of the Christianity portal) rather than seeing a religious focused page with some concessions to the festival they were looking for. Sorry for being so wordy, and it is a good article. Protectthehuman (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, that the article may need to be split. The problem is, there isn't much left on the religious side if you take out the secular traditions. Sure, there are special church services, but just about every other tradition of the Christian Christmas is derived from a secular or pagan tradition. The religious side of the article would likely be limited to a few biblical accounts of the birth story and a celebration of the importance of Christ in Christian traditions and beliefs. The rest of this holiday is some Christianized version of a pagan or secular practice. Now matter how we cut it, Christmas cannot avoid the fact that it evolved from pagan roots. I would argue that in the actual, observable behaviors of celebrants, Christmas is a secular holiday with a few vague links to Christianity. Even the bible makes little of the birth of Christ. To Christians, it is their belief in Christ’s Immaculate Conception, his teachings as an apocalyptic rabbi and his eventual death/resurrection that matter most. Every historical record on the subjects points to one conclusion: The birth of Christ would not have become important to Christianity if there wasn't a desire by religious people to Christianize longstanding, pagan, winter festivals. These festivals and traditions were so ingrained in societies that even converts to Christianity were not willing to give them up. The solution? Rename the holiday and insert some Christian messages into it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I could just suggest that we remove this holiday from the Christianity portal, but that wouldn’t be fair either. The truth is, early Christians were successful at integrating Christ into this holiday. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be troublesome in other similar articles, eg Easter. Halloween seems to set some kind of precedent for involving religion in the summary, and then disentangling it into its own section. However that is an odd example, as Halloween, in my opinion, is a festival that the religious have largly discontinued their association with. Definitely this is a difficult issue that would require a large consensus and a lot of work. However, this seems doubtful as even the guidance for editing this article seems to pull it back to Christianity, insisting a definition where everything else is secondary. I've been reading through the talk section, and this just seems like a massive unresolved problem. Protectthehuman (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand both of your concerns, but there is no way you can have an article about "Christmas" (Christ's Mass) split into two articles, one about the secular aspects and one about the birth of Jesus. The holiday named "Christmas" cannot be removed from the definition of "the mass (commemoration) of (the birth of) Jesus of Nazareth". The pre-Christian pagan festivals obviously had a huge impact on at the very least the December 25 date for Christmas, but many secular aspects of Christmas originated in the 18th/19th century reformation, not in pagan tradition, such as Santa Claus (although some elements of the Santa story like flying reindeer are pre-St. Nicholas and pre-Christian, going back into Nordic pagan tradition). The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those, and if we were going to realistically split the article we'd need to split it into three articles: Christian Christmas, secular Christmas, and pagan Christmas. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also wanted to add... many atheists, including myself, celebrate some of the "Christian" parts of Christmas as well, such as singing Christian Christmas carols, etcetera. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I now agree that it does not make sense to have two articles (or three), but I must question some of your assertions. You said “The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those…” The problem is, the holiday is about 99% non-christian no matter how you add it up. Christmas is really only a Christian holiday in name. Other than a few church services and nativity scenes (which are not historically accurate), there is no Christianity in Christmas. You contradicted your very own argument when you said that caroling is a “Christian” part of the holiday and that Santa has no pagan origin (a claim which you immediately disprove in your own statement). I wish we had a few more credentialed religious historians here. Your understanding of this issue is on par with most of my “Comparitive Religions 101” students. You’ve come a long way over the years that I’ve been reading your edits, but you are still missing too much of this history to be able to speak with any authority (in my opinion). So, what should we do? I’m not relly sure how much the history matters since this is an article mostly about Christmas today. It just bothers me when people are ignorant of the history and claim that Christmas (as we know it today) was not the result of a deliberate campaign to Christianize pagan and secular traditions. As an evangelical religion, Christianity should never apoligize for melding its self into the traditions we now know as Christmas. This practice is not theologically inconsistent with biblical teachings. All I ask is that everyone respect this history rather than resist it. You can’t just change a holiday’s name and then claim some unqualified ownership of it.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas instituted by church to combat Pagan Day of the Sun festival

According to Sir James George Frazer the church encouraged Christians to celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus because of the enourmous popularity of the Pagan holiday, even among Christians. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PT379&dq=mithras+christmas+birthday&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Hopefully some secular person can add these important historical facts. I won't bother as I have better things to do than deal with religious fanatics who have hijacked the majority of articles dealing with Christianity on wikipedia.201.230.48.220 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Merry Christmas on Fri Dec 25, 2009 and A Happy New Year on Jan 1, 2010. http://my.calendars.net/michaelmlazo

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.237.100 (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe the sol invictis theories are already mentioned in the history section. Xandar 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tweak opening sentence

Opening sentence has an intense "don't change" comment stemming from a 2006 dispute, so I'll comment even though the change was sufficiently minor. I tweaked it turning an adjective into a prepositional clause so that it's factually accurate. (The old version, to an unaware reader, would literally imply that non-christian nations which observe Christmas do so in secular celebration of Jesus's birth, akin to the US's Martin Luther King Day.) Tiny inaccuracy, small tweak. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording "for Christians" in the opening tweak that you made, but I am okay with removing "Christian" as an adjective for "holiday" as a compromise. Please reach consensus here at the talk page for any such changes to the introductory sentence. It is POV to consider that only those adhering to Christianity choose to commemorate Jesus of Nazareth's birth. We need sources to verify this claim if you think it is worth noting. Thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is primarily a Christian festival and this should be reflected as such. Minority attitudes towards it, while important and worthy of inclusion, should not be presented in a weirdly revisionist light, nor in conflict with the primary focus of the day for the vast majority of individuals who observe it. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No debate-- both traditionally and primarily, Christmas is a Christian celebration of Jesus's birth and we can unabashedly say so. We just can't say it's exclusively a Jesus celebration, since a major chunk of the industrialized non-christians nations also have a Christmas celebration that is largely unconnected to Jesus.

So, help me understand where our reasonings diverge. What's being argued?

• Only Christians celebrate Christmas-- the non-christian nations do have celebrations that, while christmas-like, aren't actually Christmas proper.
• Or, non-Christian nations do have Christmas, but their Christmas is still primarily a celebration of Jesus of Nazareth, whose divinity they deny but who they still deeply revere nonetheless.
• Or, since Wikipedia is an english-language project and English-speaking countries are typically Christian, the rest of the world is sufficiently non-notable that we can ignore them for the purposes of the lede?

Or something else?

My apologies for bolding on that-- I didn't anticipate it being controversial. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording "for Christians" suggests that there will be a follow-up explaining what Christmas commemorates for non-Christians. But there is not a centralized reason that non-Christians celebrate Christmas, and many may indeed be celebrating or commemorating Jesus' birth as part of their celebrations. It is most neutral to simply state that Christmas is a Christian holiday that commemorates Jesus' birth, which doesn't assert who does or doesn't celebrate his birth. It appears Notpieru is in agreement with you here, but we should get a larger consensus here before the wording is changed, IMO. I've switched out "for Christians" with "in Christianity" for now, which I believe is more neutral, hopefully we can come to an agreement. I've asked some other users to comment. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Way better!. This is why I love Wikipedia.  :) 'In Christianity' is much better than my 'for Christians', because the Jesus aspects aren't 100% exclusive to Christians-- any Muslims who celebrate Christmas, for example, are likely to also commemorate the virgin birth of Jesus. Better all the time, good work and Merry Christmas CIS. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't see a massive difference in the versions, I do think that the previous " "Christmas is a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus", is very factual, and basically inarguable. "Christmas... is an annual holiday that, in Christianity, commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ." Is also factual but implies that Christmas is an anuual holiday of other faiths or of those resolutely of no faith. But while people who are non-Christians may celebrate and party at Christmas time, there is a difference between that and other religions and secular leaderships formally celebrating Christmas. Christmas IS a Christian holiday. It is not a jewish or Buddhist or Muslim or a secular holiday - except in the sense that some such people choose (or are forced by circumstance) to celebrate or take time off work over the Christmas period. Those non-christians who DO feast, party and celebrate at Christmas time are acknowledging, however grudgingly, a Christian holiday. Those who claim to be celebrating something else (Hannukah - Kwaanza - etc) are presumably not celebrating Christmas. So we are largely left with secular people who party at Christmas time while rejecting Christianity. I dfon't think their existence makes Christmas suddenly not be a Christian holiday. Xandar 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting: "[The current wording] is also factual but implies that Christmas is an annual holiday of other faiths or of those resolutely of no faith. But while people who are non-Christians may celebrate and party at Christmas time, there is a difference between that and [...] Christmas.

So, I think the portion I quoted gets to the heart of the question. Do non-christian nation's celebrations fall under the umbrella of "Christmas" or is the word "Christmas" reserved exclusively for Christian celebrations.

I think the language could be used either way. The one piece of evidence I'd say that argues strongly that non-christian nations' winter celebrations _are_ Christmas is that many of them use the english word "Christmas" to describe their celebration. So, taking only the 1.1 billion citizens of India-- their national holiday is, in fact, called 'Christmas', with English an official national language.

Note I'm making a very different point from the whole "War on Christmas" hubbub about Christmas within traditionally Christian nations. That's a far more subtle question. But India and China alone count for about half the world, and they both have non-Christian Christmases (or faux-Christmases, if we prefer).  :)

And now, Merry Christmas to all you Wikipedians out there. :) It's lovely working with you. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I agree with Xandar; he basically expresses what I was trying to convey but couldn't quite get out. Christmas is a Christian holiday commemorating Jesus' birth, regardless of its pagan connections or influences, and regardless of how many non-Christians choose to celebrate it secularly today. I think the original intro is most appropriate; it's the standard intro in most of the other language Wikipedias as well. If Christmas ever reaches a status like Halloween has, where it has become completely secular with no religions daring claim it (i.e. if the Catholic Church, in the future, were to denounce Christmas) then we can play around with the intro sentence. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need only wait for it to become like Valentine's Day or St Patricks Day (neither of which is wiki-defined as Christian days) -- which Xmas is pretty close to already --JimWae (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point there, Jim, but we also most remember that Christmas has a lot of still-prominent Christian elements that are widely publicized and celebrated during the season, ranging from midnight mass to extremely popular Christmas carols that explicitly mention and glorify the birth of Jesus. Neither Valentine's Day nor St. Patrick's Day have these elements, so I think it will be a lot harder to cite a notable much less complete disconnect between Christmas and Christianity into the foreseeable future. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But-- if Christmas is, by definition, a Jesus-centered celebration, then the article needs to switch it's terminology when discussing the non-Christian Christmas-like celebrations throughout Asia.

The current article's logic goes:

1. Christmas is a celebration of Jesus

2. Christmas is widely celebrated in, for example, India.

But these two statements are incompatible, because they lead to:

3. Therefore, either India is a largely christian nation or else India has a secular "Martin Luther King Day"-esque celebration honoring Jesus.

But since we also know that, for example, India's Christmas (or 'Christmas'-like holiday) isn't at all Jesus-focused, we've created an article that is partially nonsensical.

The "Christmas" article could either be about the general "Christmas (umbrella term)" or specifically about Christmas (Christian Holiday. But, if we go with Christmas (Christian Holiday) in the lede, we have to stick with that strict meaning in the body too, or else we'll create nonsensical sentences like the one above. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand the point you're making here, and there's no real easy way to resolve this. I would tend to agre that perhaps predominantly non-Christian populations, as you suggested, are celebrating a more-or-less "Christmas-like" holiday that conveniently drops (most) elements of Jesus' birth. But then again, you often see many Japanese renditions of popular Christian Christmas carols like "O Holy Night", which are also sung by atheists in Europe and America. Is this a "secular commemoration of Jesus' birth" or just the joyful singing of lyrics without paying them much attention? Most often the latter, but either option is a possibility and it would be OR to suggest that all non-Christians celebrate a Christmas completely devoid of incorporating Jesus in any way. If you'll check this old revision of Christmas I'll direct you to this long-removed sentence that perhaps should be reintroduced:

"Christmas is celebrated in most countries around the world, owing to the spread of Christianity and Western culture".

Christianization and Westernization; these are absolutely central to the spread of Christmas into the non-Christian world despite its potentially sectarian status. Christmas is indeed still defined as a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus (as initially defined by the RCC at its creation in the 4th century), regardless of how one individual or one entire (non-Christian) country chooses to celebrate it... and the holiday is widespread mostly thanks to mass Christianization, fun secular elements (many of which were indeed likely borrowed from pagan festivals), and the spread of Western culture across the world (most notably in Japan).

The core point of it all, for me, is this: if non-Christians are claiming to be celebrating "Christmas" and not "Yule", "Saturnalia" or just a floatingly-defined "winter holiday", then they are still falling under the umbrella of celebrating the Christian holiday commemorating Jesus' birth. That's how I feel about it, even though I'm an agnostic atheist who celebrates Christmas. So although your #1 and #2 statements may be accurate, your #3 statement need not be the conclusion. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The more I think over this and read over the FARC and GAR, the more I think a clear consensus is needed about the scope of the article. Right now, the two potential scopes impossibly tangled. Is this article about the Anglo-American Christians' "Christmas", the Western Europe's Dec 25 Feast of various names, all Christian Jesus-birth commemorations regardless of name or date, or all Christmas celebrations including the celebrations of non-christian nations. As is, the scope is constantly changing from sentence to sentence. If it's all, the lede is inaccurate. If it's by definition the Dec 25 Christian Feast Day, then broad swaths of the article are factually inaccurate. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about the issue, I'd suggest that you perhaps start writing up some alternate drafts at a sub-user article location like User:Alecmconroy/Christmas and bring discussion about them here so we can discuss their potential replacement of the current article. It will be a lot easier to discuss the possible changes that you'd like to have done if we could see them written out. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Issue

Under controversy it says, "In the private sphere also, it has been alleged". Who is alleging this? Without reference to specific groups or persons this sounds like a "straw man argument". The response to these supposed allegations linked to a particular group, but the allegation itself is not proven.

The citations for those claims are at the main Christmas controversy article itself. You are welcome to add them to this article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Magi (wise men) in nativity scenes

In discussions of the appearance of the wise men (magi), it should be mentioned that the biblical account states that King Herod ordered the killing of male children two or under when the magi did not return to him after seeing Jesus. This indicates that they were not in attendance at Christ's birth {"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Matthew 2:16 NAS)}. Also, the magi did not see Jesus in a manger or stable, but in a house {"And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11 NAS)}, which is another indication that they were not in attendance at the time of Jesus' birth. 98.149.205.236 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas before Christianity

We should also mention the fact that Christmas was celebrated even before the introduction of Christianity. Bosniak (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Really, where do you people get this stuff? CHRISTmas is a CHRISTian feast. Whether it replaced an earlier celebration is already documented. Read the article. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cme on Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση, maybe Bosniak wasn't literally accurate since it wasn't called Christmas pre-Christ, but his point is valid. I do acknowledge that this is covered throughout the article and in this discussion, so probably no need to go further here. Nearly every custom and behavior associated with Christmas existed before Christ. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is completely true that Christmas was never celebrated before Christianity. Almost nothing is original anyway, so it is irrelevant that some Christmas customs have nothing to do with Jesus. These customs are part of the Christmas celebration. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy!

Congratulations Wikipedia for including accurate information about the origin of the Christmas feast, better known as Yule or Winter Solstice. It's rare to see factually accurate information on here. I nominate the relevant portions of this article as an example for all to follow. :) 81.141.76.119 (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas

The article on Christmas is good but the author seems not to know the reason why it is placed in the calendar when it is. The feast is placed purposely then because it is the time when the sun begins to increase, just as the Feast of John the Baptist in June is set for the time when the sun begins to decrease - based on John the Baptists own words of "He must increase and I must decrease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donockley (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are various contradictory theories on the dating of Christmas, of which Donockley's is only one. None are conclusively proven. The solstice festival theory is only that. Others say Christmas is dated 9 months from the Annunciation, (conception of Jesus), festival on 25th March. Xandar 00:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Current tradition in Colombia

The article states that "Current tradition in several Latin American countries (such as Venezuela and Colombia) holds that while Santa makes the toys, he then gives them to the Baby Jesus, who is the one who actually delivers them to the children's homes, a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States."

I have heard of no such tradition and cannot find any reference anywhere to it. Santa Claus is an imported figure of the traditional Christmas celebration but to my knowledge nobody in those countries holds that Santa Claus makes the toys and gives them to Baby Jesus. Please state the source of this claim, which I believe to be false.

Pbueno (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Pablo 12/30/2009

Pablo, there's a reason why Wikipedia is never used academically, or by anybody looking to get taken seriously. Don't sweat it, just change it and move on. This is all a big word game ;) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-US/UK-centric Christmases

per suggestion above

Referring to [2],

• Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25 is not fact. EO church exists.
• Christmas is a Chrisian holiday is not a fact. Non-christian nations with Christmases exist.

The lede linked to that, so should future ledes. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we're having a difficult time getting other users to comment on this matter to get a different angle/opinion on this, but I'll reply anyway. For your first point, Christmas Day is indeed celebrated on December 25 universally, technically speaking. The EO church celebrates as per the Julian calendar, meaning they are still celebrating on the 25... it just happens to fall on January 7 in the reformed Gregorian calendar that is used civilly worldwide. The Gregorian celebration date of January 7 is mentioned clearly in the infobox, and I am of the opinion that adding it to the actual article's introduction will just unnecessarily confuse readers, as we are supposed to be clearly indicating the reason for December 25 as the date for Jesus' birthday; which January 7 has nothing to do with. As for the second point, I've already commented my opinion above. If non-Christian nations and/or peoples choose to celebrate Christmas, that is their prerogative, but it doesn't make the holiday any less officially a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. And it is POV for us to say that any commemoration of Jesus' birthday is only observed "by Christians" or "in Christianity", because many non-Christians may indeed acknowledge Jesus during the holiday, albeit perhaps in a diminished way.— CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: it is your definition of Christmas as "commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth" that is POV. To most people in this world Christmas is whatever they celebrate on 25 (and 26) December and however they celebrate it. Most aspects of Christmas, as most people celebrate it, have absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus, as the article itself shows.

Wikipedia does not define Sunday as a "Christian weekday" (though I admit that a medieval Western European version of Wikipedia probably would and should have done so) and it should show the same level of "enlightenment" with regards to defining Christmas and similar terms that, for most people, have long ago lost the connection with their origins. AlexFekken (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Christmas was once an exclusively Christian holiday, but that's just no longer true. Elements of the christ-celebration have gotten absorbed into a meta-holiday that is widely celebrated by non-christian nations. This must be how the pagans felt when their Dec25ish winter festivals got absorbed into Christmas. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Wikipedia is not a collection of original research. We must provide citations that indicate the main definition of the holiday of Christmas. All major sources cite Christmas foremost as a "Christian holiday celebrating/commemorating the birth of Jesus". What are some alternate proposals (notable and cited) for the leading sentence? I'd love to hear them; I'm certainly open to changing it, as long as it is sourced and notable. I've never read any encyclopedia or dictionary defining Christmas as other than what we have defined it as. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I get your point but even the Merriam-Webster source of the article gives a secondary definition as "Christmastide", i.e. "the festival season from Christmas Eve till after New Year's Day or especially in England till Epiphany". In order words: major sources (I checked some others as well) acknowledge a secondary definition that avoids the qualification of "Christian". In my personal opinion this reflects the inertia of a shifting trend even in "pro-Christian biased" sources. It would be nice if somebody could come up with other, less "pro-Christian biased" sources where perhaps the situation is reversed. But lacking that for the moment, perhaps Wikipedia could at least acknowledge the existence of alternative definitions and make the result more consistent with what everybody already knows (using the same sources). AlexFekken (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative definition perhaps this will do as it can use the same sources: "Christmas is alternatively defined as an annual Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ or as the secular celebration during the same period." I think that the reference to "Christmas Day" in this definition must be removed as it only refers to the 25th and not to "Christmas" as whole (whatever your definition). It could be defined in the next sentence. AlexFekken (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I just realised that, especially if the definition Christmas is kept as is (but otherwise as well), a change is probably needed to the start of the second paragraph: "Although a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians". This now suggests that all Christians celebrate (or at least acknowledge) Christmas as a Christian holiday. It shouldn't be necessary to go the controversy section or to other sources to find out that a significant number of Christians do not celebrate or even acknowledge Christmas (using arguments that are purely Christian), especially with the current definition suggesting otherwise. AlexFekken (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is being discussed is hardly UK/US Christmas, it's generally European, extended to Western, practice. Attacks on Christianity are well and good (you can hate whatever you like) but misappropriation of facts (especially doing so clumsily) is just shoddy. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is going a bit off topic but I am not even sure about that. The attack isn't on Christianity but on the definition of Christmas. It is fine if Christians (well, most Christians) want to define Christmas exclusively as a Christian holiday for themselves, or Sunday (or Sabbath) as a religious day for themselves, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world must do the same thing. Those days are over (now that was an little attack on Christianity). There is no "misappropriation of facts" that I am aware of.

And on second thought, it is probably not off topic in this section. As the "proper definition" of Christmas is determined by consensus and everyday use of the word (which is what the dictionaries should reflect), it might well need to be different in the US, the UK and elsewhere. AlexFekken (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Christians may have "stole" or "ripped off" a pagan holiday and turned it into their own, but that's just the thing — they turned it into their own. They made a separate holiday, named it "Christmas" (i.e. "Mass of Christ"), and they defined it as being a commemoration of the birth of Jesus, as mostly all external sources will confirm as the definition of Christmas (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.). Just because non-Christians celebrate it today thanks to commercial aspects that have been incorporated into it over the years does not change the definition of the holiday. Until external sources start defining it as otherwise, or until it reaches a completely secular state, or until we branch off and create a "new" December 25 holiday like the Christians did from the pagans, the definition of the holiday should remain as is. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not getting the point: this is not about how Christians may or may not have "stolen" a pagan holiday. The history of the whole thing is irrelevant to the current definition(s). I thought I was very clear in talking about what Christmas means in the present only. And I also clearly pointed out that even the main source that is used in the article already gives an alternative definition of Christmas without calling it Christian.

You are probably confused because of the etymology of the word "Christmas". I totally agree that this (the etymology) is Christian because the event itself was once Christian. But this was when setting up a Christmas tree technically speaking still carried the death penalty, at least according to the Christian bible. Meanwhile the meaning of the word has changed and dictionaries ARE acknowledging that like I pointed out before. Based on etymology "Thursday" would be a religious day (for those who worship Thor) and Sunday would be a pagan day in England, Germany and the Netherlands and a Christian day in France, Spain and Italy. But of course this is all nonsense, just as the etymological argument for Christmas is. Do I like this sort of language corruption? No, but it is a fact of life and I can live with a non-Christian Christmas just as I can live with a Thursday that has nothing to do with Thor apart from an etymological origin in the Dark Ages (and without excluding the possibility that a considerable number of people might still worship Thor and consider it a religious day). But more relevantly: most people can and do so. And this is what dictionaries and encyclopaedias reflect, or at least they should reflect if they didn't lag behind (e.g. behind dictionaries like Merriam-Webster) as much as Wikipedia does on this topic. AlexFekken (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about the name. Easter is a Christian holiday, even though in English it has taken the name of a pagan goddess, and non-Christians take the day off and eat Easter eggs and Hot Cross buns. The same applies to Christmas. It is centrally and primarily a Christian holiday and atheists celebrate it, if at all, grudgingly. Very few people go about celebrating Sol Invictis or the Great Solstice either. In fact in atheist Communist regimes, the first thing they try to do is abolish Christmas. Xandar 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are your arguments to support the claim that "atheists celebrate it, if at all, grudgingly"? Even taking this unsubstantiated (and false) claim into account you are saying nothing that undermines my arguments. So lets change the definition if only to stop it from breaching Wikipedia policy as I explained above. AlexFekken (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, whoever did it. But although Christmas is not defined as a *Christian* holiday any more, the part of the definition that says "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is still a violation of policy as it is not in agreement with the source definition. Those who do not celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday obviously do not necessarily do so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" either. It is still disputable OR and POV to assume and state that they do.

Of course the first sentence in the second paragraph ("Although a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians") now needs updating as well. Something like simply "Christmas is widely celebrated by Christians and non-Christians" might be better. AlexFekken (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. I think AlexFekken is making some very valid points here. Today, Christmas may be a Christian holiday, but that's not all it is. I will support any edits that clarify this. I think this is the best way to convey to readers that this holiday is both Christian and secular at the same time. Perhaps the same can be said about Easter as well. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seems like some people have a problem accepting the existence of different and inconsistent definitions of the same term. I have no problem with recognising that Christians would define Christmas as a Christian holiday as long as it is also recognised that others define Christmas in a different way (making it a different Christmas if you like, but still called "Christmas"). Wikipedia should reflect both definitions because the primary source does. At the moment (in spite of the change) it still actually reflects only one of the definitions, inconsistently (because the change was only partial), and in spite of my explicit proposal above to simply give two alternative definitions like the sourced dictionary.

With regards to Easter: Merriam-Webster does not (unfortunately in my opinion) support a secular definition of Easter. However, it only takes one reliable source to support the case. So if anybody can find one then yes, Easter should be treated likewise. AlexFekken (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is this "second definition" you are talking about? And what are sources for it?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it you want cited? That non-Christians notably and widely celebrate Christmas? Or that a dictionary regard this as a "separate definition", rather than an additional fact? The first is trivial to cite, the second is unnecessary since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and we would never normally think of taking our ledes from a dictionary. (That said, I'm sure with all the nations and all the dictionaries out there, such an entry mentioning secular Christmas is definitely out there, if we want to find it.) --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that non-Christians widely and notably celebrate Christmas is already mentioned and sourced in the article. I'm responding to the apparent need to tweak the introductory sentence to change the main definition of Christmas to include something other than Jesus' birth. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, and yes we are supposed to be creative and elaborate with our introductions and leads, but everything still needs to be sourced. The fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday intended (manufactured) to commemorate the birth of Jesus is a well-known and sourced fact. If you wanted to add something else about a secular definition to the lead, i.e. "Christmas is about peace", you'd need to find reliable sources repeating the exact same definition. This is a controversial issue, we can't just have every second person adding their own "personal definition" of Christmas in the lead.

A good idea to go with is perhaps that we can simply broaden the first sentence to include several different sourced ideas about Christmas, but they must all be reliable and notable. Something like "Christmas is a holiday celebrated on December 25 that commemorates the birth of Jesus, celebrates peace toward mankind, and general goodwill" would be a good path to take, but it would still need to be heavily sourced as most reliable and widespread definitions of Christmas only include reference to Jesus' birth. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy for how often I have to repeat myself? As I wrote several times above I am talking about the only live source for the definition in the article that appears to be neutral, i.e. [6] Merriam-Webster. I have even literally quoted the second definition above, but I can do it again: "christmastide", which is defined as "the festival season from Christmas Eve till after New Year's Day or especially in England till Epiphany".

Note that I didn't come up with this source, it was there all the time and it was abused (i.e. only partially used) all the time: all I did was point that out. So are we saying, all of a sudden now, that dictionaries aren't suitable reliable sources any more? For a definition, of all things? And that this has nothing to do with the fact that some people only wanted to use the part of a definition that suited them? AlexFekken (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Have you seen the Christmastide article? There's already an article for that, and it clearly is defined as a season of the Christian liturgical year and it ends with the Christian holiday of Epiphany. How is this a secular definition of Christmas? And how is it a definition of Christmas at all? It's a definition of Christmastide.

The opening paragraph of this article also already references Christmastide, in this line: "Christmas is central to the Christmas and holiday season, and in Christianity marks the beginning of the larger season of Christmastide, which lasts twelve days.^[12]". Are you suggesting that we reference a definition of Christmastide at the Christmas article to secularly define Christmas? Christmastide is synonymous with Christmas, it isn't Christmas itself; Merriam-Webster has a separate entry for Christmastide. If you want to reference Merriam-Webster's definition for Christmastide, you can do so at the Christmastide article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First of the all, the fact the Wikipedia may also define Christmastide incorrectly does not prove anything. This discussion is not about fixing the Christmastide entry as well (though it may turn into that, see my fourth point). Moreover, if I remember correctly Wikipedia isn't supposed to use itself as a reliable source, and certainly not as the main reliable source. Not that that would be necessary because we actually have a source: to me a general dictionary seems like the ideal reliable source for a definition. Too bad that I see only attempts to misquote the source (you just did it again!) and even an attempt to dispute the suitability of the source without any arguments given.

Second, even if it were true, the fact that Christmastide would end on Epiphany would not make it non-secular. We have already had a very similar discussion about Sunday, Thursday etc. But in fact you are misquoting the Merriam-Webster definition again: the Epiphany part is qualified with "especially in England" and New Year's Day (another Christian holiday?) is actually the primary end date given.

Third, Merriam-Webster's secondary definition of Christmas is one word ("Christmastide"), which is a hyperlink to the definition under discussion. How can this NOT mean that the definition of Christmastide is an alternative definition for Christmas as well?

Fourth, if you think that the two different definitions of Christmas in Merriam-Webster should be treated in two different articles (e.g. a Christian Christmas and a secular Christmastide), then fine, but let's start then with a disambiguation page of "Christmas" listing both of these definitions accurately, i.e. in agreement with the source(s). AlexFekken (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing at least two definitions (secular based and Christian based) in this article. Disambigulation may be necessary, but it seems to me there is room for this to fit nicely into one article. What about a sentence that describes Christmas as a Christian holiday for many Christians, but at the same time, a secular holiday for many people. Merriiam-Webster would be a good citation for this fact. The American Heritage Dictionary also defines Christmas as "Christmastide" in its third definition. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday, full stop. Secular people may also celebrate at Christmas time, but what they are celebrating is a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, even if they don't believe in the originating event itself. This is an important distinction. A few people may celebrate Hannukah or saturnalia at the same time, but they, by definition, are not celebrating Christmas. Xandar 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Repetition in History section

The "History" section has two sentences that should be connected in some way, since their separation suggests that they are not related. The early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 A.D.) thought this dating plausible and suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date.[50] According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after nine months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25th.[49] In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after the Annunciation on March 25, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.

I'd edit it myself, but this page is locked...presumably to prevent godless marketers from saying Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.196.28 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote this material because it is quite misleading. The theory that Africanus calculated the nativity as March 25 plus nine months was proposed by Duchesne in the 19th century. It is just speculation because Africanus' writing has not survived. To write about what Africanus "thought" is doubly speculative. IMO, this whole theory doesn't really explain anything. The ancient medical authorities discuss eight month, nine month, and ten month pregnancies -- they did not calculate due dates or think of pregnancy as something that should last exactly nine months. Why not a birth date of Dec. 24 or Dec. 26? The March 25 plus nine month explanation only begs the question of, Why is Annunciation on March 25? Presumably because that was the date of the equinox. Putting Christian festivals on solar days is natural given the well-documented link early Christians made between Jesus and the "sun of righteousness." To say that Christmas is on the date of the Roman solstice festival (Bruma) is a satisfactory explanation by itself -- the nine month calculation just adds a little extra gloss. Kauffner (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

christmas is about sharing what you have and feeling good for sharing what you have, if a person is not feeling good or doesnt want to it is said for being selfish at christmas.written by a member of st.pauls and all hallows school n17 in tottenham england thank you for listening or taking the time to read this bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.236.12 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Merry Christmas" in different languages

(| Class = "wiki table" | - ! Language! Merry Christmas |- | Welsh || Nadolig Llawen]] || Nadolig Llawen

ur gsay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.69.238 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

WP:Consensus can change Regardless of the calendar's both celebrating "december 25," wikipedia uses one calendar for dates and on the wikipedia calendar Orthodox Christmas falls on Jan 6/7 which needs to be stated because the article is thus POV and doesnt have a globalized view. As for stating it in the infobox it wont be confusing (instead informative) when the caveat Wetern/Eastern/Armenian is added. It may well be detailed in the article (which is poorly sourced) but the point of the WP:Lead is to summarize the content and the content does include the differences.Lihaas (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "held either on December 25, January 6 or January 7" won't do. It's not a moveable feast, it is a fixed date: December 25 on whatever calendar is being used--JimWae (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your addition of "religious"; this goes against current consensus that the holiday is both religious and secular. Also, I've reverted your History/Celebration swap for two reasons: (1) there is consensus to keep the "Celebration" section first and (2) I would ask that you please do such an edit separate from any other POV-removing edits so we can clearly see all the exact diffs. I've also removed your addition of "(Western Christianity)" attached to December 25 in the infobox, because Christmas is also celebrated on December 25 (of the Gregorian calendar) secularly, i.e. without Christianity. I agree with Jim in that only December 25 should be mentioned in the lead paragraph to minimize confusion and because the actual date of intended celebration has always been December 25; we don't need to open the can of worms about the Julian/Gregorian calendar issues in the intro paragraph. Consensus has been to leave the January 6/7 dates in the infobox only. Perhaps we can add a reference/note after "December 25" in the lead paragraph, but I don't think we should include the January dates. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(just lost an edit conflict, trying to readd what i had)

wikipedia has one calendar listed (it doesnt nor should it have various articles), and this is a "christmas" holiday, not "gregorian december 25" page. the issue of a gregorian/julain calendar doesnt arise (other than the article details to account for the difference) because wikipedia doesnt use both systems to refer to dates. (there are also 2 calendars and 3 dates, which accounts for some difference.) if there is WP:Undue prominence given to 1 date and 1 sect then the globalized tag must go up because it certainly doesnt reflect a worldwide view while limited to a (Western) eurocentric bias. maybe the "...or..." tag is not appropriate, an accomodation can be come to. Somethign tot he effect that "Christmas is a holiday to celebrate the birth..." Followed in the next sentence by "It is celebrated by some/Western Christianity on December 25, in the Eastern Orthodoxy on January 7, and in the Armenian Church on January 6." Or agreed to variations thereof.

for the consensus that it is not a religious order, WP:Consensus can change. For the assertion that it is not a religious holiday, i fail to see how a holiday that "celebrates the birth of Christ" is not a religious holiday? Maybe the caveat that is has come to be celebrated by many non-christians, but it is a religious holiday (heck, why would nativity scenes on public property even come close to violation the Establishment clause if that was the reason)

Anyway, im not reverting this till consensus, but reverting "celebration" above "history" was done without a reason simpyl saying "move them seperately so the differences can be seen" ive done that now. And the background/history sections always come first to lead the main article onwards.Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the section swap, my only concern was the visibility of changes in the diffs. Anyway, back to the main issue of the December 25/January 7 dates in the lead paragraph. The second sentence of this article goes into detail about the reason behind the December 25 date chosen as Christmas Day. As has been discussed before, if we include the January 6 and January 7 dates in the lead, it's going to defeat the purpose of explaining the reasoning behind the Catholic Church having chosen "December 25" as the date of celebration. I have set up a potential compromise using a WP:REFGROUP at my sandbox here: User:CrazyInSane/sandbox. Let me know what you think about it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 10:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the move of the lengthy History section to the top of the article. This was discussed last year, and it was agreed that the article is primarily to tell people about what Christmas is NOW, what people do and what it stands for. That is what the majority of readers are looking for - not a lengthy recitation of fringe theories about winter festivals and so forth. that material, and the later history of the festival, belongs in the article, but not as the first thing that readers see.

On the issue of the dates, we probably do need to explain in the lead that some Christians celebrate on 6th/7th january, but probably not in the first sentence or two. Perhaps a sentence could be added at the end of paragraph 1 or 2 stating that because of calendar changes some Christians celebrate on different modern calendar dates. Xandar 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Per CrazyInSane, I dont see why the purpose of the reasoning behind the choice is defeated, sure the details are still relevant whatever it maybe, but it is still deceptive to say December 25 as the be all and all date for Christmas celebrations (how come Jan 6/7 are different though?) i dont see where the compromise is on that page, can you point it out? How about taking the date out of the first sentence alltogether and then adding another brief to a para in the lead about the various dates? Its not that "some christians" celebrate it to mention, it is a large part of the christian populace outside the western sphere that does so, and the article can't take sides. I'm not updating this till consensus because we are still discussing, the globalize tag just draws more opinions to the talk facility to enhance the conversation.

per Xandar, see the conversation above WP:Consensus can change Who is to say most readers want to here about "now." As an encyclopaedia wikipedia has to explain the history and the definitions, etc. There are no "fringe" theories because someone doesnt like it, if it is sourced and it is encyclopaedic then it warrants its place here. The Background/history is an intro into the article.

also there was an arguement below about "nominally a Christian holiday" might want to see that. Lihaas (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears JimWae has taken the liberty of implementing what I had proposed in my sandbox example. December 25 is mentioned in the lead, with a citation note that links to a lengthy explanation near the bottom of the page. I support this format. With the revelation that some Armenian churches also celebrate on January 19, the issue is much too extensive to include in the lead. In order for us to explain the much more important origin of the December 25 date as the date for celebration, we must relegate the January 6/7/19 dates to a citation note. As for the History/Celebration chronological issue, I think that ultimately the "History" section should always come first in an article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lihass. Can you stop making major reorganisations without discussion or consensus! There is no agreement to move the extremmely lengthy "history" section so that it overshadows the rest of the article. The history of Christmas and various obscure theories connected with it, as well as minutiae of its development in the USA are NOT more important than the facts about the festival itself. Your opinion notwithstanding. The process on Wikipedia is to discuss and reach agreement before making controversial changes to articles. Xandar 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, it's not his opinion, and it's not "minutiae" or "obscure" if he is using valid sources. All of his edits are factually correct, the question here is which edits are most germain to the article and where to put these edits. As your comments throughout this article and discussion seem to oppose any secular content, one might come to the conclusion that you are the one letting opinions cloud what should be an objective editing process. It is a fact that Christmas evolved (and still evolves) from a robust history of secular and religious observations, symbols and behaviors. We cannot talk fully about Christmas without all of this. I welcome Lihass' edits, but share others' concerns about how to incorporate them. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clyntong, 28 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section headed History / Middle Ages, the end of the papraraph reads 'changed from December 6 to Christmas Eve'. It should read 'changed from January 6 to Christmas Eve'.

I believe this to be a simple error, and the change makes the text internally consistent. January 6 is, of course, the date of Epiphany, when Christians exchanged gifts. (6 December has no particular religious significance.)

Clyntong (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: It is sourced, which lends it credence. Moreover, 6 December is the feast of St Nicholas, when many Christians did (and do) give gifts. Even more credence. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Christmas and Yule and Jul

In Scandinavia, Christmas has a long history, but the word we use is Jul (pronounced exactly like Yule). Note that it is the same tradition, only with a different name. If you wanted to translate a Swedish article about Jul for instance, the correct translation would be Christmas, not Yule. What we celebrate is a mixture of pagan traditions, secular winter celebrations, christian traditions as well as more modern "commercial" ideas, much like in English speaking countries. Considering that, I think the opening in this article is waaay too simplified, because it's clear that Christmas doesn't have a single, simple origin, but is rather a mixture of many different winter traditions (old and new). Just because Christianity has given Christmas its English name doesn't mean that the complex phenomenon "Christmas" should be described as "a holiday [...] to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity." I think the opening of this article absolutely should be rewritten to reflect this complex nature of Christmas, with the manifold traditions that form the holiday. For instance I think Santa Claus, itself a character with origins as complex as Christmas, is intimately connected to most people's views of the holiday, yet it's a figure that in it's current form clearly has next to nothing to do with the birth of Jesus or any other aspect of Christianity. 83.250.53.18 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here at the talk page, you can sift through the archives to check out some of the earlier discussions. The current consensus regarding the introductory paragraph is that our definition for Christmas needs to be first and foremost about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Why? Sources. Wikipedia does not "make up its own mind" about subjects and ideas based on collective editor consensus, we follow what outside sources say about something, and give our own touch while staying in line with what the aforementioned sources note. Almost all notable and reliable sources define Christmas as a Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus. The other aspects of the holiday, as well as the fact that many non-Christian elements and people are involved with Christmas, are mentioned in great detail both the second paragraph of the introduction and the remainder of the article.

You'll also notice that we avoid labeling the holiday a "Christian holiday" in the opening paragraph, instead opting to refer to it as "nominally a Christian holiday" in the second paragraph. Consensus for this was reached last year, and is based on the fact that reliable sources citing the non-Christian celebrants and non-Christian elements about Christmas allow us to remove the strict label of it being a Christian holiday. The main definition for the holiday concerning Jesus, however, cannot be changed unless a myriad of reliable sources define it as being foremost something other than the celebration of Jesus' birth. If you can collect such sources and present them here, the community will gladly review them and discuss the issue. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Feast of the Nativity" from opening sentence.

Sorry for my American and non-religious bias, but I have never heard Christmas be called "Feast of the Nativity". I realize that the current wording says "originally" but there is no source. Doing a google search for "Feast of the Nativity" yields 920,000 hits, while Christmas gets over 420 million. It looks redundant and brings up the issue of not listing other old names for Christmas (Christ's Mass, Yule, etc.). This information sould be included (if there is a source) in the history section, not the opening sentence. Alek2407 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And many "feast of the Nativity" hits are for Mary & for John the Baptist. Even if it were sourced that this was the original name, it does not belong in the lede.--JimWae (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

christmas is a time of getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.55.201 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas December 24

Some countries celebrate Christmas December 24, e.g. Denmark. Is that not worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.22.68 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Language

It;s Christmas time not "Christmastime". N00bs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.203.46 (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statements with fake references

I have removed this section from the article:

The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian; and Mithras, a soldiers' god of Persian origin.(ref name="CathMithra")""Mithraism", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.(/ref)

The first problem is that the reference does not make this statement, as far as I could see. The next problem is that, as far as I know, no scholar holds this position. The *title* Sol Invictus was held by several deities, as the Sol Invictus article indicates. But the actual deity of that name does not appear until the 4th century. All this stuff seems irrelevant to the Christmas article in any event. I asked myself, what is the raw fact that we are contributing to a discussion of *Christmas* here? -- and I got the answer "none". Roger Pearse (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now checked the reference on the next statement also:

Emperor Elagabalus (218–222) introduced Sol-worship and the cult reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian.(ref)"Sol," Encyclopædia Britannica, Chicago (2006).(/ref)

The EB article in the Library edition of the Online EB does NOT say this. The EB article (which cannot be considered a reliable source because of its brevity and lack of references) says:

in Roman religion, name of two distinct sun gods at Rome. The original Sol, or Sol Indiges, had a shrine on the Quirinal... The worship of Sol assumed an entirely different character with the later importation of various sun cults from Syria. The Roman emperor Elagabalus (reigned AD 218–222) built a temple to him as Sol Invictus on the Palatine and attempted to make his worship the principal religion at Rome.

This is true; but the Wiki statement is not. Nor do I see what it has to do with Christmas. If true, it would belong to the Sol Invictus article. Roger Pearse (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christmas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

LEAD

I will leave comments in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am unsure why Christmastide is mentioned in the WP:LEAD and Advent is not. Advent also seems to be one that should be included in the see also section. Also, since Christmastide is more commonly known as Twelve Days of Christmas or the Yuletide, these terms would be welcome in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Parallel structure is needed in this phrase: include gift-giving, music, an exchange of greeting cards, church celebrations, a special meal, and the display of various decorations
  • Try either "include gift-giving, music, greeting card exchanges, church celebrations, special meals, and decorative displays" "include gift-giving, music, greeting card exchange, church celebration, special meal, and decorative display" or "include giving of gifts, celebration of music, exchange of greeting cards, celebration of faith, consumption of special meals, and display of various decorations" or something else in parallel structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Either each paragraph of the lead should be sourced with citations or all content in the lead should be uncited with references in the main body.

Etymology

• This section is a bit short to stand on its own.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Celebration

• I am a bit surprised that Midnight Mass is not mentioned in this section, but see that it has no distinct article. Any thoughts?
• I apologize, but I am now noticing extensive citation needed templates and numerous paragraphs that are devoid of citations. I am failing this article because it is in need of much further work in order to meet WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Typographical Error

Right before in-text citation 105 (after "organized boycotts of individual retailers") there is an extra period and a random quotation mark. These should be removed.

Done. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Edit War — Icon of Jesus vs. Nativity image

I am in favor of retaining the image of the icon of Jesus, (1) to provide variety as a depiction of the nativity is already present a few sections below, (2) because it is more relevant than an image of the nativity to a statement indicating that Jesus' birthdate is unknown in a section called "Date of celebration", (3) because Template:Christianity should probably be in this article, but it isn't, and I think the image of Jesus from that template suffices as an alternative. (If this image is rejected, I think we should put Template:Christianity into this article), and (4) because the holiday is regarding Jesus, and it is helpful to have an icon of him as an adult for variety rather than a redundant extra depiction of the nativity. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Both the section and the statement you want to insert is about Jesus' birth. That icon is irrelevant. I have no objection to inserting the Christianity template but it doesn't make sense to insert an irrelevant image because of a missing template. MCSKY (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My main argument for the retaining of the icon is for variety's sake and to add a different type of depiction of Jesus to the article. We already have a nativity image, so a second is redundant. As for your argument that the icon is not relevant, I don't see how it can't be. We are talking about the date for Jesus’ birth, and we already have an image of the nativity in the section about the celebration of his birth specifically, so how is a depiction of him later in life totally irrelevant to discussion about his birth date? Are you saying that in any other article with a large section about someone's birth, an image depicting them later in life is entirely irrelevant? Especially if there's already another image depicting their birth?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is about a holiday that commemorates Jesus' birth. Your argument that only one image of the nativity is to be included makes no sense. It's about providing the most relevant images, not providing as many different kinds of images as possible regardless of how relevant they are. MCSKY (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An image about a phone book would qualify as "not relevant" to Christmas. A depiction of Jesus, albeit later in life, would not. We disagree what qualifies as a relevant image, fine. Let's wait to see what others have to say about the issue. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Including a picture of Jesus later in life seems completely out of place in an article that is not about the life of Jesus. The article is about a holiday and images should be very closely related to the holiday. For example, it would make more sense to include a gallery of various national and historical depictions of Santa Clause/Father Christmas. Doc Tropics 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Include them both. I would not object to having five or six different depictions of the birth of Jesus. I don't think it's redundant to give multiple examples of how classical and modern artists have imagined the nativity. The icon is okay, too, and I agree that Template:Christianity should be in the article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Different depictions of Jesus' birth and the nativity are not a problem, they are closely related aspects of the holiday. It's the unrelated image of Jesus "later in life" that doesn't belong in an article about the holiday. Regarding the Christianity template however, it does seem appropriate as a footer and there haven't been any strong objections to including it; most objections were to the image. Doc Tropics 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 objections to the icon image so far, with one in support of it and one indifferent to its inclusion. The reason I first added the image to the article was because it made a good fit with my caption, which was: "Jesus was not likely born on December 25, or in the winter season". I added this caption because it is relevant to the "Date of celebration" section. I think it fits to have a later-life representation of Jesus in this context, as it is simply a statement about Jesus himself. Images of the nativity portray more than just Jesus himself, thus would not be appropriate to pictoralize such a caption. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel your statement needs to have a picture to go with it? An image of the nativity is related to the article, but the icon of Jesus is not. MCSKY (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that the caption of icon in the earlier version of the article ("Jesus was not likely born on December 25, or in the winter season") was inappropriate as it presented a slant to the article that was unnecessary. To an individual who did not read further, it appears as if the caption was trying to discredit the holy day. If a caption for the icon is to be included, it should say something universal and major about Christmas such as "Christmas is the celebration of God coming into the world, in the form of man, so that He would eventually atone for the sins of humanity." That being said, I think that any image relating to the Christ Child would be the most relevant. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please capitalize "h" and "m" to change text to "Holy Mass." Thank you.

Not done for now: I don't see why that should be capitalized since it's just showing the Latin translation. Please explain in more detail why you think that should be capitalized. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

reliable sources

Why is this tag here? 71.84.34.253 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please help by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. (December 2010)

Incorrect information

"such as Japan and Korea, where Christmas is popular despite there being only a small number of Christians, have adopted many of the secular aspects of Christmas such as gift-giving, decorations and Christmas trees."

I assume the sentence is referring to North Korea, since the give-giving, decorations and Christmas trees. However there is a massive population of Christians in South Korea, it is one of their main religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.251.251 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Thirty per cent of South Koreans are Christians, but the religion hardly exists at all in North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is incorrect either way "Korea" is represented (South only or Korea as a whole). If "Korea" indicates South Korea only, it's incorrect because Christianity is a major religion in South Korea. If it indicates both South and North Korea, it's also incorrect since North Korea does not celebrate Christmas at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.123.195 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"the temporary promotion of the Christmas period as Winterval by Birmingham City Council in 1998." Winterval was the name of a city council initiative to enable retailers to maximise the opportunites in the run up to Christmas and the sales of the New Year. It was never an attept to change the name or form of Christmas in anyway. It was incorrectly described so by reactionary right wing newspapers and journalists looking for an easy story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.210.235 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

24th vs 25th

As I understand it different countries celebrate Christmas on different days. Some the 24th some the 25th. There is no mention of this in the article.. can someone with knowledge on this modify the article with where this varies. As I understand it north Europe and eastern European countries is 24th, and the rest is 25th? -NeF (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little more searching it seems it was aligned to the 25th for Christian reasons? More info would be appreciated -NeF (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard of celebration on the 24th, except as celebration of Christmas Eve in preparation for Christmas Day. As has been said in the article, some nationalities celebrate Christmas on 7th January. Xandar 01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In Norway, and I believe in the rest of Scandinavia at least, we celebrate Christmas Eve. This is the night that we open gifts, eat with family and go to church. Though, the 25th is the official holiday, where most stores and such are closed. i can confirm that norwegians celebrate christmas eve. therefore i suggest that dates in all countries are listed with area listed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the same way in most Latin American countries. There may be more, but I do not know for a fact. It should definitely be mentioned that there are different ways Christmas is celebrated. One note, technically, in the countries I mentioned, gifts are opened on the 25th, as they wait until midnight on the 24th, which is the 25th. Anyway, you know where I'm going... It is on Christmas Eve... Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

However, why the 24th is the day we celebrate I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.244 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an elaborate article on Christmas Eve which mentions various traditions by region and denomination, including gift-giving practices in many European countries on December 6th, Saint Nicholas Day, and December 24th, Christmas Eve. Perhaps a number of paragraphs can be brought into the Christmas article to point out that many view Christmas Eve as the highlight of Christmas. Fwbeck (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"BELIEF"...not "fact"

The last paragraph of the "Date of Celebration" section says the following...

"However, today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on the 25th of December is not considered to be an important issue in mainstream Christian denominations;[21][22][23] rather, the fact that God came into the world, in the form of man, to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas.[21][22][23]"

It should say, "the BELIEF that God came into the world, in the form of man...."

Not FACT. Thank you. Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navid500 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You've made a good point about WP:NPOV. I've changed the word "fact" to "belief" per your suggestion. Thanks for noticing, Anupam^Talk 02:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The semantics are confusing here. The churches (i.e., believers) would say "the FACT that God came into the world" and the fact is the reason for the celebration. The article, of course, needs to be NPOV and shouldn't claim it to be "fact". The sentence should be rewritten for clarity on this point.--Albany45 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. How about this: "...rather, the the coming of God into the world in the form of a man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas." Christians aren't celebrating a belief; they believe, and so they celebrate. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That sentence looks very good. And I do agree with you last point. It may be important to note that in a way to keep it NPOV. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits to the Gifts sections

While the Biblical Magi are mentioned in the Gift giving section, they are not mentioned in the Legendary gift-bringing figures section. In many European and Latin American countries, the Magi bring presents as well. This happens on the morning of January 6th. While this is not in the official day of Christmas, it is worth noting that in these countries the 'main' Christmas gifts are brought by the Magi, and only small presents are given to children by Santa Claus. This is done somewhat in order to 'comply' with the American celebration of Christmas, but nothing more. It seems to me that this is worth adding to the article, as its purpose seems to be to encompass the world-wide view of Christmas. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Two different biblical nativity stories

If we are going to cite biblical nativity stories in this article, we should remember that Matthew and Luke do not tell the same story, although some important common elements exist. There is a tendency common in secular and Christian traditions to lump both stories together, essentially creating a third story that exists nowhere in the Bible or any other ancient source. When I read the nativity account in this article, I think the authors did a great job of managing this by focusing on common traditions rather than biblical sources. Still, the biblical sources are mentioned, so I felt it necessary to point the differing sources out rather than leave the reader with the impression that there is one biblical birth story.

If you read Matthew and Luke’s accounts of the birth story, you will see what I mean. Was Jesus living in Bethlehem at the time or just visiting? Was he born in a house or in a manger outside an inn? Did the Magi visit him or did shepherds visit? Was there a star? Was there a census? Did Herod order the slaying of all children under 2 years of age? Was there another baby (a famous cousin of Jesus) born from Immaculate Conception before Jesus? After the birth, did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt for fear of infanticide or simply return back to their Egyptian home? How did Mary conceive Jesus…was God Jesus’ father? If you read both Gospels, you will see that each give a different answer to these important questions. Clearly, each author had a different story to tell about Jesus’ birth. They both make a point that the birth happened in Bethlehem, that the birth was important enough that angels announced it in some way and that Jesus found his way to Egypt some time after his birth. I made a very small edit indicating that the nativity stories in the bible differ from each other. I resisted the urge to say that they VASTLY differ from each other. Since the nativity section in the article mostly focuses on actual traditions rather than biblical sources for these traditions, I think there is little else that should be changed here. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot make the analysis on your own that the accounts are differing. That is considered "original research." You need a source that explicitly states that the accounts are differing per WP:SYNTH. You may reinsert the word "differing" if you can find a scholarly source that says this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not original research. If you look at the Nativity of Jesus article it discusses both accounts.MightyAtom (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, I apologize for asuming you have actually read these two gospels. I can see how this might come across as original research to anyone unfamiliar with sacred Christian texts. I provided a source (one of the most notable textual critics and New testament experts in the world). Now you can see these are not my ideas. This should settle the matter, but if not, there are many more sources available. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me a credible source that indicates the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are the same story. You will find no such source. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Very few of the differences you mention involve actual contradiction between the two accounts, though. It's really not unreasonable to describe the nativity accounts in the gospels as different tellings of the same story, with each version including some parts of the story and omitting others. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to press your point of view here because you are only presenting one point of view. If you go to the Nativity of Jesus article, you will also see that some scholars state that the accounts do not contradict one another. To be neutral, we must present both views on the Nativity or none. For now, I am removing the word "differing" from the selection. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

...but my citation is credible and notable and should stand. Add your own statement of you want to show a different take on this. better yet, explain here why these are the same two stories. I'd like to see how anyone can reconcile these very different stories. I spelled out above why these stories are different, now you should do the same to show why they are the same. Reconcile the differences I pointed out above before you edit my contribution. I agree that certain, very important, parts of these stories are similar, but the remaining details are impossible to describe as the same story. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Jesus living in Bethlehem at the time or just visiting? What do you mean? Was he living at Bethlehem at the time of his birth? Possibly. Luke has Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem for a specific reason (to be taxed); Matthew doesn't say why they were in Bethlehem. No actual contradiction there as far as I can see. Was he born in a house or in a manger outside an inn? Luke has Jesus being laid in a manger (not "born in a manger"); Matthew gives no details about where Jesus was born or where he was laid immediately after his birth. All Matthew says is that by the time the Magi arrived in Bethlehem, the family was in some kind of a house. No contradiction there. Did the Magi visit him or did shepherds visit? Luke mentions the shepherds; Matthew mentions the magi. Neither of them says that Jesus received only one set of visitors, so this is not a contradiction either. Was there a star? Luke doesn't mention the star, but that doesn't mean much of anything. (Shepherds would have less reason to pay attention to the locations of the stars than magi would.) Was there a census? Luke says so; Matthew doesn't mention it. This is a difference of detail but not a contradiction. Did Herod order the slaying of all children under 2 years of age? Was there another baby (a famous cousin of Jesus) born from Immaculate Conception before Jesus? After the birth, did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt for fear of infanticide or simply return back to their Egyptian home? Again, these are differences of detail, not contradictions. (Incidentally, does Luke mention Egypt at all? I suppose you mean Nazareth, not Egypt--Matthew does suggest that Joseph first chose Nazareth as a dwelling place after coming back from Egypt, whereas Luke says that Joseph and Mary's home was in Nazareth to begin with. This is contradiictory.) How did Mary conceive Jesus…was God Jesus’ father? Both Matthew and Luke describe Jesus as having been conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit when Mary was still a virgin. I don't see how the descriptions are contradictory. Just because Luke describes the Annunciation and Matthew doesn't? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mising my point. You (206.208.105.129)said there were contradictions, not me. I simply said these are two different stories...and they are. The two authors chose to tell two different stories. Draw your own conclusions about their reasons for this. Maybe they were simply emphasizing different points or maybe these are plain contradictions. I make no judgement there. What I'm saying is these stories are not the same. Imagine two people describing the collapse of the Soviet Union. A U.S. citizen might tell the story one way while a Russian citizen might tell the story another way; emphasizing different points. It is possible for both to be factual yet completely different stories describing the same event. This is one possible explanation for the two differing stories about the birth of Christ. I happen to believe that it is very diffcult to reconcile these two biblical stories, but that't not the point I was making in my edit to the article. The two stories are different in very important ways. These are not the same two stories. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't just say that the stories differ; you said that you'd like to see how anyone can reconcile the differences between the two stories. In fact, it's no harder to reconcile most of the differences between the narratives than to reconcile the statement "Italy abuts France" with the statement "Italy abuts Austria" or the statement "air contains oxygen" with the statement "air is largely composed of nitrogen."

That said, I believe that the article should make it clear that the central facts of the nativity story are found in both gospel narratives: Jesus is conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; his mother is Mary, a virgin at the time of conception; her husband or affianced spouse is Joseph; Jesus is born in Bethlehem. I also think it's reasonable for the article to state that most of the specific details of the traditional nativity story (the Annunciation; the census/taxation; no room at the inn; the manger; the star; the magi; the shepherds; the Massacre of the Innocents) appear in Matthew or Luke but not both, and that in at least one detail (the question of whether Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth prior to Jesus's birth) the narratives actually contradict each other. Perhaps we can avoid taking an explicit position on the semantic/philosophical question of whether it all adds up to two different stories or two different versions of the same story. (We should, of course, also mention that some of the traditional details--like the number and names of the Magi--aren't in the gospel narratives at all.) 206.208.105.129 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Elielilamasabachthani is trying to push his Point of View by inserting the adjective "differing" before the word "accounts" in the article. There are several references that consider the accounts to be harmonious. Like you, 206.208.105.129, I think that we should be neutral and not take a position on the issue; as such, we should exclude the words "differing" or "harmonious." Nevertheless, as requested by User:Elielilamasabachthani, I have inserted references in the article to demonstrate that the account can be harmonized. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

...and Anupam is trying to push his/her POV by removing my citations and only showing one side of this issue. It is not neutral when you delete a credible perspective (which is held by tha majority of historians) and replace it with your own. My recent edit acknowledges both views. By the way, when did Herod die?Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Christmas Date.

While noting that some Orthodox churches follow the Julian Calendar date of January 7th... These churches mentioned form the majority of Orthodox believers worldwide.... Such as the Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Serbians and Old Calendar Greeks....This would be the majority. It is false to state that a majority of Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.125.181 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The point made above about most Orthodox churches around the world actually celebrating Christmas on the 7th of January is correct. However, in listing the Orthodox Churches, there is no mention of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is actually one of the largest and Original Orthodox Churches along with Egyptian and before the Georgian, Serbian, Russian etc churches. It is important to note this in the article mainly because Ethiopia is actually presented many times in the course of the bible as playing a significant role in Christianity (old testament: including in Jesus, Mary and Josephs passage) and reflects the originality of the Ethiopian churches observance of Jan 7th as the actual birth of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.208.224 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Low quality image in the infobox

The image File:Nativity tree.jpg used in the infobox looks 3rd rate at best, 4th rate in reality. It may look a little better enlarged, but looks "really shabby" as is. I am not going to advocate an alternative since I do not edit this page, but for Heaven's sake please get a better image. There are hundreds of images on Wikimedia commons. Whoever edits this page, please select a higher quality one, have a discussion, arrange a quick vote and replace it. It is Christmas, after all. Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've enlargened the image for the time being. The reason the current image is used in the infobox is because it mixes secular decorations and the nativity in one image. There has been constant debate as to whether secular or religious imagery should be used in the infobox, and this is a compromise. The previous compromise image was a collage, which in my opinion looked too artificial and ugly for the article. This image is more natural looking and isn't a composite. Let us know what you think of the enlargement. Otherwise, please suggest an alternative image, keeping in mind the compromise between secular and religious imagery. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fix

A simple fix for someone who can edit this article: commemorates the birth of Jesus, the birth of Jesus, the Douglasburgeson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

there is a "the the" on this page syk0saje (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I was just wondering; there are so many different symbols of Christmas, so instead of just having one picture, maybe someone could create a montage incorporating all of the symbols of Christmas. Examples would be the main image already there, a tree, Santa Clause, maybe a mistletoe. What does everyone think? Nations United (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. Have each picture appear in the part of the article it illustrates. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ruckabumpkus—montages are ugly IMO, and we are fine just placing any images of all the respective Christmas traditions in their respective sections within the article. The infobox used to have a montage pic, but it was removed because it was too contrived and ugly looking. The current picture is the best one we have available that mixes the secular and Christian imagery of the holiday in one single (natural) image. There has been constant debate as to whether secular or religious imagery should be in the infobox picture, and the only two possible compromises would be our current "natural mix" image (or a similar image), or a montage. I am personally against a montage picture. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It seems that people don't like this idea, and I can see why. Nations United (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

christmas day

This page probably isn't going to be fully protected today like many pages are in similar situations. This is because, unlike me, most people have better things to do and are taking a break from normal activity which sadly today means being on the internet hence the page is not likely to be vandalized. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha I was right, almost nothing is happening today. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology section is lacking in two respects. First, the suffix "-mas" means an arrival. While the word "mass" as used to mean the Catholic liturgies is derived similarly, Christmas does not mean Christ's Mass. Rather, it means Christ's arrival. Second, the etymology of the term Xmas does not inform the etymology of the term Christmas, and should be given its own section or page. (With regard to the etymology of the term Xmas, the Greek chi is substituted for the 'Christ-' part, because in Greek, the word Χριστός begins with chi. But since the Latin word for Christ is Christus, it's unlikely that the Roman X had any influence on the term Xmas.) Atozxrod (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section on chi, absent any objection. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Christmas, the non-christian holiday

WIKIPEDIA - land of the non-secular holiday wiki endtrances and realistic historic origians (see Eostre) - the FoxNewsification of News. "If it doesnt fit my definition, it's not the right defintion." - nickschuyler@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.206.124 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be such a big deal to acknowledge the simple fact that Christmas is celebrated by more than just Christians, and that it is a secular holiday all over the world. At the end of the day, the christmas tree, Santa, and many more traditions predate christianity! DasKaptain (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, there's a marvelous 600+ comment discussion on just this very point. Their conclusions aren't important-- it's not a representative sample or anything, but it has a lot of interesting points and links. It's nice because we only have a few people here, so it is kind of nice to see 600 discussions on the very same point.

The two big things that I noticed in the discussion is:

• Christmas in Hindu nations is fleshed out a great deal more from the point of view of people raised Hindu.
• It's pointed out that even in the US, courts have found a the secular definition of Christmas as an constitutionally-established federal holiday. (As it is in India and probably most countries around the world).

--Alecmconroy (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we are quoting possibly interesting but not necessarily Wiki-reliable sources now, here are some more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6193235.stm claims that less than half of English/British(?) children associates Christmas with the birth of Jesus.

http://www.netwerk.tv/uitzending/2009-12-17/de-grote-kerst-enqu%C3%AAte (in Dutch) has some detailed results under the link "enquête", if you can read it. It shows that, when given 3 choices to pick from a list of 10 things to associate with Christmas, only 26% picked "religion" and 13% picked "church visit" in any of their 3 choices (overlap not documented). All other choices (except maybe 1% "don't know") were non-religious ("Santa Claus", "good food", "social obligations", etc). Part of these people are not Christian (but e.g. Muslim) so that e.g. "religion" does not necessarily imply "Christian". Furthermore, only 14% picked one of these two religious associations as their primary choice (and this still included non-Christians). Not surprisingly, more than half (56%) said not to be religious.

However, when given (only) the choice of associating Christmas with either Jesus or Santa Claus the majority (57%) still chose Jesus, while 39% chose Santa Claus (and 4% doesn't know). Interestingly this fact ("Jesus preferred over Santa Claus" or similar) was the headline that drew my attention to the enquiry. AlexFekken (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should give an executive summary of this: A Dutch enquiry showed that only 14% of all interviewed primarily associates Christmas with something religious, while approximately 36% of the interviewed Christians did so. It seems that in the Netherlands even among Christians Christmas is not (primarily) a Christian holiday any more. AlexFekken (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the above editors and support a wording with less religious bias and POV. As of now the only 3 of us actually discussing the issue here are in complete agreement, which is also called "consensus". Doc Tropics 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I and other editors voiced our opinions in the above section. There is no discussion here at all regarding the wording of concern in the edit war. IMO it is in violation of both WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to say "most people" without a source. The sources in the opening sentences confirm that Christmas is a "Christian" holiday. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominally, there is no doubt it is a Xn holiday, because its common name comes from a title for Jesus. However, there is also no doubt that Xty does not encompass the many different ways Christmas has been & is celebrated. A flat statement that it is a Xn holiday is somewhat misleading, even if the name is Xn.--JimWae (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to make a compromise and use the wording "Although nominally a Christian holiday" instead of the "Although most consider this to be a Christian holiday" wording. That conveniently gets rid of the OR and WEASEL problems. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 05:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would consider "nominally" to be an acceptable modifier in that sentence; it actually seems to capture the essence quite well. Good suggestion! Doc Tropics 05:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "nominally" is a reasonable edit in my opinion. I will make it so. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just checked the history of the article and found something quite humorous and interesting... my original revamp edit to the article in November 2009 actually used the exact quote "Although nominally a Christian holiday", but somehow it was changed since then. I honestly didn't recall having used that wording until just now—I must have subconsciously suggested it above.— CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think nominally brings us close enough for me to let the case rest for now. But I maintain that: The sources in the opening sentences confirm that Christmas is NOT JUST a "Christian" holiday. I have shown this repeatedly and no tenable counter arguments were ever given. AlexFekken (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted "nominally" as the word clearly implies it is a Christian holiday in name only, which is clearly not true, as almost all Christians celebrate it as part of being a Christian. Even if other people celebrate it for reasons besides being a Christian doesn't mean it's not a Christian holiday. I know non-Mexicans who celebrate Cinco de Mayo for various reasons but that wouldn't make it a nominally Mexican holiday. Just label it as a Christian holiday, which it clearly is.Roy Brumback (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such "clear implication", but that is ONE[3] usage of the word. "Literally" or "etymologically" could substitute. To say that "Christmas IS a Christian holiday" would be to overlook the many Xmas traditions that are not Xn, and the many non-Xn celebrations that are part of this solstice holiday.--JimWae (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, you really need to reach some sort of consensus here before making an edit that was thoroughly discussed. I'm switching it back. If you can get more support through discussion, then a change may be warranted, but until then, you shouldn't make this change all by yourself.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is worded carefully to avoid reference that Christmas is a "Christian holiday", as general consensus has been reached that even though Christmas is notable foremost as the marking of Jesus' birth, it is not a wholly Christian holiday and thus is not to be defined as such here. In the second paragraph, which is in question, the term "nominally" has been chosen to avoid this wholly Christian label. The first sentence of the second paragraph is meant to contrast the fact that although Christmas is "Christian in name at least", many modern non-Christians still celebrate the holiday. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good summary, CIS. Just to add to it...I think the intro clearly acknowledges the "Christianity" of Christmas. Nobody is trying to downplay the fact that Christmas is deeply associated with Christianity (and Christ). What we are trying to do is show that this is not exclusively a Christian holiday. I think that any neutral reader would be able to see that the Christian components of the holiday are quite notable and well represented in the article, as are the non-Christian components. As a paralell, when talking about Jesus, one may be tempted to indicate that he can be exclusively defined as the Christ according to Christians. That may be true, but he is more than the Christ. He was a Muslim prophet, an apocalyptic rabbi, a historical figure, etc. To a Christian, it may be clear that Jesus' role as Christ is his most important characteristic, but that would not be a neutral point of view to everyone (specifically, non-christians). Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry guys, Christmas is by 'definition' the celebration of Jesus' birth. If you're only celebrating gift giving or big dinners on Dec 25th, but not celebrating Jesus' birth, you are not celebrating Christmas. And you don't have to actually be a Christian to celebrate Jesus' birth, so you can celebrate Christmas without being a Christian, but that doesn't then make the celebration "nominally" Christian, which is the only word I object too. I don't advocate putting "wholly" in there either, or any other qualifier. Just call it a Christian holiday, which it is, and then say other people celebrate it too, which is fine. No qualifiers needed. Nominally can clearly imply, as it does in most modern usages, that something is that in name only, which is clearly misleading in this case so not only is it an unnecessary qualifier but a poor one as well.Roy Brumback (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps by 'definition', but not by definition! I had to go to the fifth entry here to find a reference that did NOT include a non-christian definition: http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=Christmas. But of course you can continue to ignore the fact that most dictionaries appear to include both christian and secular definitions. Of course, the situation may be different if you only have access to christian 'dictionaries'. AlexFekken (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have suggested this before but it wasn't picked up. Most of the reliable sources that I have seen and mentioned give both christian and secular definitions of Christmas. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is regarding this but what is wrong with having different definitions of the same word? A lot of the discussion seems to originate simply from the attempt to combine multiple inconsistent and verifiable definitions into one. Even in mathematics the same word can mean different things to different people, so why not here? AlexFekken (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alex, where exactly are these sources? Can you list them so we can discuss and review their potential implications on the opening sentence/paragraph of the article?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Roy Brumback. Christmas is a Christian holiday although others celebrate it as well. Easter is also a Christian holiday as well, despite the fact that some non-Christians may choose to celebrate Easter by painting chicken eggs and organizing egg hunts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, Nobody here will deny that Christmas is a Christian holiday, the thing is, it is also not a Christian holiday all at the same time. In order to remain neutral and objectively factual, Christmas must be presented as a holiday with multiple notable definitions. As for Easter, there is another artice on that so I won't go into any more detail than to say that Easter is very deeply rooted in pagan customs and is even named after a pagan goddess. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

CIS, again? I just checked and the evidence itself hasn't gone away. This includes the dictionary entry referred to by the article itself (Merriam-Webster) and that I have mentioned several times before, as well as several other dictionary entries here http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=Christmas and that I referred to only a couple of paragraphs above. AlexFekken (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To remove the inconsistency that is currently in the article perhaps the first sentence should be changed from "Christmas ... on December 25 to commemorate the birth of Jesus, ..." to "Christmas ... on December 25. Most Christians celebrate it to commemorate the birth of Jesus, ...".

I almost left out "Most" to minimise the change but then realised this wouldn't be correct. I think "Most Christians and certain non-Christians" would also be defend-able, perhaps even better, but I think that the current suggestion that everybody who celebrates Christmas does so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is too obviously incorrect to leave it there. AlexFekken (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the origins of the 'traditional' christmas symbols

The holly and ivy were fertility symbols of pagan origin during Modranecht (Night of the Mother, followed by Day of the Child, or feast of lights). The same goes for Mistletoe. Holly and Ivy were also used in Greek Mythology, Holly being representative of the male and Ivy for the female. (see The dancer and Dionysus in Greek Mythology)

Also, the origin of exchanging gifts. As part of modranecht a fir tree would be uprooted from the nearest glen and decorated in red bows and statues as effigies of varying gods and goddesses of the pagan faith. Candles would be lit in the tree and a 5 pointed star placed on top. Gifts of fruit and other offerings would be made to the effigies in the tree.

As Modranecht was the night of the mother followed by the day of the child, it became pagan tradition to offer gifts to the children of the household as well as to the pagan gods and goddesses.

The origin of the word Christmas is a contradiction in itself. To put the 'holy name' of the Christian Messiah with the Pagan name for celebration (Mass) was originally deemed sacreligious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.229.160 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide source/citation for the above claims. Furthermore, the etymology of the English word "mass" refutes the argument in your last statement above (it's modern usage as reference to the Eucharist/Christian religious service developed from words used in the service itself and thus does not predate Christianity). See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass Not sure which "pagan" language to which you refer above, but the Latin for celebration was celebrare with festum/festa being the Latin for festival/feast, from which the German word also derives. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-fest Prtwhitley (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

Willrocks10, why are you insisting on changing the picture in the upper right hand corner? The only reason you've given is that you think it "looks better." I think the creche with Christmas trees in the background illustrates the topic. If you don't have a good reason for the change, please don't change it.

If there are no objections, I plan to change it back again. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Willrocks10, please stop making your substitution of the image in the infobox. That picture has been there quite a while, and your opinion that the one you keep substituting "looks better" is not sufficient reason for making such a change. (Besides, I think it's a tacky-looking tree). If you persist in making your substitution, I will assume you're committing vandalism. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the nativity scene/trees picture and not the Christmas tree that Willrocks10 (and his sockpuppet?) are trying to insert. Willrocks, please join discussion here and reach consensus for change before re-inserting the image. — CIS ^(talk |

EXCUSE ME! How ruse of you! PBL1998 is not my sockpuppet!

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

stalk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that the nativity scene is a better depiction of the holiday. It seems more holistic and I like the fact that Christian and pagan symbols are present in the picture. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine keep the nativity picture. Even though the tree looks better because they are more bold.

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.203.4.188, 17 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} THE MAGI IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW DID NOT VISIT AN INFANT IN A MANGER ,BUT HE WAS FOUND IN AN HOUSE AND COULD HAVE BEEN APPROX. 2 YEARS LATER.BECAUSE IT STATES THAT HEROD INSTRUCTED THE CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN 2 YEARS AND UNDER BECAUSE 2 YRS. HAD PASSED SINCE HE TALKED TO THE MAGI. MATTHEW IS THEREFORE MIS- REPRESENTED.

MATHEW-2:11 AND MATTHEW-2:16 75.203.4.188 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What you are asking to add is considered original research. If you find a reliable source that comes to the same conclusion as you have, feel free to post it here and remove the "tlf|" from the template to restore your request to the queue. Thank you, — Bility (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation was already given and I don't believe additional sources are needed for this. English translations of Matthew clearly state that the Magi visited a house (there was no mention of a manger in Matthew) and Herod ordered all children up to age two to be slain and this age was chosen "according to the time which he (Herod) had exactly learned of the Wise-men" (from Matthew 2:16, American Standard Version) This WP article describes that the two gospel stories have different details, so I think we made that clear already. Also, in the "Commemorating Jesus' Birth" section, the second paragraph states, "According to popular tradition..." and then describes the popular understanding of the birth story. This section does not say, "according to the bible". I am certain that the average person (in the U.S. anyway) has no clue that popular tradition is a blend of two biblical birth stories. Nevertheless, this is the popular tradition, even if the popular traditions don't clearly match the biblical descriptions. I agree with the comments made by 75.203.4.188, but I'm not sure exactly where and how 75.203.4.188 would like the article to be edited. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.177.51.205, 27 June 2011

Please add this External link to this article.

• Christmas celebrations

122.177.51.205 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The link appears to be to a commercial site, advertising wares for sale. As per policy WP:EL, these links are not permitted. --HighKing (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

but there is also one link Christmas Newswire in External link section that is also same website we are saying to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.4 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

God came to earth at christmas??

Dear editor, regarding the contribution of your christmas item, you say 'its a time when God came to earth'.. of course it was Gods Son that came to earth, to Atone for Mans fall from grace, God sacrificed his Son, he did not sacrifice Himself!! 'he sent his only begotten Son' Regards; M. O'Dwyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.60.22 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You are an editor too. Change it if you think it should be different. However, I'd like to point out that what you propose is very much a point of view.War (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's also a minority point of view considering that most Christians believe in the concept of the trinity ie Jesus as God. 81.216.166.32 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue?

From the introduction paragraph: "The supposed details of his birth are recorded in two of the Canonical gospels in the New Testament of the Bible." I added the emphasis to the word supposed, because it seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Different people have different beliefs. By calling them supposed details, the article seems to show an author's bias, as it implies that the details "recorded in two of the Canonical gospels...." aren't an accurate history of what actually occurred. I think intro could be changed so that it doesn't question one of the cornerstones of Christianity, while simultaneously avoiding calling into question the beliefs of non-Christians. Something like "Christians believe that the details of his birth are recorded in two of the...." would work better. Yes, I realize that there are multiple definitions for supposed, but the one that seems to apply to this context is definition 2A from www.m-w.com, which defines supposed as "held as an opinion : believed; also : mistakenly believed : imagined." --Lacarids (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How about, "Narratives of his birth are included in...."? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Narratives" works better. Especially as not all Christians believe in the details of the bible as fact. Some see them as allegorical stories. MightyAtom (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Flawlessly neutral. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the thinking behind this is flawed. The birth accounts in the two gospels are contradictory so why should we use language to suggest they might be true? At least one account isn't true. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds (?) of countries

The third paragraph says, in part, "It is also an officially-recognized holiday in hundreds of nations. . ." Since there are only about 200 nations in the world (the UN has 193 members; the US recognizes 195 nations) and some do not celebrate Christmas (e.g. Saudi Arabia), the phrase "hundreds of nations" should be replaced by something like, "nearly all nations of the world." (Henrodon (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

 Done—–Thanks for the suggestion, I've changed it from "in hundreds of nations" to "in a vast majority of the world's nations", with a link to List of holidays by country — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 01:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence NPOV dispute

I recently revamped the entire intro. and in doing so altered the very first two sentences in a way that I thought was quite important to change and fitting as part of the context of the newly written intro, but this was reverted by Jordanson72 back to the old introductory sentence who claimed that it was "much more neutral, concise, and objective". —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

• Here are the two opening sentences as I wish to retain them (key parts highlighted):

“ “Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25 by billions of people around the world. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century to commemorate the the birth of Jesus Christ, and remains one of the central feasts in the Christian liturgical year.” ”

• And here's what they are now (key parts highlighted):

“ “Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally observed on December 25 (with alternative days of January 6, 7 and 19) to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century, and remains one of the central feasts in the Christian liturgical year.” ”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The changes I made are minimal, they merely remove the assumption that Christmas is explicitly to commemorate the birth of Jesus as it stands the 21st century, even for the billions of people around the world who do not celebrate it for such reasons. The new second paragraph I've written clearly explains the objective fact that,

“ “The holiday was initially instituted to commemorate solely the nativity of Jesus, and many celebrants continue to incorporate this element at the forefront of their celebrations. However, many customs associated with Christmas developed independently of the commemoration of Jesus’ birth, and are today considered secular.” ”

Holidays like Halloween and Valentine's Day, which both originate as Christian religious holy days, have evolved over the centuries to represent many different things, and the intro. paragraphs to those articles reflect that. I think Christmas should also reflect this evolution by using the new introductory sentences that are less explicit in saying outright that Christmas is still a holiday only to commemorate the birth of Jesus (which, again, the article's second paragraph highlighted in blue above explains). It was clearly created as such by the Roman Church, which is explained in my altered second sentence, but even many Christians today (JWs, fundamentalists) disagree that it is a valid Christian holy day, and as is explained in the new intro, it has been banned numerous times within Christendom as "unbiblical, pagan". I think my newly-written first sentence is the best, objective phrasing to use as it explains that the holiday is celebrated by billions around the world (with a link to "Christmas worldwide"), and implies that many of these celebrants focus mostly if not completely on the secular aspects. I understand that this is a very controversial and touchy subject, but I'd like if a discussion could be fleshed out here about it.

Again, key difference between my opening sentence and the original: the original makes an explicit POV assumption of a certain one thing that Christmas Day is observed for without any appropriate context, and the new one does not make any such assumption, it simply relays the fact that it is celebrated by billions around the world. The entire first paragraph' is still dedicated to the celebration of the birth of Jesus, the explicit POV phrasing is merely altered. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, and to follow on from my edit summary (which in retrospect looks a little curt; sorry about that), the issue here for me is not factual accuracy, but how the opening sentence works with the rest of the intro. My edits (under this name and as an IP) mostly focus on pre-Christian religion, and you seem to be much more qualified than me on this subject, so this isn't really my domain, but your revised intro, well-written as it is, reads as if it was written by a user with an active interest in focusing on the non-religious, "modern", Western, and secular aspects of the holiday while downplaying its traditional/Christian nature. It IS true that many non-Christians "celebrate" Christmas, just as it IS true that JWs (a minute fraction of the Christian world) and some other Christian groups choose not to celebrate it.

Nevertheless, it is celebrated, for expressly religious purposes, by the Churches that represent the vast majority of the Christian world and is an originally-Christian holiday (something that your edits, for the most part, indicate only in passing). Under your revision, the Christian aspect of Christmas becomes something of a carry-over, or a remnant of a forgotten world. That's precisely why I re-incorporated the opening sentence that preceded your revision - not because yours is inaccurate, but because it lends undue weight to the non-religious nature of the holiday and reflects a strongly modern, strong Western, strongly secular viewpoint. It needs balance. We can't hope to work out how many people celebrating Christmas each year ARE or ARE NOT doing so for explicitly religious reasons, but I'd rather an article on one of the most important religious celebrations in the world doesn't go out of its way to imply that most of them aren't.

Or, you know, whatever. I wasn't expecting this much fuss. Change it back if you want. :shrugs: Jordanson72 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Even before Jesus was born, people throughout the Northern Hemisphere celebrated a winter holiday near the time of the winter solstice. There are winter festivals in many cultures. It is not observed ONLY "to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity", it is observed for other reasons as well.--JimWae (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Never made any claim that winter solstice holidays didn't exist before Christianity (as I say, my main interest is in such matters!), nor did I claim that non-Christians don't celebrate Christmas. Regardless, Christmas is a Christian holiday, celebrated by the Churches that represent the vast majority of Christendom, for explicitly Christian reasons. The Christian holiday of Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus, if such an event actually took place. The modern, secular aspect should not be given undue weight, and Fox's revision does just that, and reads as if it were written by a person wanting to do just that. Like I say, if you feel that his/her revision (FULL intro included, not merely the opening sentence) is neutral and objective, then feel free to change it back and remove the neutrality tag - I won't revert, promise ;-). I'm just trying to introduce balance to an intro that has almost none of it and looks, to somebody who hasn't even bothered to edit this article before, like something written with an express agenda. Jordanson72 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for your reply Jordanson, and sorry if I seemed a bit confrontational or overreactive with my response on here, I just wanted to explain in detail my reasoning behind altering the first sentences in particular, and why I felt it was less POV. My ultimate goal here is not necessarily to simply revert it back, but to reach a compromise that you and I and others that may join the conversation can agree upon. Wikipedia is, of course, a collaborative effort and I don't expect nor do I wish my rewritten intro to remain without any future additions and changes by others. Basically, the issue of Christmas is very interesting and difficult, because it seems to be right on the cusp of being a Christian holy day and a universal nondenominational festival.

I think the best way to figure out where to go with the Christmas intro is to examine other holidays like Halloween, Easter and Valentine's Day, all of which are originally-Christian holy days (arguably placed on existing pagan dates purposefully) that have now taken on a wider appeal as universal Western and secular holidays. To me, it seems that in terms of a Christian–secular scale, Christmas lies in the middle between Easter, which is on the religious end, and Halloween/Valentine's Day, which are on the secular end. The introductory sentence for Valentine's Day acknowledges explicitly the secular "purpose" or element of the holiday, not that it commemorates St. Valentine, and Halloween's opening sentence is more comparable to the one I created for Christmas that is now in dispute here. Easter's is explicitly Christian, with no mention of the secular elements until the last paragraph of the introduction. Since Christmas is much more secularized and celebrated around the world than Easter, particularly in non-Christian countries as a minimally religious festival, I feel that the most NPOV way to go about the introductory sentence is to express simply the date it is celebrated as well as that it is a universal holiday celebrated by billions around the world. This omits any POV of whether Christmas is a holiday solely to commemorate Jesus, which is what the original intro sentence implied, or if it's to commemorate goodwill/peace on Earth/etc. FYI I would never support putting the latter in the opening sentence either, because it is just as POV as saying it's explicitly to commemorate the birth of Jesus (though admittedly more OR).

While I strongly suggest keeping the very first sentence as I had edited it to be, I will agree that the second sentence does perhaps express an air of POV toward the more secularized modern Christmas, and may seem to acknowledge the holiday's origins and status as a Christian holiday in passing only. In its defense, I feel that although it refrains from being explicit about Christmas still being about what the Roman Church intended it to be about, it is still a completely factual account of the origin of the holiday. Easter, for example, was a Christian festival from the outset and commemorates the centrally important tenet of Christianity, Jesus' resurrection. Christmas on the other hand, was probably created as a reaction to the existing birthday of the pagan sun-god Mithra, which was also on December 25. While millions of Christians do celebrate as a religious holy day, I feel that it has, as Valentine's Day (which arguably replaced Lupercalia) and Halloween (which arguably replaced Samhain) have, taken on enough of a secular meaning to warrant it being POV to explicitly refer to it as the commemoration of Jesus in a present-day context in the very first sentences. Notice also that the first sentence in the second paragraph of the intro expresses clearly that Christmas was intended as a holiday to commemorate explicitly the birth of Jesus, but from a neutral point of view instead of an explicit one telling the reader that it is a holiday commemorating solely his birth. Nevertheless, perhaps we could retool the second sentence or other elements of the introduction as a compromise, do you have any suggestions? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that looking at the articles on other religious holidays might be useful to an extent, but Halloween I'm not so sure about, as the distinction is clearly made between "Halloween" the night preceding All Saints, and All Saints itself, the religious celebration. Unfortunately, Christmas is a different matter entirely. I'm not even sure of Halloween is considered widely celebrated as an explictly religious day by the large Christian churches and how much they promote it. Either way, Christmas is Christmas, and isn't the same as Halloween.

Focusing squarely on Christmas, I'll say that Christmas does indeed commemorate the birth of Jesus. It is today celebrated by masses of non-Christians (I'm not sure how many), but Christmas is a Christian holiday that later acquired importance in non-Christian and post-Christian societies. Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus, but those "celebrating" it may or may not, depending on the person, religious group, society etc. in question. Indeed, the only reason non-Christians celebrating it is of any relevance is precisely BECAUSE it is a Christian holiday, that IS the reason we say "Christmas is celebrated by an increasing number of non-Christians". Christmas itself commemorates the birth of Jesus. You, I, Tom/Dick/Harry down the street might'nt, but Christmas does. I think it's worth noting also that the "Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus" wording had been in place for least two years. I'm not sure how much resistance it encountered, but nonetheless it stood until recently, seemed to have acquired consensus (which of course can change), and didn't - to the casual reader - appear to have been written for the purpose of over-emphasing the holiday's religious nature. This is really the very reason I re-instated that sentence in the first place, because, for the most part, without it, Christmas just looks like an old Roman state Church celebration that hung about among Christians but is today just a quaint little holiday, when in reality it is of tremendous religious importance. As I say, the issue for me is to a great extent undue weight.

Now that my ranting is out of the way, how to move forward... I think we've probably reached an impasse. Given that the rest of new intro presents a reasonable overview of Christmas to the every-day reader, what are your main objections to the previous/long-standing introductory sentence? I ask because I [in all honesty] don't think that the claim that Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus presumes that every person who celebrates it does so also. For a related example, consider Eid. Eid is itself an Islamic holiday that commemorates an explicitly religious event. Many westerners of Muslim parentage/grand-parentage nonetheless "celebrate" Eid without believing Abraham spoke to God. Likewise Hanukkah is a religious celebration commemorating an event in Jewish history. Is every secular ethnic Jew "celebrating" it necessarily commemorating this event? Of course not. Nonetheless, Christmas, Eid, and Hanukkah are indeed religious commemorations. I, if I so choosed, could celebrate all three and not necessarily believe in the birth of Jesus, the faith of Abraham, or the rededication of the Jewish temple. Jordanson72 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have come up with an alteration that may very well keep both sides happy, I think that's the ultimate goal here; to work together and combine our opinions into a compromise. The reason I do not wish to keep the "Christmas is a holiday observed to commemorate the birth of Jesus" in the first sentence is because, in my opinion, that phrasing gives undue weight to the notion that the entire essence of the holiday as of the 21st century can be summed up in that sentence. I do not think it can be. Also, it's factually inaccurate, as it is saying that Christmas is "observed to commemorate the birth of Jesus", when while it may have been instituted to do so, it is not observed by all celebrants with that purpose in mind. I feel that the "is celebrated by billions of people around the world" works best to introduce the article. However, I do realize and understand your concern about the tone of the remainder of the introduction, and I agree that it is a fact that Christmas is indeed a very important Christian holy day to this date. Therefore, I have prepared this compromise at User:FoxCE/Christmas, where I've changed the second sentence to take on less of a passive context. Please let me know your thoughts — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, where is the compromise here? There is almost no difference between your proposed version and your initial revision. I really don't think I'm asking for the world here, all things considered... I'd propose something along the lines of:

“ Christmas or Christmas Day is a Christian holiday that commemorates the birth of Jesus. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century, and is today celebrated by billions of people around the world, including many non-Christians. The exact birthday of Jesus is not known, and the date for Christmas is thought to have been selected to coincide with either the date of the Roman winter solstice, one of various ancient winter festivals, or the day exactly nine months after Jesus’ traditional conception date. ”

I think that's pretty reasonable and balanced (considering the rest of the introduction, to which I've made no alterations whatsoever), no? To be fair, please remember that my initial edit focused squarely on the opening sentence -- I'm not undoing hours of your work or trying to change the overall tone of the rest of the intro, merely the opening section. Like I say, I think the rest of the intro is very well-written and accurate. But without that crucial opening sentence, it looks very, very non-neutral and dismissive of anything not considered relevent to a modern, Western, secular reader. Jordanson72 (talk).10:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jordanson72's proposed first sentence (above) is not a comprehensive description. That first sentence needs to be able to stand on its own as a statement that is true for all who celebrate it. It is not just a Christian holiday; it is a legal holiday in many countries -- for Xns & non-Xns alike. It also involves much more than a commemoration of Jesus' birth. For non-Xns it is NOT at all a celebration of Jesus' birth.--JimWae (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence needn't "stand on its own as a statement that is true for all who celebrate it", actually -- it should provide a concise and accurate definition of what Christmas is -- a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus, something that the article's original opening sentence conveyed for at least two years. Those celebrating it may NOT be commemorating the birth of Jesus, just as those celebrating Eid may not be commemorating the faithfulness of Abraham and those celebrating Hanukkah may not be commemorating the rededication of the Jewish temple. Regardless, Christmas, Eid, and Hanukkah are what they are. The rest of the intro focuses (for the most part) on the secular/modern/non-religious aspects of Christmas -- I'm not asking for the entire section to revolve around Christian history. Jordanson72 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To define it as a Xn holiday is incorrect as a definition. It is not just a Christian holiday; it is a legal holiday in many countries -- for Xns & non-Xns alike.--JimWae (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate the fact that the opening sentence is the only element you wish to dispute, however I must be honest in saying that I feel strongly about retaining my revised opening sentence as an integral element to the context of the newly revised introduction. The old introductory paragraphs were basically just several disconnected, unthreaded thoughts about the holiday as a whole, and while I concede that the "Christmas is a holiday observed to commemorate the birth of Jesus" sentence did go unchallenged for years, that cannot be a basis of an argument for keeping it. I concur with JimWae's comments; Christmas cannot be neutrally and/or adequately summarized as a Christian holiday commemorating Jesus' birth in one short introductory sentence considering all the factors we have discussed at length. And it simply cannot be fairly compared to exo-Christian religious holidays such as Hanukkah or Eid, which are strictly holy days in those religions that are not celebrated in any official or casual capacity outside of the respective religions from whence they originated.

It can, however, in my opinion (and I realize that you seem to have dismissed this comparison) be compared to another Christian holiday like Valentine's Day, which emerged from the Roman Church as a replacement for a pre-Christian pagan holiday that occurred at the same time (Lupercalia, February 13–15), and today retains syncretized elements from that/those pagan festival(s) that have been secularized. As a result, the opening sentence at Valentine's Day (which following in your line of argument should be "Valentine's Day is a Christian holiday commemorating St. Valentine"), reflects instead the secular cultural importance of this originally-Christian feast day. I am not, however, asking that we comparably summarize the secular "meaning" of Christmas in the introductory sentence, but merely that we refrain from explicitly asserting what the holiday is meant "to commemorate" or that it is foremost a Christian holiday. I realize that Christmas remains as a central feast in Christianity and is a sacred, holy day to billions of Christians, but these facts are all covered in the second sentence, which will still be devoted entirely to the fact of Christmas' Christian holy day status, but just not in the context you are supporting. Hanukkah is a Jewish holiday, Eid is a Muslim holiday, but Christmas is a Christian, cultural, secular, Western, some would say "pagan", and multi-national legal holiday. I think you know that it should not simply be treated on equal grounds to any other religious holiday, including other Christian ones like Palm Sunday that do not have such a status. If this was just a religious holy day and not such a controversial topic, we wouldn't be discussing at such length, and we'd just label it a Christian holiday all-round and be done with it — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 13:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, if you have problems with what you interpret as the "modern, Western, secular" overall theme of the introductory paragraphs, please by all means suggest any changes we could make to the remainder of the introduction to better reflect more Christian-traditional viewpoints and information. But I stand firm behind my defense of the new introductory sentence itself, which I feel is a more neutral, universally-acceptable summation of the integral facts of the holiday (name, date, amount of celebrants, worldwidely-celebrated status) without getting into what any one POV might consider Christmas to "be all about". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 14:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The sweeping changes made to the entire lede (all of which is disputed) by one editor, removed the previous one which had been carefully worded by many editors and agreed upon (see archive talk). Any new changes should be agreed upon as opposed to one highly disputed POV. LondonER19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

I undid the hidden edit on the Christmas Eve page by FoxCE where the user removed the commemoration of the birth of Jesus. There is a clear agenda by this user and their secular "holiday" emphasis. Christmas first and foremost is a Christian holiday. Take any issues/additions to Christmas controversy page/section. IdahoJazz (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Distinguish meanings

Christmas means different things to Christians and non-Christians. For Christians, in every country, it means a celebration of the birth of Jesus. For non-Christians in countries where it is a public holiday, it has a meaning quite independent of Christian belief. (I suppose that for non-Christians in countries where Christianity is ignored (some Islamic countries, China ...) it has no meaning at all.) The two meanings can and should be indicated, and should be indicated right at the start. That is the reasoning behind my attempt at an NPOV revision of the lead. Esoglou (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like the best direction for proceeding forward for now.--JimWae (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is still POV to indicate what Christmas means to Christians or non-Christians. The article should simply relay the facts of the holiday, not tell the reader what Christians and non-Christians celebrate about it — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Censoring out the understanding of arguably the majority of those who celebrate Christmas would certainly not make an NPOV article. I refer to thoser who consider it a distortion to see Christmas as no more than a turkey-and-pudding-and-spending-and-giving-etc. holiday. Nor would it be NPOV to censor out the image of Christmas that others have (perhaps also arguably the majority). Each side may consider the other's understanding of what is essential to Christmas to be misguided, but the different understandings do exist. Esoglou (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the edits you have made to the intro and agree with much of them, but I have tweaked the context of wording from "Christmas is for Christians a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus", to "Christmas is a holiday celebrated by billions of people. It is a Christian feast day celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ". This is a more direct, neutral way of relaying the information instead of saying what the holiday is "for Christians" or "for non-Christians". The first sentence is one I argued for in many paragraphs in the previous section, and JimWae agreed as well that it is best to have the first sentence be a universal statement without any indication of what the holiday is "all about" — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 22:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou is right. Christmas is not a single thing, and to try to craft a lede that treats it as if it is will not work. In the 21st Century, the Christian holy day and the secular holiday are clearly distinguishable as two different things. They share the same name and date and are historically entwined but have evolved along different tracks. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, and since there's only one article to summarize both versions, it's best to just indicate that it's a holiday celebrated by billions of people around the world in the first sentence. Then go on to explain the objective facts about it being both a Christian feast day and a civil holiday, without getting into a POV of what the holiday might "mean" for Christians or non-Christians. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 07:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very selective reasoning, though. Considering the reliable sources and their definitions, there's no real reason to suggest that it's "best to just indicate that it's a holiday celebrated by billions of people around the world" in the opening sentence. The "objective facts" are that reliable sources (OED, M-W, EB) provide definitions of Christmas that first determine it to be a commemoration of the birth of Jesus. Regardless, I don't intend to make any changes going against current consensus (see below) and see the article's intro as it stands right now as an acceptable compromise. Oh, and my apologies for being busy and unable to take part in this discussion for most of yesterday. Jordanson72 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see this comment until I replied to your comment in the below section, but I think given this line of discussion about acknowledging both "versions" (secular and Christian) of the holiday, as well as earlier discussion between yourself, I and JimWae which resulted in he and I agreeing about a universal introductory sentence of sorts, that the universal intro sentence currently in place should hopefully be satisfying to all parties concerned about the Christian or secular versions of the holiday. It does not specify anything in regard to the nature of the celebration of the holiday, only the name, date, worldwide status and number of people celebrating. Therefore, you could argue that it is not in any way defying the reliable sources' definition of Christmas, it is just prefacing that definition with relevant, notable facts that, through a link to Christmas worldwide, relay to the audience the status of the holiday as being universally embraced beyond the realm of Christianity. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See below. Jordanson72 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

POV in Lede

The introduction of this article does not reflect what reliable sources say about the holiday. An textbook titled Religions of the World states:

Christmas, which marks the birth of Jesus, is celebrated in Western Christianity on December 25 and in January by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's opening sentence states:

Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.

I have corrected the introduction to reflect this. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have "corrected this article to reflect" was already right there in the second sentence, you just want it in the first sentence. Intensely heated discussion has been ongoing for days about the introductory sentence, and it has been agreed among at least two editors that the introductory sentence be universal to all celebrants of the holiday. Also, you are removing factual information and valid sources from the article because they displease you. Please refrain from doing so, and await any user consensus that may occur in your favor to remove this information and retool the intro sentence to say "Christian holiday". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 08:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction, my introductory statement is reflective of academic consensus pertaining to discussion of the holiday, as I delineated above. Using newspaper articles written by New Atheist authors to define Christmas is disingenuous. --Anupam^Talk 08:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is meant to be universally-applicable to all celebrants of the holiday, which it is, as it only describes the name of the holiday, its date, and its widespread celebration. It is not in any way a cheapening of the Christian definition of the holiday, only an explanation of how widespread and universal the holiday has become. Shouldn't that be seen a good thing for Christians? The very next sentence goes into detail about the Christian feast day. Also, the Richard Dawkins source was not being used as support for any definition of Christmas, but as support the incidence of non-Christians celebrating Christmas — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 08:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that non-Christians celebrate the feast as well. However, the wording I used to describe this was "non-Christians" not "by those of other religions or no religion." I would kindly ask you to please change your version. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 08:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Anupam please stop making non-neutral changes to the article. The version by FoxCE is fine as it is. Glider87 (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:FoxCE, thank you for your kind change. I will try to help find more sources in the future. Also, I apologize for my stern tone earlier. I realize that you are willing to compromise and collaborate with others. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 08:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments; Christmas is no doubt a central feast in the Christian calendar and I don't think anyone here would wish to dispute its status as a Christian holiday, nor diminish acknowledgement of this fact in the article introduction. However, lengthy discussion within the past several days has taken place in regard to a universal introductory sentence that does not label the holiday in one way or another, but simply states the bare universal facts of the festival (name, date, worldwide-celebrated status, billions of celebrants). — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 08:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While I think the current intro is as good we're going to get it for the time being, Anupam is right to consult reliable sources. The OED for example defines Christmas in its opening sentence as "The festival of the nativity of Christ, kept on the 25th of December.". That's the OED, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster all providing roughly the same opening definition. The introductory sentence should provide a concise definition, and that Christmas is defined as a Christian holiday is one supported by multiple reliable sources. That being said, as long as other users find the current intro acceptable, I won't bother making any changes (I've only made the one as it is!). Jordanson72 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly true that most external reliable encyclopedia sources do define Christmas from the outset as a Christian feast, which is arguably still what we're doing save a universal statement at the beginning. I'm not sure how often those encyclopedias are updated, but Wikipedia is a fluid encyclopedia that is constantly changing to be relevant with the times, etc. You won't find any other encyclopedia noting how far Christmas has been embraced beyond Christianity, but that is a very notable and relevant fact in the 21st century. I think that while we do need to follow closely with reliable sources, we also need to make it our own and include whatever makes Christmas most notable in the intro. I think it is very notable that it is celebrated by billions of people around the world, in virtually all countries of the world. I did a quick check and I think it's celebrated officially more than the Gregorian New Year's Day. Given the increasingly contentious controversy over the secular vs. Christian "version" of the holiday, which we discussed above agreeing that both "versions" should be acknowledged, I think the current intro sentence works best by avoiding any such categorization from the outset. The next few sentences then go onto explain the Christian feast day, and how it is also celebrated by non-Christians in countries where it is a civil holiday. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Could any interested parties please direct your attention to a relevant discussion here? One user there was attempting to remove mention of Jesus altogether. Thanks! With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither the OED nor M-W are encyclopedias, they are dictionaries, they provide definitions. Definitions that should be consulted on especially contentious issues like this in order to present a reliable opening section. (To make myself clear -- I do NOT believe that a dictionary definition should be used as an opening sentence in every article. Merely on hotly-disputed issues like the one we've been going through for the past few days, purely for reliability's sake.) Definitions that at present are being delayed in terms of their placement in the article.. but that's part of compromise. Whether or not Christmas is more officially celebrated than the Gregorian New Year does not change the definition of Christmas according to reliable sources, and no amount of original research by way of "quick checks" will alter that fact. Nor would it be altered even if you could find reliable sources demonstrating that Christmas is more widely celebrated officially than the GNY.

Regarding the fact that the previous definition had stood for two years (at least), it is quite relevant. It shouldn't be our sole reference point, but it is relevant, as it indicates consensus. But you're right, that shouldn't be the basis for an argument on keeping it -- and it wasn't. It did however demonstrate something very important -- consensus. Which, to be fair, can change. So moving on...

On the issue of "defying" reliable sources, it is not the job of a user-generated encyclopedia to not defy reliable sources. Its job is to use those reliable sources to provide concise introductory definitions. Likewise, we do not "need to make it our own". Verifiability is what's important, not what you/I "think" is "notable". You seem to forget that I have not made or suggested any edits to the rest of the introduction. My main concern was the opening sentence. I have pushed for or favored neither a Christian, nor a secular-driven introduction -- merely the opening definition of Christmas as it is defined by numerous reliable sources. The relegation of that definition as provided by those reliable sources to secondary position is, to me, a huge error. But as I have made clear the issue for me is now put to rest for the time being -- a suitable compromise has been reached that for now most of us find acceptable even if not preferable. Good luck in improving the article further now that this is out of the way. It looks like Christmas Eve can now take center stage. Oh joy ;-). Jordanson72 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Christmas a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus?

This entire article needs to be rewritten by a historian or scholar, not a christian. A Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus is ONLY ONE opinion of what Christmas is. The truth is that Christmas started as a Pagan ritual of lawlessness, that doesn't sound very Christian to me. This entire article, if it's to exist, needs to be fair and balanced and represent everything about Christmas, like it's origins and meaning to different people of different religions. Starting this article with that introduction sets the tone for nothing but lies and one sided opinions. It's also curious that the references are all from the Bible and Christian publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyerhaus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you'll check the above sections, you'll see there has been an ongoing heated discussion for days about this issue. It has become very contentious, and we are all continuing to work together to arrive at the best possible compromise. The fact is, Christmas didn't "start as a pagan ritual of lawlessness", that's original research. When the Roman Church first placed the holiday on December 25, it was very likely done to replace the existing pagan holiday(s) of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (which was on December 25 itself) and Saturnalia, which ran Dec. 17–23. However, that does not make Christmas itself a pagan holiday of any kind, just a Christian holiday that absorbed pre-Christian pagan practices because pagans who were Christianized continued to celebrate their pagan rituals under the guise of Christmas. All reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia uses to keep articles neutral and unbiased, define Christmas as a Christian holiday commemorating Jesus’ birth. If you can find any reliable sources that state otherwise, please present them. I attempted to rewrite the entire intro myself a few days ago (see that revision here), but it was considered too biased against the Christian side of the holiday, and I accept that and am willing to compromise. I have plans to incorporate some of those edits into the "History" section instead — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The theory that Christmas was replacement for some Roman holiday is just speculation. The Romans had 160 holidays a year, so any date the church picked would correspond to some Roman holiday. Christmas is nine months after Annunciation (March 25). The Christian tradition that Annunciation was on the spring equinoix pre-dates Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. If you wanted to co-opt a holiday, Saturnalia would be the logical choice since that was by far the most important Roman holiday. But Saturnalia was on December 17, over a week before Christmas. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it was intended as such, clearly Christmas has absorbed many pagan customs from winter solstice celebrations that have now been secularized in modern times. It is likely that the Church knew that the winter solstice (Dec. 25 in Ancient Rome) was the best date to place the holiday on. Christmas was a raucous festival with many similarities to Saturnalia into the Middle Ages, it is not until the 19th century that we start to see it become the familiar family festival we have today — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 03:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede is now messy

After the recent slew of revisions, the lede as it stands now looks like it was written as a compromise statement of a divided committee, which it in fact is. I especially dislike the first sentence ("Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25[2][3][4] by billions of people around the world."), because it says essentially nothing of importance that isn't already common knowledge. The trouble we seem to be having is that we're using the word Christmas to refer to two distinct things but related things (the Christian holy day and the secular holiday), and we're trying to define it as if it's a single thing. I don't have a good suggestion for how to do it (some of you folks apparently have a lot more spare time to work on this than I do), but it needs work. It's worse now than it was before all the revisions. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the name, date, and widely-celebrated status around the world not "important" or "already common knowledge" any more than anything else that could be said? Isn't it very common knowledge that Christmas is a Christian holiday? And that it's celebrated by non-Christians too? And even that it's a holiday celebrating peace, goodwill, and commerce? I'd venture to say it's not common knowledge at all that Christmas is a public holiday and widely celebrated in India, Japan, etc. The current opening sentence is one of the few statements that could be said in the first sentence that would be agreed upon by everyone, given recent discussion regarding a universal opening statement and acknowledgment of the holiday as both a Christian holy day and secular holiday. The previous intro statement said "Christmas is a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus", and while this is indeed a fact and supported by reputable sources, it does not represent Christmas in a universal sense, which is what an opening sentence should do. The current one prefaces with relevant, universal information about Christmas, then goes on to explain its status as a Christian feast and public holiday. Telling us "this article needs work" accomplishes nothing; what do you suggest the intro sentence be changed to, and why? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 05:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it another way. The current openening sentence is a vague, nonspecific comment (how many "billions"?) that says nothing of importance about what Christmas is, or more precisely, what the two Christmases are. I agree with the folks who say that omitting mention of the Christian observance from what will be read as a definition reflects an anti-religious POV. Even non-Christians who celebrate Christmas have some vague idea of its Christian roots, even if they have only a vague idea about what it means. Maybe something along these lines could work: "Christmas is a holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated by most Christians around the world, and also a secular holiday, celebrated apart from its religious meaning by billions of Christians and non-Christians alike." Ruckabumpkus (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this point. As its written Christianity has been airbrushed out of Christmas. The 2 billion Christians can get stuffed eh?Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well to be honest, IMHO that intro sounds much more like a "compromise statement from a divided committee" than the current one does. It reads much more awkwardly, and is also a run-on sentence. Also, what you've proposed introduced original research, with the claim that Christmas is "also a secular holiday" and is celebrated "apart from its religions meaning" by billions of Christians and non-Christians. What is written now keeps the very first sentence universally applicable by stating immutable facts only, then the next sentence goes on to explain the Christian holy feast in detail, then we mention that it is a civil holiday in much of the world's countries and it is celebrated by non-Christians. All sourced. No OR about if non-Christians celebrate it without any religious meaning or how non-Christians might celebrate it, just that they do. As for "how many billions?", I do not believe that figure has never been obtained, but given the worldwide Christian population is 2.1 billion, and atheists/agnostics/irreligious are at least 1 billion, it is safe to assume billions. I'd be fine changing it to millions or retooling the intro sentence in some other way, but I stand firm behind retaining a universal opening sentence. Unless we can find a good intro that covers the Jesus/Christian/non-Christian elements without introducing OR or seeming too forced or contrived — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have just tidied up the intro a bit in an attempt to make it easier to follow, merging some paragraphs and clarifying some other information. Slowly but surely, we can morph the intro into something we can all hopefully agree with to a certain extent. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 08:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no way you're going to craft an opening sentence about Christmas that omits mention of the birth of Jesus without it seeming to lots of Christians like anti-religious POV. It sounds too much like Soviet revisionist propaganda. I'm not willing to fight about it, though. Better that the opening sentence say nothing of importance than that it try to define Christmas primarily as something other than a Christian observance, which has been tried in the past. As you say, the rest of the lede is clear enough about its Christian origins. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there are plenty of other popular holidays that have concise opening sentences that do not mention anything regarding the nature of the holiday or celebration. Halloween's for example, merely mentions the date, that it is observed around the world, and that it occurs on the eve of All Saints' Day. Easter's indicates that it is the central feast of the Christian liturgical year, but nothing about what it celebrates. St. Patrick's Day's article indicates that it is a religious holiday celebrated on March 17. These are all quite similar to the current intro sentence here — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the new picture in Infobox

I see that Esoglou has changed the Infobox picture from the image of a nativity scene with surrounding Christmas trees to one depicting merely the nativity. I don't have any problem with this personally, but browsing through the talk archives, I am seeing that there seems to have been a consensus in place that the image reflect both a religious and secular element of Christmas (see here, here and here for most recent discussion). Prior to the nativity/tree image there was a collage depicting several different elements, but it was deemed to be too "ugly" or "contrived" by users. I would agree, I am not in favor of a collage image. What are others' thoughts on what the Infobox image should depict? Are there any alternative images in the Wikimedia collection that depict both a religious and secular aspect? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Put the other one back. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My change was for purely artistic reasons. I'm new to this article. I didn't know that there were ideological reasons for preferring the other. And I have no desire to start a discussion about them. Esoglou (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't insinuating that you should have known, I was just bringing the topic here rather than just reverting your edit — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25 by billions of people around the world". If i wrote that in a school essay i'd get a D- if lucky. No dictionary or encyclopedia would give such a vague definition where any reference to Christian observance, by over 2 billion adherents, has been airbrushed out. First searches; #1.A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus #2.the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus #3.a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ, #4.Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus. The rest of the lede is fine, but the opening sentence, as it currently stands, is not. Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has gone on over the past several days here in regard to the opening sentence specifically. The current one is a universal statement that presents merely the universal facts of the holiday, instead of labeling it as a Christian, secular or cultural holiday from the outset. Previous consensus for years was also against the labeling of it as a "Christian" holiday in the intro sentence. The very next sentence explains the Christian feast in detail, and then its civil holiday status is mentioned. The sources you list do indicate the Christian feast in the opening sentence, but many sources including the ones you've listed acknowledge both the religious and secular significance; [4], [5] (key phrase: "b. Also called Christmas Day Dec. 25, observed as a day of secular celebrations when gifts and greetings are exchanged"), [6] (key phrase: "now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts."). We must follow the sources, yes, and the very second sentence is explicitly referring to the Christian feast day in detail, while the first sentence strives to be universal, not vague. I don't understand why there is such an outrage over the opening sentence when holidays like Halloween, Easter and St. Patrick's Day also do not go into detail about labeling what any key "meaning" of the holiday is in the opening sentence. Christmas has evolved greatly in the past few decades and centuries, and as external sources begin to acknowledge the secular side of Christmas as a legal holiday, and so should we.

With all this said, I am not against changing the introductory sentence given that we can come up with a better compromise that keeps the universal theme in mind. The fact that this holiday is celebrated independent of Christianity to such a large, worldwide degree is arguably just as notable as its Christian status — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Would FoxCE accept something on the lines of "Christmas is an annual holiday that arose as a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ"? That gives the by no means negligible information of how it came into existence, while leaving open the question of how its present form is viewed. Even that is much less than the definitions that Wikipedia gives of Mawlid, Day of Ashura, Eid ul-Fitr, Vesak, Magha Puja, Bon Festival, Holi ... I am sure FoxCE does not imagine that all who celebrate these holidays do so for religious reasons. Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you understand the difference between Christmas and those religious holidays you've listed; none of those are federal/legal holidays in countries where the religion claiming the holiday is a negligible minority. Nevertheless, I recognize that it is apparent that my position about the current opening sentence is a minority here, and thus I will concede that it should probably be changed. I'm not sure about using "arose", as I'm sure that will seem more of an affront to Christians than the current "vague" intro sentence, as it insinuates that its status as a commemoration of Jesus Christ's birth is an artifact of history. I'd be fine with this:

“ "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world". ”

Key word being "commemorating", as I feel that is more neutrally appropriate term than celebrating, since not all celebrants are "celebrating" the birth of Jesus, but the holiday was clearly intended to at the very least commemorate his birth. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be a little hard to reconcile with atheists who celebrate Christmas (and they do while some think that Jesus never existed). Better would be just to say "Christmas is a holiday around the winter solstice celebrated widely throughout the world in a variety of different ways". Qed (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FoxCe i would agree with your wording. Whether Christian or non-Christian, the day itself is best known for commemorating the birth of Jesus (whether you do or not) which is recognised by almost everyone. The non-Christian aspect is important also of course, hence "is celebrated by an increasing amount of non-Christians" in the opening para is apt, with none other than Richard Dawkins one of the sources.Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Commemorating" seems fine to me. I think "celebrate" is also good, as in the Wikipedia description of Rama Navami as "celebrating the birth of Lord Rama".

Qed's vague (and inaccurate, since the Julian 6 January or Gregorian 19 January of some Armenians is about a month from the solstice) "a holiday around the winter solstice" does not seem at all acceptable. The holiday needs to be specified better than that: it is, as Fox CE says, a holiday commemorating/celebrating the birth of Jesus. It is not claimed to be the actual anniversary. The description "a holiday around the winter solstice" would fit Hanukkah and probably others also. Since there are Jews throughout the world, Hanukkah too is "celebrated widely throughout the world". Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok, if you don't like my wording or the vagueness of it, but atheists do *not* celebrate Jesus' birth, yet they do celebrate Christmas as just a gift giving exercise. The gift giving exercise clearly is motivated by its *pagan* roots, and corresponds to the consumption of food stores without the need to work the land, which clearly predated Christianity. Many people celebrate the holiday without ever attending a midnight mass -- so there is an obvious dichotomy of meaning for the holiday, where only one version has anything to do with Jesus.Qed (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Esoglou. I also support FOX's suggested introduction -- I think it's now abundantly clear that reliable sources consider the religious aspect central to the definition of 'Christmas'. The nay-sayers are largely just being stubborn at this point. Unless someone can find a significant amount of reliable sources that trump the definitions provided by Britannica, the OED, M-W etc., this should be implemented. Jordanson72 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I applaud the effort to find a NPOV first sentence, but I don't know if it's really possible. Anything that omits the birth of Jesus will be construed by some Christians as atheist revisionism attempting to downplay the holiday's religious significance. Anything that includes it will be construed by some non-Christians as a denial of the evident fact that lots of people around the world observe a completely secular holiday that they call Christmas. My assertion in a previous thread that "Christmas" actually refers to two distinct but related things (the Christian holy day and the secular holiday) is not "original research," because I didn't come up with it, but I don't know where one would find an authoritative source for it. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An alternative might be something like the compromise that was arrived at with Easter, where the article is primarily about the Christian festival, with links to articles that cover the secular customs, together with a disambiguation page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Jordanson72 User:Esoglou in editing the sentence. This is because reliable sources reflect the suggested change, rather than the current sentence:

A textbook titled Religions of the World states:

Christmas, which marks the birth of Jesus, is celebrated in Western Christianity on December 25 and in January by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's opening sentence states:

Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.

I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be sufficient support for Fox's proposal, with only two against it and for opposite reasons, I am making bold to insert it in the article, where it can be considered in context. Esoglou (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to like this new version - but it is too easy to read the new 1st paragraph as saying Christians and non-Christians are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. I realize that is not the only way to read it, but it is an obvious way to read it - despite OUR knowing it to be mostly false. More work is needed to clearly say what has already been agreed upon here. --JimWae (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As of now I don't see anywhere else to go that doesn't introduce OR, undue weight or weasel wording. The current compromise indicates Christmas as a commemoration (key being that it doesn't say "celebration"), of the birth of Jesus, and then adds that the holiday (not the commemoration of Jesus' birth) is celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world. I fail to see how this is suggesting that all celebrants are celebrating Jesus, or even commemorating his birth. The opening line only indicates that Christmas is a holiday commemorating (i.e. honoring, memorializing) the birth of Jesus—which all primary sources agree on, so we must state explicitly—but this does not insinuate that all celebrants or even any celebrants do so actively as part of their holiday celebrations, only that this commemoration is the central, primary, widely agreed-upon fact of the holiday by all sources. However, if you do have any other suggestions on wording please present them. We have to carefully consider and weigh WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL in our consideration of the intro. sentence — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing anywhere in the first paragraph to indicate that there is anything other than the birth of Jesus the Christ that non-Xns would be celebrating. Anything other than that is not even (indirectly) suggested until the last paragraph (of the lede).--JimWae (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only objective statement we can make in regard to non-Christians given available sources is that they celebrate Christmas, not how they celebrate it or what they celebrate. Different sources make differing claims as to what non-Christians may celebrate or why. If you can argue for or present how reliable sources (existing or new) form consensus regarding just what it is non-Christians celebrate and that it is independent of the commemoration Jesus' birth, we can incorporate it. Otherwise, all we can do is indicate that non-Christians do celebrate it. That is bound to potentially make it seem that non-Christians are at least acknowledging the commemoration of Jesus' birth in their "celebrations". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The separating of celebrants into "Christians" and "non-Christians" is really a red herring. Nobody can know how such people "celebrate" Christmas or what it means to all of them. Are those "celebrating" Christmas on December 25 different from those who we could describe as "acknowledging" it, those who simply sit around the house on their annual December 25 day off without any celebration whatsoever? The idea that the article's opening sentence should be a contrived statement attempting to encompass everyone who gets to relax on Dec. 25 is in my opinion short-sighted. We all realize that this is a very contentious and touchy subject, and, given that, the most neutral and objective route is to simply go with the definition provided by reliable sources and work from there. That an encyclopedia article on something like Christmas should open with a concise definition from reliable sources is a given. If a decent number of reliable dictionaries and encyclopedias that trump the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Encyclopedia Britannica can be found and they define Christmas as "an annual holiday celebrated around the world by billions of people" or something along those lines, then we can look into it. For now, we're actively trying to avoid opening with a reliable definition. We establish in the very first paragraph that non-Christians celebrate it and are doing so at an increasing rate, and that Christmas forms part of a "Christmas and holiday season". Its opening is not geared toward Christians and merely reflects numerous sources. If the rest of the lead section doesn't to a good enough extent take into account the secular/non-Christian aspects of the modern Christmas/Christmas period, then we should be working on that specifically -- not trying to subjectively drown out a set of very clear, very reliable sources by delaying the introduction of the definition that they present. Jordanson72 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth adding the opinion of the current Pope and taking it into account when defining Christmas:

"Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season, and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light,"

The need to "discover ... the child" clearly implies that (according to the Pope at least) Christmas currently isn't about "the child" in the first place. AlexFekken (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

In the 3rd sentence, "much of the world's nations" should be changed to "many of the world's nations." (proper grammar)

146.57.87.182 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

There needs to be a space between "Christmas" and "time" in the word "Christmastime" in the first sentence of the Stamps section. Although it is a viable word, it is distracting to users I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarpopo (talk • contribs)

I have changed both mentions of "Christmastime" to "Christmastide". Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

New anon IP concern

I just want to thank the Wikipedia community for putting together such a bad article and then protecting it. I'm a university professor and I'm always looking for good examples of why Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source and why students should never cite Wikipedia in a university paper. This particular page is so bad that I have a new example for teaching. Thank you! And happy holiday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.228.7 (talk • contribs)

If you have concerns about the article, please address the specific concern and we can address it here. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no you won't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.83.207 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yule

The most common meaning of "Yule" in modern times is simply Christmas. Here is Merriam-Webster: "YULE : the feast of the nativity of Jesus Christ : Christmas." In the Scandinavian languages, Jul/Yule is the usual word for Christmas. Before 1038, December 25 was called "Midwinter" in England. It became "Christmas" when the Yule celebration was assigned to that date. Kauffner (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of "Yule" in the list of "related" celebrations. As a Christian who keeps Christmas, I am of the opinion Yule should indeed appear on that list. Two reasons: (1) they happen at the same time, and (2) they are often confused. Listing Yule is a helpful way to highlight the difference. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kauffner: "Yule" has a broader meaning than that in the English language; it holds residual elements of the pre-Christian event(s), i.e. Yule boar, Yule log, Yule-tide, etc., and may be applied as a secular term for the season.

@Rockabumpkus: Indeed, a user keeps removing "Yule" from the related field, claiming no relation. Of course, the syncretism is well recorded and obvious enough, so presumably this is just ideological editing on the part of the user. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner: Yule is -- originally -- a Germanic winter festival. Christmas to a large extent superseded it. The addition of Yule in the 'Related to' section of the infobox implies that the winter festival of Yule and the religious commemoration that is Christmas are related celebrations, which they are not. That the Christian Church replaced (or attempted to replace) Yule with Christmas, and that pre-Christian terminology and practice has continued into later periods is obvious, but to suggest that Yule is related to Christmas, and to list it alongside various Christian liturgical events and celebrations in the Christmas infobox gives a false impression. The Christian feast that commemorates the birth of Jesus and a pre-Christian midwinter festival celebrated in parts of Europe are not related.

Bloodofox, if I have an ideology, show evidence of it, or at least tell me what that ideology is! All I've done so far is present rational arguments. Jordanson72 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you're wanting to keep the two separate, whereas it's impossible to do so in the Anglosphere. This article is a magnet for ideological nonsense, and when an edit isn't rational, that's the usual explanation. Now, neither Yule nor Christmas existed in a vacuum from one another during and after the Christianization process; they're closely intertwined now. How you can call that anything other than related I have no idea. Yule is even used synonymously with Christmas in the modern period. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to keep the two "separate", whatever that means. Hell, I've already stated that elements of Yule are present in Christmas celebrations and that the Christian Church attempted to replace the one with the other. As I said: (1) the commemoration of the birth of Jesus and the pre-Christian winter festival Yule are not related and (2) to list Yule alongside numerous other Christian feasts in a 'Related to' section of an infobox gives a false impression. Now, since consensus goes against my edits, I've self-reverted. Nevertheless, my edits/arguments are not irrational. You might think them wrong, but they are not irrational. I don't think your edits are "not rational", just.. wrong. Again, I would like to see evidence of an ideology at work. A differing opinion is not ideology, as you probably know. For somebody that claims to "rigidly support" WP:CIV on his or her own userpage, the assumption that my edits stem from an ideology on the basis of some "usual explanation" is very uncharitable.

Moving on, now that this is sorted out, the article could use some improvements. I hope to get started on a couple over the next few days. Jordanson72 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting another user who presents elements of syncretism and still claiming no relation is, indeed, irrational. In the future I hope you will use the talk page rather than immediately engage in edit wars. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not irrational. That the commemoration of the birth of Jesus and the pre-Christian midwinter festival of Yule are not related is as obvious to you as it is anyone else. Regardless, the false conclusion that Christmas and Yule are 'related', while incorrect, is not irrational. Regarding edit wars, I too hope that you will simply skip to the talk page in future. I also hope that you will more fully adhere to your "rigid support" for WP:CIV. I realize that you've been editing for a number of years, so that doesn't seem too likely. Nevertheless, it is never too late for you to improve. But this has been sorted out and Yule stays, regardless. If you ever find real evidence of ideological editing on my part, please alert me on my talk page. I remind you -- of course -- that blanket assumptions based on "usual explanations" for edits that you do not deem to be rational do not suffice. Happy Holidays/Merry Jul! ;-) Jordanson72 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jordanson72, you are correct if you take "related" to mean having a common origin. In that sense, Christmas and Yule are not related. However, they are definitely connected, in such a way that linking one to the other in Wikipedia is helpful information, and in that sense they are indeed related. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't dare to change or write in this topic yet. But can anyone confirm that the word Yule is an old synonym in the English language to the word of Christmas? (Even if it's very seldom used nowdays.) That would be a nice piece of information under the topic Etymology. Secondly, does the word Yuletie exist in the English language? Eger to know! And if anyone familiar to this issue would make a change or statement in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desnobo (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Waffle Day?

Should be removed from 'See Also'.--ImizuCIR (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Christian perspective?

There are some significant differences in the way Christmas/Nativity is observed in Eastern Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity. That area really ought to be expanded, and an icon added to show some of the difference. You can see a nativity icon at this page http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nativity_icon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Leviticus Quote referencing "Jewish Tradition"

There was a paragraph in the Decorations section attempting to quote Jewish tradition -- "Now on the first day you shall take for yourselves the foliage of beautiful trees, palm branches and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. " (Leviticus 23:40). Unfortunately, this entire chapter of Leviticus refers to Sukkot, an entirely different Jewish holiday which takes place at a completely different time of the year (a few days after Yom Kippur). Quoting this in reference to anything to do with Christmas is not only incorrect, but offensive. I have already removed the offending paragraph; just explaining my actions here. --Veled (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

The Gospel of Matthew also describes a visit by several Magi, or astrologers, who bring gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the infant Jesus.

Please change "the infant Jesus" to "the young child Jesus" because Matthew does NOT say Jesus was an infant at this time. Matthew says "child" or "young child".

SOURCE: read Mathew 2:8 in King James or any other reliable translation.

Nx9999 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Also, Herod's command that all boys "two years and younger" be killed suggests that the visit of the magi was a year or two after the birth. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Epiphany and the Magi

I think you may be underplaying the role of the Magi and overplaying the role of "Santa Claus" in the article. For example, in Spain, the "three kings" or Magi still bring gifts on the 6th of January, and, although there is some incorporation of "Papa Noel" (Santa Claus by another name) due to commercialization for economic reasons as mentioned in the article (I think that part is well written), the majority of the Spanish still celebrate in the traditional manner, and children do not receive gifts until the 6th of January. You might want to check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.149.77 (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Birth date of Jesus

it was my understanding that the real birth date for Jesus was likely to have been September. Can anyone confirm that? Perhaps we should reference in the article? 25 December was rather an attempt to align beliefs in the "conquering sun" with the developing religion of Christianity. The other problem with the article as it's stands is that it doesn't make clear that Christmas was not generally a feast celebrated by the earliest Christians but rather the first Christmas mass was not seen until the 3rd century. This is because early Christians would not have regarded it as a particularly important event. More important was Easter which sat at the heart of the developing Christian community ie the death and resurrection of Christ. The growth in popularity of the nativity then only really took off in the late middle ages with a growing interest in childhood and the childhood of Jesus in particular. Hence the introduction of nativity scenes. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In the article's second paragraph, mention is made of the 7–2 BC scholarly range for his birth, and that the exact day is unknown. I've heard September, but also other times of the year. They are all estimates based on the only source we have, the Gospels, which seem to at the very least indicate that it did not take place during the winter because of the shepherds out tending to their flocks at night. That seemingly rules out December 25, but it does not adequately pinpoint any other timeframe — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:37, 23 December 2011 (

Luke wrote Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry. That works out to a birthdate of 2BC. Herod died in 4BC. So if Jesus was born when Herod was king, it would have to be sometime before that. Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If the shepherds were "watching their flocks by night," doens't that mean it was lambing season? When would that have been? I thought it was in the spring. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

Please chance the last line of paragraph 2 to a more professional style. It currently says, "or of some ancient pagan winter festival."

It should be:

"or of an ancient pagan winter festival."

The code would thus read:

or of an ancient pagan winter festival.

Instead of:

or of some ancient pagan winter festival.

184.96.242.66 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 08:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2011

This article uses Jesus' as possessive, but it should be Jesus's:

  Commemorating Jesus' birth

should be:

   Commemorating Jesus's birth

because Jesus is not plural. I see a few other cases of this in the text. Bmomjian (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• See MOS:POSS--JimWae (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See MOS:POSS. Also Jesus does not own his own birth. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, Puffin, the possessive case in English does not necessarily imply ownership (e,g., "my mother"). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Koreans and Christians

"Countries such as Japan and Korea, where Christmas is popular despite there being only a small number of Christians, have adopted many of the secular aspects of Christmas, such as gift-giving, decorations and Christmas trees." Religion_in_South_Korea Over 29.2% of Koreans now are Christians by last count, so they are not in the minority, plus the meaning of Christmas is different in Japan than in the US, which this page doesn't make clear. Please rewrite that lead. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Supplantation of Pagan Festivals

Hello User:FoxCE, thanks for all of the effort you've put into the article. I reversed your change because it was unsupported by the references. According to Selling God: American religion in the marketplace of culture (Oxford University Press):

When the Catholic Church in the fourth century singled out December 25 as the birth date of Christ, it tried to stamp out the saturnalia common to the solstice season.

Similarly, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia states:

Christian missionaries frequently sought to stamp out pagan practices by building churches on the sites of pagan shrines or by associated Christian holidays with pagan rituals (eg. linking -Christmas with the celebration of the winter solstice).

The Church established Christmas near the dates of these pagan festivals in order to compete with them, and eventually eliminate them, or "stamp them out." As such, this wording should be reflected in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many theories of this kind and we can hardly put them all in the article. Specialists have written books on this issue, so we don't need to rely on a passing mention that appears in a book with an obvious ax to grind, and whose main subject is only tangentially related. Saturnalia was on Dec. 17 and was originally only one day. The winter solstice was a separate, much less important, holiday called Bruma that was held on Dec. 25. The solstice is a natural event, a day of obvious symbolic importance. If two groups of people schedule festivals on this date, it does not follow that they linking to each other, or that one is doing it to compete with, or supplant, the other. China has a solstice festival too. I don't think that was created to supplant Saturnalia. In ancient times, Easter was the main event Christian holiday. Christmas didn't get going until Medieval times, when it merged with Yule. Kauffner (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Date

The second paragraph of the intro section covers a topic that is also discussed in a later section, "Date of celebration." There is info at each location not contained in the other. Should they be merged? Should that paragraph in the intro be pared down to a 1-sentence summary, with complete discussion later? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Kauffner's edits satisfy you, or do you want more done with this? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with Kauffner's edits regarding the discussion of the date. I'm just wondering if all the discussion of the reasons for the choice of December 25 should be in one place. Right now they're not. Would anyone object if I do that? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not I. I would make sure all the material is in the date of celebration section, with just a one sentence or so summary in the lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2012

in the section "Using the Julian calendar", in the third sentence:

However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.

Bulgaria should be added to the list, like:

However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.

Because in Orthodox Bulgaria Christmas is also celebrated on 25th December. this source can be used: http://goeasteurope.about.com/od/bulgariatravel/a/bulgariachristmastraditions.htm

95.87.196.100 (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Western Europe celebrating Christmas, generally on december 24th.

Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark (There are more) celebrate Chrismas on december 24th, or Christmas Eve and get their presents then rather than on Christmas Morning. I would like if you could add that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.85.113 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a short mention of it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Really? I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.247.227 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Commemorating Jesus' birth". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)